In defense of OneDerWear

June 28th, 2008 | By Kelsey | 3 Comments »

I never thought I would live to see the day someone came to the defense of disposable underwear. Today is that day. (And here I expected there to be peace on Earth.)

Morgan in response to my post on OneDerWear
:

You must take shower at night otherwise how do you get enough time to dry your washed underwear. I may start with a 10-pack disposable briefs, but I’m not occupying the same amount of space as the trip goes on. That regained space may be good for taking home a souvenir or two.
Nobody is tossing the underwear in the woods. The disposable is made of 100% cotton. Cotton is a biodegradable and renewable material. How is that not environmentally friendly? It is at least no worse than the detergent you flushed down the drain that pollute the water.

Morgan, Morgan, Morgan. Do ya work for OneDerWear?

In your comment you don’t say anything about how comfortable OneDerWear is. If you are in the underwear business, you should know that comfort is key. No one gives a hoot about the environment compared to comfort. Even so, your argument for the environmental-friendliness of OneDerWear seems a bit of a stretch.

The production and shipping of a single pair of disposable underwear probably does not use any less energy or resources than the production and shipping of a single pair of non-disposable underwear. Yet non-disposable underwear may be worn for years and the energy/resources consumed per wear are far less.

You talk as if it would be impossible to have a clean, dry pair of underwear waiting for you post-shower. That’s why I travel with three pair – one pair being washed, one drying, and one clean.

What I’m saying, Morgan, is that your arguments are weak and your underwear are uncomfortable. And if I ever see someone wearing OneDerWear, there is a good chance that – in the name of Mother Earth and not being lazy – that someone is going to get an atomic wedgie.

Undemocratic disasters or Let’s invade Myanmar

May 14th, 2008 | By Kelsey | 2 Comments »

Myanmar, 100,000 killed by cyclone

China, 10,000 killed by earthquake

Myanmar, China, cyclones, earthquakes – all undemocratic.

I’m not saying that disasters struck Myanmar and China because of their lack of democracy. That would make me no different than off-the-wall preachers claiming Hurricane Katrina was the price New Orleans paid for its “celebrations of sin”, or 9/11 a result of fowl coming home to roost. But I would like to say, these uncontrollable disasters are an opportunity for nations, not to capitalize on, but to reach out to the people of Myanmar and China.

The scale of the disaster in China, although massive, is much smaller than that of Myanmar and the Chinese government is probably more capable of responding to a disaster than the U.S., so I think heaping them with moral support and funding will be enough, but Myanmar is whole other story.

The Myanmar government will not allow the full wave of international aid into its country. This could result in 100’s of thousands of preventable deaths as disease and starvation set in. This is the kind of country that should be invaded, not by dropping bombs, but by dropping food and supplies. Why not have an air raid on Myanmar? What, are we afraid of their air force? Do they have an air force?

Excerpts from a CNN piece on the disaster in Myanmar:

Adm. Timothy Keating, head of the U.S. Pacific Command, was on the first of three U.S. aid flights allowed into Myanmar this week.
He described meeting with a Myanmar three-star general who opened up a map of the country and pointed to the areas worst-hit by the cyclone.
“[He] characterized activity there as returning back to normal — his words,” Keating said. “[He said] people are coming back to their villages, they’re planting their crops for the summer season, the monsoon will come and wash all the saltwater out of the ponds.
“His manner, his demeanor, his attitude indicated something less than very serious concern.”
A former Yangon resident now living in Thailand told AP that angry government officials told him that high-energy biscuits rushed into Myanmar on the World Food Program’s first flights were sent to a military warehouse.
Speaking on condition of anonymity over fears for his safety, he told AP that the biscuits were exchanged for what officials said were “tasteless and low-quality” biscuits produced by the Industry Ministry.

Why would a government stand and watch as its people die needlessly?

(Insert lengthy critique of U.S. government during Hurricane Katrina here, which pretty much erases the footing of the rest of the argument)

My theory: They are afraid of exposing their people to democracy and compassion, which breeds more democracy and compassion, which erodes at the fear and power that these jackasses hold over their countrymen.

