Bar soap? Ewwwwww. It’s slimy, almost impossible to use for shaving my legs in the shower causes dry skin and is just in general an unpleasant option for me. I love my giant bottle of body wash that last forever and has a convenient pump dispenser.
i'm a recent convert to body wash. bar soap tends to dry my skin.
the assertion by another PS reader than body wash is 16x expensive as bar soap is, i bleive, misleading; depends on the body wash, depnds on the bar soap.
I have a question for the shower gel or body wash aficionados. When using a sponge do you have to get all of the soap rinsed out of the sponge when you are done with each shower? This is my main issue.
I use a loofah and try to use just enough liquid soap on it so it's mostly all gone from the loofah when I'm done. I rinse it, but don't worry too much about getting it all out, since I'll be using it again next morning anyway.
Newspapers have been cleaning up politician's quotes for at least 100 years. That's why so many people believe that John Nance Garner said that "being vice-president isn't worth a bucket of warm spit", which makes no sense, when in fact he said "Being vice-President isn't worth a bucket of warm piss"!
And as for Jimmy Carter, he was not a good man as he became a flat out anti-Semite after he was president!
I know it is inviting invective to point out that disagreeing strongly with the policies of the Israeli government is not being anti-Semitic. I am strongly against the Netanyahu government's massacres in Gaza just as I was appalled by the Hamas carnage last October and I suspect I am not alone. That is anti-Semitic?
Israel isn't committing "massacres" in Gaza. A typical lie from the pro-Hamas left. The Israeli Army will leave when the hostages are returned, so why won't Hamas release them?
IDF and its leadership are committing massacres in gaza. tens of thousands of innocent gazans - especially women and children - have been killed by the IDF, in its indiscrimate effort to eliminate hamas.
are the innocent women and children killed by IDF bombing and shooting just 'collateral damage'?
It's not indiscriminate bombing, it's Hamas deliberately hiding among civilians & not giving a shit about the civilians.
Again, all Hamas has to do to end it is to release all the hostages & the bodies of the dead hostages, but they refuse!
They're also hogging all the food, water & fuel that Israel has allowed into Gaza for themselves, causing the civilians to starve & freeze, again, nothing the Israelis can do about that!
Remember, not one Arab or other Islamic country wants them, even they consider Gazans to be stupid & extremely violent lunatics, who will just cause trouble in their countries if they let them in!
you've been duped by the isaeli right wing propaganda machine. what the IDF and netanyahu's policies have done in gaza is far beyond a proportionate response to the horrors and barbarism of hamas on Oct 7.
i am not absolving hamas at all of their repsonsibility for Oct 7 or post-Oct 7 - whereas you are absolving the IDF, netanyahu and the radical israeli right of their responsibility.
one can be simultaneously pro-jew, pro-israel, pro innocent gazans and anti-genocide, anti-netanyahu, anti-radical right wing. which i am and many others are.
I haven't been duped by anyone. Hamas murdered 1200 Israelis out of pure hatred & kidnapped a couple of hundred more. They still hold close to 100 as hostages. The Gazans knows exactly where they are being held, but refuse to tell the IDF. So whatever shit falls upon them is their own fault!
Calling Jimmy Carter an anti-Semite is simply absurd. I won't go into listing all the good he's done for the country and mankind, and while no human is perfect in every respect, there was not a bigoted bone in that man's body.
Then you obviously never read anything he wrote about Israel later in life, when he blamed Israel for all its troubles with the Arabs.
There was one big bigoted bone in his body, that life long hate that Christianity inculcates into so many of its believers, that the Jews killed the Jew they worship, so they must hate all current living Jews!
As Rick points out, the Evangelicals are only supportive because they believe that the world is on the cusp of the "End Times". (This also partly explains their support of Trump.
Hi JG - As an Evangelical Christian with Jewish heritage myself, I offer the following viewpoint. We believe that the Jews were Gods first chosen people, and that God gave them the land that is now Israel as their home for all time. (There has never been a nation of "Palestine" at any time in history as that is simply a term that was given for that area when the Romans ruled it. Prior to that, it was known as Judah, i.e., Israel.)