I guess what I’m saying is…Let’s invade Myanmar!

Who’s with me?

Time magazine is.

Warning: this blog isn’t for reading…it’s not a flotation device either

March 25th, 2008 | By Kelsey | 3 Comments »

This weekend my brother got married (I’ll post about that later with a photo or two) in Salt Lake City. Annie and I flew out on Thursday and back on Sunday. The trip to and from Salt Lake marks several travel firsts for me:

1) I had never been to SLC before. Ooh, pretty mountains.
2) I had never pulled wheeled luggage through an airport before.
3) I had never used one of those neck pillows on a flight before.

Two and three are signs of becoming a rapidly aging traveler. Soon I’ll probably be zipping through the airport on a beeping golf cart making remarks about young whippersnappers with long hair and overweight people.

On closer examination of the neck pillow, I discovered the following phrase: “Not for sleeping.”

I guarantee the company that made the pillow markets them with people on planes sleeping comfortably. Yet their lawyers and some medical professional tells them that they could cover their asses from any sleeping/neck pillow injuries if they stuck a stupid “not for sleeping” tag. I’m half tempted to fake an injury and sue them to see if the warning will hold up in court.

This is almost as stupid as an inner tube not to be used as an flotation device.

Drowning guy (panicking): Help!!! I’m drowning!

Sunbather: Sorry, all I have is this here inner tube which can’t be used as a flotation device.

Drowning guy: blurb…blurb…sputter…(dies)

Pray to Jesus, Obama ain’t one of ‘em Muslims

January 28th, 2008 | By Kelsey | 5 Comments »

Barak Obama isn’t Muslim.

You can ask him. He’ll tell you.

Neither am I. But I’ve spent a lot of time around Muslims whose moral fabric, ethics, and patriotism were as good, if not better than most Americans.

The emails circulating around the country saying that Obama is a Muslim are a blight on our political process and an insult to the American people.

It’s disturbing that accusations of belonging to a certain religion have any positive or negative value whatsoever in politics. Whatever happened to religious freedom or all that equality mumbo jumbo in the constitution?

Obama vehemently denies the accusations, stating that he has attended the same Christian church for over twenty years and that he prays to Jesus. He does it eloquently and, unfortunately, he has had to do it often.

But wouldn’t it be great if he could say, “I’m not Muslim, but what if I was? What would be wrong with that?” Insert any religion: “I’m not Jewish, but what if I was?” Wouldn’t it be great if a candidate’s take on the issues and their character mattered more than what god they look to for guidance?

There has been a lot of talk this primary season about if America was ready for a woman or black president. It looks like we’re closer than we’ve ever been. We’ve come a long way and should be proud as a country.

But when will America be ready for a non-Christian President?

What are we to tell the young, American girl in the hijab or the American boy in the Jewish skullcap who say that when they grow up they want to be President?

“Kid, you’ll never be President. You aren’t Christian.”

Obama isn’t Muslim. But if he were, I would still vote for him.

The end of Litmus-gate

January 24th, 2008 | By Kelsey | 6 Comments »

Let’s retire the use of “gate” as a suffix to signify a scandal. It’s overdone, uncreative, and annoys the crap out of me. This morning on the news they talked about “boot-gate,” which is about Tom Brady, the New England Patriots QB who was seen in New York wearing a walking cast. The original gate of course was Watergate, which is the name of the hotel that Nixon’s flunkies broke into and eventually led to his impeachment. Tom Brady’s boot has nothing to do with paper shredding, hotels, the President, or a scandal. Hell, it’s two weeks until the Superbowl.

Let’s stop the madness before some famous person scandalously hops a gate, steals a gate, or is hit with a gate and we are subjected to the Gate-gate scandal. And if that famous person was Antonio Gates, the Pro Bowl Tight-end for the San Diego Chargers, we’d end up with the ridiculosity that’d be Gates-Gate-Gate scandal. And if that took place at the Watergate Hotel…

While we are retiring annoying language habits, let’s put an end to the use of “Rorschach test” and “litmus test” used to describe anything but staring at ink blots on paper or testing for an acid or base. I suppose sports journalists are the worst at using these. Many of them are retired former athletes and I think they like to show off the fact that they showed up for Science class in Junior High where they turned a blue paper red and to Psychology 101 when they saw a naked girl in the ink blots in their textbook.