We also believe that our Savior and the Son of God was born into this world as a Jew, and that Christians today are theological descendants of the Jews.
I offer this not to debate any of these stated beliefs, but rather as an explanation of the very high regard in the Evangelical Christian Community for Jews and for the State of Israel.
I question that. Do they really support Jews and/or Israel? Or have they made a political decision based on current events? I am a senior citizen Jew. I have spent my life listening to insults against my people. They killed Jesus. They are greedy businesspeople. They have big noses. They only care about other Jews. Support for Israel? Since when? They stole land from the Palestinians. They get too much American aid. There are a lot of Americans that don't like Arabs and feel they are all terrorists. It's a matter of the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Also, many MAGAs support Israel only because their cult leader, Trump, says so. We'll see how long it lasts.
I didn't mean to imply there is no anti-semitism among evangelical Christians. But the "Jews killed Jesus," seems to have been replaced by support for Israel. Recently, an Evangelical Christian told me her religion required her to support Israel. I didn't have the nerve to ask her how she felt about Jewish people.
You're mixing things up. There is a difference between opposing the policies of the Israeli government and not liking Jews. There are many Jews that don't like what Israel is doing. Does that make make Jewish people antisemitic? I know what antisemitic means. I experienced it from other kids in my neighborhood that knew absolute zilch about Israel or where it was located. So what is your evidence that Jimmy Carter hated Jews, which is what you are saying when you call him antisemitic?
You are the one that referred to things about Israel. You still haven’t answered the question about the difference between not liking the politics of the Israeli government and being a Jew hater. I disagree with what Israel is doing and I am Jewish. Does that make me antisemitic?
No, but it shows you have fallen for the garbage from the idiots who do conflate the two, which are 99% of those who hate Israel, who in fact hate Israel because it's full of Jews, who is those they really hate, but claim that hating what Israel does isn't hating Jews, which is a lie, based on 2000 years of hate & lies!
Holding the Israeli government accountable for its actions is not the same as anti-Semitism. Anti-Semitism is hatred of Jews simply for being Jewish. Just like one can hate actions of the US government without hating the American people, one can oppose the actions of the Israeli government without hating Jewish people simply for being Jewish. Also, modern Christians largely do not blame Jews for Jesus' death - if anything, most recognize that Jesus made his choice knowing his destiny.
I’d like to agree with you. I really would. I have to live in this country until they bury me. I live in a mostly Christian and Trump supporter filled area. Maybe there is too much cynic in me. Maybe it’s a good thing that I don’t hear as rhetoric against either Jews or Israel. Now it’s more about Muslims, Sharia law, or the problems that Latino immigrants supposedly bring it. I’m not sure replacing one form of discrimination with others is much of an improvement. I’m still withholding judgement until I see how people react if and when they no longer feel they need Israel.
How about "Presumed Consent"? Anyone can opt out for any reason but if you don't your organs will be reused. Makes more sense than opting in to be an organ donor.
That would be a suitable compromise although we sort of have that now. Opting out is the default. My goal is to increase the number of viable organs for those in need. if that occurred, then I'm fine with people opting out.
I don't necessarily agree with you. But it raises interesting questions, most of which are based on personal beliefs. What happens when a person dies? Is there really a transference of soul to heaven? If that is true what is the status of the body left behind? Who do dead bodies belong to? Can whomever owns that body then decide what to with the parts that are left? If a person chooses cremation when they die, is that a acceptable moral choice? Or are they robbing humanity of use of the leftover parts? I suppose that as I age, I should make choices and let my family know. My personal conviction is that I really don't care one way or another because when I die, I will lose awareness of what is going on with my body and won't care. I suppose that if I really believe that, it would be generous of me to let medical science take advantage of any healthy organs I have left to benefit others. Filling up a cemetery plot so relatives can forget to visit me is not a big deal with me and it's not like the casket is going to be opened to get just one more look at me. Of course my question then would be, if I had healthy organs left, why am I dead? Who would want an aged heart, liver, lungs, etc? Yes, I know- medical science for study. By the way, it is in my will that everything I own goes to a trusted relative to dispose of as they see fit. One thing I have hated all my life is squabbles over who gets what when someone dies. It's happened in my family. Deaths are not meant to enrich the finances or property of those still living, unless it's young kids not yet able to provide for themselves. If someone wants a memento, take a picture of me or record a conversation while I'm still around.
I don't think that's possible, not with the various religious and cultural rituals surrounding the disposition of the deceased. The government owns your remains if you haven't opted out? And which department will be controlling this harvesting, assuming it's not offered to the lowest bidder outside of government?
That was my point. What are your personal beliefs? Let your family know. If one believes in God and Christianity, what happens to the body after God points up or down for your soul? I can’t speak to other religions. So the basic question is what is the status of a deceased body?
How is it done now? I'm sure there are problems to resolve and unintended consequences. For instance, if your last remaining parent dies, and you are the sole survivor, you get their assets (after probate in lieu of a will and trust). Imagine if organs are part of those assets.
I believe the need for viable organs outweighs the potential unintended consequences. But the ask was to provide my unpopular opinion and defend it, not implement it.
Just to be clear, as far as I am aware, no one has put me in charge of anything (other than laundry at my household).
ooh, wow, i've got to disagree with that. the decision to 'harvest' organs, if the deceased had not so provided, shd be left to the family. i'd have to think more about harvesting organs from the body of someone who had no remaining family, or no one who was legally authorized to make such a decison.
but i agree with your principle, that would lead to more transplantable organs. 2 solutions - disband the current ineffective, inefficient govt monopoly [UNOS - Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network] for organ transfer, and replace with a public-private partnership [or just a NPO like Vitalant, which solicits blood donations in the Chgo area, then sells blood to hospitals]; and allow pymt to organ donors.
I never said anything about the government although they are the most likely source to pull this off. But just so I’m clear, you would rather your liver and kidneys become worm meat instead of help a fellow human being?
Bar soap, preferably unscented. It just seems utilitarian to me, which is my preferred way to approach basic life needs. When I was a child, Mom used bar soap to wash my hair, but I recognized that this was too utilitarian.
My suggestion for the next question is sheets or blankets. I personally don't like the feel of a sheet on my skin. A blanket allows excess heat to escape but still warms me right from the start of sleep. Sheets are cold and lacking in snugglability.
I am with you on unscented soap, but I never thought of it a representing an outlook on life ;> I just don't want to go through the day smelling like soap.
Your no sheets approach is intriguing. Not getting too hot while keeping warm enough while sleeping is a challenge for me.
I require a bottom sheet (are you just sleeping directly on the mattress??) but top sheets are almost never used in my household. We're bottom sheets and duvet people. Wash the duvet covers with the sheets so everything stays cleanish.
Yes bottom sheets are fine. I have used top sheets for years, but I never liked them. Then I received a blanket as a gift and it was so much easier to sleep.
EZ, I'd like to humbly submit a minor suggestion about the click polls: typically you ask for a vote only after making a case for a particular issue (the poll appears below your own opinion). I think that skews the results in favor of the position that you hold as you always make good, well-articulated points. This is like asking a jury to vote after only hearing the prosecution's case. I think it would be more fair and would present a better picture of the readership's stance if the poll was given before your stance - so you'd see the voting buttons and then after that you'd explain your opinion. Just a suggestion.
Are you using a communal bathroom down the hall? What other people? If we're talking about hotel rooms, it's the squeeze bottles that have been handled by other people. How much you want to bet they get wiped down between guests? The soap always comes (came?) new and wrapped.