“Bill, this game is going to be a litmus test to see if the Patriots can overcome the Spy-gate controversy.”

Isn’t that sentence just an inflated version of: “Bill, this game is going to be a test to see if the Patriots can overcome controversy.”?

So if you don’t use these and I don’t use these, bit by bit we can change the world.

“There are not too many sweatshops but there are too few”

December 21st, 2007 | By Kelsey | No Comments »

- Jeffrey Sachs.

Here are some arguments for sweatshops and the upward mobility they provide the sweat laborer.

To me this is semantically offensive (if it is actually possible for something to be semantically offensive). While there is no agreed upon the definition of what a sweatshop is, most define them as factories, usually garment factories, in which the employees are poorly paid and treated inhumanely.

Maybe it’s just me, but I think humans should not be okay with other humans not being treated humanely.

To say we need more sweatshops might as well be saying, “the world would be a better place if we treated more people inhumanely and pay them crappy.” I see the logic in Sachs thought surrounding this quote in his book The End of Poverty, but I wish he would replace “sweatshop” with something like “overseas factories.” Because, from my experience visiting factories around the world, not every garment factory is a sweatshop and the ones that Sachs talks about don’t seem to be.

The world may need more factories that provide jobs that empower their workers by providing them with a steady, livable (in the context of their own country) wage. It doesn’t need more sweatshops.

Shedd aquarium: “Save seahorses, buy our souvenirs!”

November 30th, 2007 | By Kelsey | 2 Comments »

The seahorses were sleeping, tails wrapped around branches, lights dimmed. Beneath them glowed a sign:

Buy crafts made in our giftshop, made by Filipino seahorse fishers and their families. You’ll help the families earn a living without having to catch sea horses.

Huh?

Where did the Shedd aquarium get their seahorses? I would guess they bought them or their progenitors from those Filipino fishers they’re so valiantly trying to wean off of capturing and selling seahorses.

But what really irks me is the fact the aquarium is encouraging its patrons to spend money in their gift shop as a solution to helping the endangered seahorses.

I’ve spent over a month of my life under the ocean’s surface and, if there’s one thing I’ve learned, it’s that the ocean is big. There’s lots of room to swim around. In the museum’s aquariums there isn’t. Whether with zoos or aquariums, I’ve always validated their existence as a place for the average Joe to go and see why we need to protect our world and the creatures with which we share it. The seahorses in the aquarium sacrifice their freedom for the protection of their free-swimming brethren, as does the lion pacing the cage for those hunting on the open savanna.

Zoos and aquariums have the responsibility to educate and conserve, not feed us lines of bullshit that by spending $29.99 on a basket we’re saving the world.

I’ve never seen a seahorse underwater, and I hope someday I will. If I do, I’m pretty sure it will not be a result of deplorable, self-promoting propaganda like this…

Mrs. Butterworth’s boobs

November 4th, 2007 | By Kelsey | 15 Comments »

Where did Mrs. Butterworth’s boobs go?

When I was kid she was much shapelier. Now, she’s as flat as a pancake.

There are only two reasons why they could have disappeared (none of which is that she is old and gravity plays on such things – because Mrs. Butterworth is ageless):

1) Economics - Pinnacle Food Company, which produces Mrs. Butterworth, decided that they could make a greater profit if they flattened her out, thus robbing consumers of two D-cups of her sweet nectar.

2) Prudishness - After decades of children and adult alike fondling the syrup maven, our culture cannot handle inanimate objects with anatomy.

Banished by corporate greed or by our ultra-conservative culture, Mrs. Butterworth’s boobs are gone.

I miss them.

Now when I’m holding Mrs. B upside down, there is no matronly shelf to rest my index finger upon. Instead, my finger slides down her midriff and onto her hands clasped at her waist, as if to console her.