I'm talking about at home. I grew up with many siblings and it would gross me out to pick the hair out of the soap. I have a mid-size family of my own and don't care to repeat that experience that anymore
Have to go with bar soap over liquid. Years ago I started preferring shower gel, used on a scrubber or loofah. But as my concern for the environment and abhorrence of plastic pollution has grown, I switched back to bar soap. Gave up the plastic mesh balls in favor washcloths too. It's really not that hard a habit to change and I feel just as clean. Slivers get added to the new bar; not that difficult.
For hotels, Johanna is right. In that context, liquid soap in containers is considerably less wasteful.
Hotels don’t care about waste, they only care about cost. There was an interesting podcast, I think “Planet Money“ on the recycling of used bars of hotel soap. I thought it was very interesting.
My husband was delighted on our latest trip over the holidays to learn I packed our preferred bar soap in a reusable container. Kept saying "this is so much better" and "why didn't we do this before?" (we = me, of course). It was better of course, even though the liquid products in our preferred hotel chain aren't AWFUL. Dial Gold Forever!
I got the refillable Dove container and use the concentrated liquid refills + water - way less plastic. I do agree with you, though. I use TruEarth strips for laundry, household cleaner (like 409) and toilet bowl cleaner. They work great for all of those...
Even though I had to think hard before guessing if the Sox would lose 110 games next year I still felt insulted that the team wasn’t listed in the prediction for winning record. BTW, I picked 1 team to have a winning record so that you wouldn’t think I forgot to answer the question.
It’s a toughie. It’s hard to imagine a team having records that bad for so many years in a row. But who’s left? A subpar Leon Robert? It’s tough to win with a AAA roster and Jerry is obviously in save money mode.
Oh wait, you probably mean the one about buying the domain names of people and putting potato pictures on the site. Yeah, I didn't find that one too funny either.
'I met a woman at a party the other night who told me when people piss her off she would buy a domain name of their name and make the website just a picture of a potato. And every few months she would change it to a different picture of a potato.'
i think the last sentence is saying he continues to check in on this website that has dissed/mocked him, months after he found out that's how this woman disses/mocks people who piss her off. glutton for punishment [bad pun]? masochist?
now that i've explained it [if i'm correct], of course it's not funny.
Eric, your request for an unpopular opinion needs some further guidance. Your example of bar soap/ body wash is really a preference. It would have more bite if you said bar soap must be used and body wash or gel should be prohibited.
As it stands, no big deal. Me, if I use someone’s shower, I just hope there is something in there to wash with. However I do agree with the post that I do not prefer using soap caked with hair.
And what would qualify as an unpopular opinion? Is “Donald Trump will be a good President” a popular opinion based on votes and thus not up for discussion?
I think we should eliminate obvious “trolling” opinions like women should not be allowed to vote.
So I offer these unpopular opinions not for discussion but do they qualify as worthy of consideration.
1. Capital punishment should be retained in the US.
2. We need to institute the ERA now and fight to enforce it.
3. Eliminate the debt ceiling.
4. Make burning the American flag a misdemeanor.
5. Rescind the Second Amendment as guns now present a major problem to all Americans.
I am not looking for replies to these items, I need to know from Eric and other folks, are these opinions/topics in bounds…or out of bounds?
I think they are all in bounds. Although, I don't know if all of those would be unpopular among the general US population, or with people in this forum. Popularity rating on some probably split between those two cohorts.
Given that our launching point for this the form of soap, I don't think we need to be too strict or even consistent. I would recommend adhering to the principal of which is the most fun. For my tastes I would use the Chicago area as a frame of reference since this substack has its roots in Chicago journalism.
When we have the Picayune Sentinel Founding Members Subscribers meeting on New Years Day, we can vote on it. I think we should vote right before we vote on awards for commenters. I am feeling pretty confident that Garry Spelled Correctly will win Grumpiest Old Man by a wide margin.
Ah, you can tell the difference between Really Grumpy and a typical post from him. I can't do that. That is why you are the chair of the Grumpiest Old Man Award committee.
Hi Peter - I would strongly advocate that nothing should be excluded from discussion or debate no matter how "unpopular" any particular position or proposal may be.