She’s the saint of syrup with her halo of dried mapley goodness just below her cap, but she’s also a woman. A woman robbed of her womanliness.

Shame on Pinnacle Foods. Shame on us all for sitting idly and allowing them to perform a double mastectomy on our momma of maple.

Disney would like to Welcome you to these United States

October 30th, 2007 | By Kelsey | No Comments »

Welcome to the USA, where, according to this bit of propaganda commissioned by the State Department and produced by Disney, everybody smiles. But really, what’s wrong with that?

I’ve heard more negative comments about this video than good ones.

The main issue tends to be that Horseshoe Falls of Niagara Falls, which appears for about a second, is pictured and it belongs to Canada. The shot is from the Canadian side overlooking the falls with the USA in the background. The only thing more ridiculous than owning a waterfall is owning half a waterfall.

Yes, the particular half pictured is owned by Canada, but seeing how this is Tourist propaganda and Niagara Falls is a popular destination for tourists in the USA, what’s the big deal? Somewhere in the falls is an imaginary political line. Don’t you see it? What if the film showed a fella jet-skiing on Lake Erie and the shot just happened to be taken as he crossed the imaginary political divide between Canada’s Lake Erie and the USA’s Lake Erie? The only difference there would be that nobody would be pitchin’ a fit.

Like a commercial or advertorial, this is propaganda. “Show the real America!” say the opponents of the video. I suppose they want pictures of our homeless, dead beat dads and abusive moms, of our military invading and bombing places, of politicians stripping civil liberties, of race riots, of slavery, Hurricane Katrina’s aftermath, etc.

Again, this is a tourist video. Settle down. What’s wrong with showing smiling Americans? What’s wrong with being proud of what’s great about our country? Life in the USA is not perfect, but we’ve got it pretty darn good compared to a lot of places. We’ve got a lot to smile about. And, if you are sitting in your apartment/home/dorm, viewing this YouTube video and you aren’t worrying about where your next meal is going to come from or if the water you just drank will give you a lethal case of diarrhea, you probably should just shut up.

I was ready to view this video with cynicism, but it won me over. The diversity of our people, landscape, and culture is almost untouched. Our politics, people, and history aren’t perfect, but it sure looks like a nice place to visit.

I hear Canada is lovely, too.

Tourons! Win a year of National Geographic Traveler

October 26th, 2007 | By Kelsey | 5 Comments »

Apparently it’s time for me to renew by subscription of National Geographic Traveler. I received an offer in the mail that if I renew I can give a free subscription to someone else.

You could be that someone else!

HOW TO WIN A FREE SUBSCRIPTION TO NGT

Give me your best you might be a “You might be a Touron if…” Go here for examples. Whoever makes me think or giggle the most gets the subscription.

Off the top of my head, here’s a few that I could use from my time in Bangladesh:

If you aren’t allowed to stay in Dhaka’s “Hotel Tourist” because you are a tourist, you might be a touron

If you’ve ever paid $1,200 for a plane ticket to visit the factory that made your underwear, you might be a touron.

About NG Traveler:

I don’t wait by the mailbox each month for the latest NGT issue, but I feel obligated to renew in order to keep the pulse of the travel world. I would like to see more meat in each issue. Sometimes I have trouble telling if I’m reading a story or an advertorial (an advertisement written in the form of an objective opinion editorial, and presented in a printed publication). Advertorials piss me off, they take up the space that a genuine objective story that isn’t trying to sell me something might fill. I like content written by writers not advertisers. Also, like all other travel mags, NGT feels the need to always tell me about the 10, 27, or 123, places I have to _____. Apparently, research shows that consumers love such lists. I hate them. I suppose if someone paid me enough I would write them one (I can be bought), but I wouldn’t be happy about it on the inside.

With all that being said, I would love to contribute something to the magazine. They are one of the industry’s heavy hitters. Plus, as with all National Geographic pubs, the photos are awesome, and sometimes it’s nice to read an entire magazine without having to read actual words.

So, I’m renewing for the reasonable price of $17.95.