The abolition of slavery and/or allowing women to vote may have been "unpopular" views at one time, but it was through discussion and debate that people's hearts were changed and these things became reality. Conversely, truly bad ideas are similarly exposed and widely viewed as having no merit after discussion on them.
I believe our society is much more well off following vigorous discussion on every subject without limits. And with that I wish you a very happy and healthy 2025!
Did you know that for a while in the 1840s and 1850s (maybe longer) there were rules in the House of Representatives that prohibited slavery from being discussed. That’s one way to stifle debate.
Hey Phillip - that's my point, that nothing should be off limits for discussion, and we should be very wary of anyone attempting to stifle our debate and exchange of ideas. Happy 2025!
As I have pointed out before, I appreciate this forum largely for the civility, even from those that disagree with me. In my experience, most social media platforms seem to exist for people throwing grenades at each other. This forum can be classified as educational. It's even possible to change minds based on polite disagreement. I can better understand what others are saying when they stay on point rather than attack personality.
Unfortunately, the PS is not immune from some who immediately go to labeling and judging people who state a contrary view. But you are correct that there are many regular PS posters who provide relevant information and employ logic and reason to explain and support their views. While you and I frequently maintain our respective differing perspectives, I always appreciate our exchanges.
Are there really people out there who don't clean any hair off the soap bar? Ewww. I guess I would be grossed out to find hair dried onto the soap but no one in my household would do that. Ewww.
Well, I had to look it up to remind myself that Michigan actually did win the 2024 national college football championship. Sic transit gloria mundi. —A fellow alum.
Mostly because my skin needs it, I pack my own skin-friendly bar soap when I travel. The few times I’ve forgotten, I’m reminded how icky the hotel shower squeeze bottles are.
The ethics issue for Johnson's CPS leave-of-absence is obvious. But it raised other questions for me. Johnson has not taught in CPS since 2011. I could not find any start date, but my assumption is that his leave started in 2012 when he became a CTU employee. Whatever leave status he is on, it is not described in the CPS or CTU websites. In the real-world leaves are for short terms and even unpaid leaves are rarely more than a year.
So, what is Johnson's situation with his decades long leave? My guess is that this is another occurrence of the bizarre pension rules that provide bloated pensions to public employees, especially the union employees and political ones. I can't recall the guy's name, but a few years ago there was a mini scandal when it was reported that he returned to teach for one day after a couple of decades of leave which 'earned' him a full pension with a high pay calculation.
I would like to know what the actual financial and pension benefit is provided to Johnson and the specific leave type and terms he has been granted. It would also be interesting to know how many others have the same deal.
If you have a peanut allergy, you should not eat them. Otherwise, they are a nutritious and economical food source. If you have dry skin, you probably should not use bar soap. Otherwise, it is economical and utilitarian. As for the "slivers", they will adhere when wet to a new bar of soap. No need to waste them.
EZ - your 1st Q in the poll for 2025: Will the Chicago Teachers Union strike in 2024?
i assume you mean 2025 - or are you giving everyone a freebie to start?
Bar soap? Ewwwwww. It’s slimy, almost impossible to use for shaving my legs in the shower causes dry skin and is just in general an unpleasant option for me. I love my giant bottle of body wash that last forever and has a convenient pump dispenser.
Jo A. - While you note some disadvantages of bar soap, studies show that body wash is 16 times as expensive than bar soap on a per-use basis.
The cost of body wash is a BARGAIN to avoid dry skin! If the cost of soap is a concern one is really stretched.
pls provide us a link to one of those studies that show.
I will look for it and post it.
I'm with you. I hate the sticky feeling bar soap leaves. I feel a little guilty about the plastic, though.
i'm a recent convert to body wash. bar soap tends to dry my skin.
the assertion by another PS reader than body wash is 16x expensive as bar soap is, i bleive, misleading; depends on the body wash, depnds on the bar soap.
And it depends if you buy refills rather than the original bottle again.
Can we see the results?
I have a question for the shower gel or body wash aficionados. When using a sponge do you have to get all of the soap rinsed out of the sponge when you are done with each shower? This is my main issue.
I use a loofah and try to use just enough liquid soap on it so it's mostly all gone from the loofah when I'm done. I rinse it, but don't worry too much about getting it all out, since I'll be using it again next morning anyway.
I'm curious why you would need a sponge or loofah? Hands can be easily washed to rid them of bacteria before use, and work as well to clean.
For me, I feel I get a better lather and better scrubbing and coverage with a loofah than hands. It's all just personal preference of course.
a sponge? in the shower?
to each their own - but i'm not a sponge-in-the-shower person.
Fine with me. What you do in the shower is your business.
Sponge???
Newspapers have been cleaning up politician's quotes for at least 100 years. That's why so many people believe that John Nance Garner said that "being vice-president isn't worth a bucket of warm spit", which makes no sense, when in fact he said "Being vice-President isn't worth a bucket of warm piss"!
And as for Jimmy Carter, he was not a good man as he became a flat out anti-Semite after he was president!
I know it is inviting invective to point out that disagreeing strongly with the policies of the Israeli government is not being anti-Semitic. I am strongly against the Netanyahu government's massacres in Gaza just as I was appalled by the Hamas carnage last October and I suspect I am not alone. That is anti-Semitic?
Israel isn't committing "massacres" in Gaza. A typical lie from the pro-Hamas left. The Israeli Army will leave when the hostages are returned, so why won't Hamas release them?
How many have to die or freeze to death before it becomes a massacre?
Hamas is the ones delaying or denying aid to their own people.
IDF and its leadership are committing massacres in gaza. tens of thousands of innocent gazans - especially women and children - have been killed by the IDF, in its indiscrimate effort to eliminate hamas.
are the innocent women and children killed by IDF bombing and shooting just 'collateral damage'?
No they aren't committing massacres!
It's not indiscriminate bombing, it's Hamas deliberately hiding among civilians & not giving a shit about the civilians.
Again, all Hamas has to do to end it is to release all the hostages & the bodies of the dead hostages, but they refuse!
They're also hogging all the food, water & fuel that Israel has allowed into Gaza for themselves, causing the civilians to starve & freeze, again, nothing the Israelis can do about that!
Remember, not one Arab or other Islamic country wants them, even they consider Gazans to be stupid & extremely violent lunatics, who will just cause trouble in their countries if they let them in!
you've been duped by the isaeli right wing propaganda machine. what the IDF and netanyahu's policies have done in gaza is far beyond a proportionate response to the horrors and barbarism of hamas on Oct 7.
i am not absolving hamas at all of their repsonsibility for Oct 7 or post-Oct 7 - whereas you are absolving the IDF, netanyahu and the radical israeli right of their responsibility.
one can be simultaneously pro-jew, pro-israel, pro innocent gazans and anti-genocide, anti-netanyahu, anti-radical right wing. which i am and many others are.
I haven't been duped by anyone. Hamas murdered 1200 Israelis out of pure hatred & kidnapped a couple of hundred more. They still hold close to 100 as hostages. The Gazans knows exactly where they are being held, but refuse to tell the IDF. So whatever shit falls upon them is their own fault!
Calling Jimmy Carter an anti-Semite is simply absurd. I won't go into listing all the good he's done for the country and mankind, and while no human is perfect in every respect, there was not a bigoted bone in that man's body.
Then you obviously never read anything he wrote about Israel later in life, when he blamed Israel for all its troubles with the Arabs.
There was one big bigoted bone in his body, that life long hate that Christianity inculcates into so many of its believers, that the Jews killed the Jew they worship, so they must hate all current living Jews!
Your selective reading, along with your biases, produces clap-trap
As does your anti-Semitism!
Staying true to form I see—no reasoned discourse, just name calling
So, you don't deny being anti-Semitic, you just don't like the name!
That, of course, was the medieval view. Evangelical Christians are some of the biggest supporters of Israel today.
Only because they’re holding off the Saracens pending the second coming.
As Rick points out, the Evangelicals are only supportive because they believe that the world is on the cusp of the "End Times". (This also partly explains their support of Trump.
... whose Presidency is sure to bring the End Times more speedily.
Hi JG - As an Evangelical Christian with Jewish heritage myself, I offer the following viewpoint. We believe that the Jews were Gods first chosen people, and that God gave them the land that is now Israel as their home for all time. (There has never been a nation of "Palestine" at any time in history as that is simply a term that was given for that area when the Romans ruled it. Prior to that, it was known as Judah, i.e., Israel.)
We also believe that our Savior and the Son of God was born into this world as a Jew, and that Christians today are theological descendants of the Jews.
I offer this not to debate any of these stated beliefs, but rather as an explanation of the very high regard in the Evangelical Christian Community for Jews and for the State of Israel.
I question that. Do they really support Jews and/or Israel? Or have they made a political decision based on current events? I am a senior citizen Jew. I have spent my life listening to insults against my people. They killed Jesus. They are greedy businesspeople. They have big noses. They only care about other Jews. Support for Israel? Since when? They stole land from the Palestinians. They get too much American aid. There are a lot of Americans that don't like Arabs and feel they are all terrorists. It's a matter of the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Also, many MAGAs support Israel only because their cult leader, Trump, says so. We'll see how long it lasts.
I didn't mean to imply there is no anti-semitism among evangelical Christians. But the "Jews killed Jesus," seems to have been replaced by support for Israel. Recently, an Evangelical Christian told me her religion required her to support Israel. I didn't have the nerve to ask her how she felt about Jewish people.
I don’t recall him deriding Jewish people. Weren’t his comments aimed at governmental policy and actions?
Exactly
You're mixing things up. There is a difference between opposing the policies of the Israeli government and not liking Jews. There are many Jews that don't like what Israel is doing. Does that make make Jewish people antisemitic? I know what antisemitic means. I experienced it from other kids in my neighborhood that knew absolute zilch about Israel or where it was located. So what is your evidence that Jimmy Carter hated Jews, which is what you are saying when you call him antisemitic?
His own writings & statements later in his life.
You are the one that referred to things about Israel. You still haven’t answered the question about the difference between not liking the politics of the Israeli government and being a Jew hater. I disagree with what Israel is doing and I am Jewish. Does that make me antisemitic?
No, but it shows you have fallen for the garbage from the idiots who do conflate the two, which are 99% of those who hate Israel, who in fact hate Israel because it's full of Jews, who is those they really hate, but claim that hating what Israel does isn't hating Jews, which is a lie, based on 2000 years of hate & lies!
Holding the Israeli government accountable for its actions is not the same as anti-Semitism. Anti-Semitism is hatred of Jews simply for being Jewish. Just like one can hate actions of the US government without hating the American people, one can oppose the actions of the Israeli government without hating Jewish people simply for being Jewish. Also, modern Christians largely do not blame Jews for Jesus' death - if anything, most recognize that Jesus made his choice knowing his destiny.
I’d like to agree with you. I really would. I have to live in this country until they bury me. I live in a mostly Christian and Trump supporter filled area. Maybe there is too much cynic in me. Maybe it’s a good thing that I don’t hear as rhetoric against either Jews or Israel. Now it’s more about Muslims, Sharia law, or the problems that Latino immigrants supposedly bring it. I’m not sure replacing one form of discrimination with others is much of an improvement. I’m still withholding judgement until I see how people react if and when they no longer feel they need Israel.
I have a lot of unpopular opinions but one that sets people off: all usable organs should be harvested from anyone when they die.
How about "Presumed Consent"? Anyone can opt out for any reason but if you don't your organs will be reused. Makes more sense than opting in to be an organ donor.
That would be a suitable compromise although we sort of have that now. Opting out is the default. My goal is to increase the number of viable organs for those in need. if that occurred, then I'm fine with people opting out.
I don't necessarily agree with you. But it raises interesting questions, most of which are based on personal beliefs. What happens when a person dies? Is there really a transference of soul to heaven? If that is true what is the status of the body left behind? Who do dead bodies belong to? Can whomever owns that body then decide what to with the parts that are left? If a person chooses cremation when they die, is that a acceptable moral choice? Or are they robbing humanity of use of the leftover parts? I suppose that as I age, I should make choices and let my family know. My personal conviction is that I really don't care one way or another because when I die, I will lose awareness of what is going on with my body and won't care. I suppose that if I really believe that, it would be generous of me to let medical science take advantage of any healthy organs I have left to benefit others. Filling up a cemetery plot so relatives can forget to visit me is not a big deal with me and it's not like the casket is going to be opened to get just one more look at me. Of course my question then would be, if I had healthy organs left, why am I dead? Who would want an aged heart, liver, lungs, etc? Yes, I know- medical science for study. By the way, it is in my will that everything I own goes to a trusted relative to dispose of as they see fit. One thing I have hated all my life is squabbles over who gets what when someone dies. It's happened in my family. Deaths are not meant to enrich the finances or property of those still living, unless it's young kids not yet able to provide for themselves. If someone wants a memento, take a picture of me or record a conversation while I'm still around.
I don't think that's possible, not with the various religious and cultural rituals surrounding the disposition of the deceased. The government owns your remains if you haven't opted out? And which department will be controlling this harvesting, assuming it's not offered to the lowest bidder outside of government?
That was my point. What are your personal beliefs? Let your family know. If one believes in God and Christianity, what happens to the body after God points up or down for your soul? I can’t speak to other religions. So the basic question is what is the status of a deceased body?
How is it done now? I'm sure there are problems to resolve and unintended consequences. For instance, if your last remaining parent dies, and you are the sole survivor, you get their assets (after probate in lieu of a will and trust). Imagine if organs are part of those assets.
I believe the need for viable organs outweighs the potential unintended consequences. But the ask was to provide my unpopular opinion and defend it, not implement it.
Just to be clear, as far as I am aware, no one has put me in charge of anything (other than laundry at my household).
ooh, wow, i've got to disagree with that. the decision to 'harvest' organs, if the deceased had not so provided, shd be left to the family. i'd have to think more about harvesting organs from the body of someone who had no remaining family, or no one who was legally authorized to make such a decison.
but i agree with your principle, that would lead to more transplantable organs. 2 solutions - disband the current ineffective, inefficient govt monopoly [UNOS - Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network] for organ transfer, and replace with a public-private partnership [or just a NPO like Vitalant, which solicits blood donations in the Chgo area, then sells blood to hospitals]; and allow pymt to organ donors.
No. The government doesn’t own my body or any of my family’s bodies.
I never said anything about the government although they are the most likely source to pull this off. But just so I’m clear, you would rather your liver and kidneys become worm meat instead of help a fellow human being?
Bar soap, preferably unscented. It just seems utilitarian to me, which is my preferred way to approach basic life needs. When I was a child, Mom used bar soap to wash my hair, but I recognized that this was too utilitarian.
My suggestion for the next question is sheets or blankets. I personally don't like the feel of a sheet on my skin. A blanket allows excess heat to escape but still warms me right from the start of sleep. Sheets are cold and lacking in snugglability.
Everyone to their own gout, as the French say. Happy New Year.
Please. “goot”.
I am with you on unscented soap, but I never thought of it a representing an outlook on life ;> I just don't want to go through the day smelling like soap.
Your no sheets approach is intriguing. Not getting too hot while keeping warm enough while sleeping is a challenge for me.
I recommend Utopia comforters. Great value, too.
Thank you for the recommendation.
I require a bottom sheet (are you just sleeping directly on the mattress??) but top sheets are almost never used in my household. We're bottom sheets and duvet people. Wash the duvet covers with the sheets so everything stays cleanish.
Yes bottom sheets are fine. I have used top sheets for years, but I never liked them. Then I received a blanket as a gift and it was so much easier to sleep.
EZ, I'd like to humbly submit a minor suggestion about the click polls: typically you ask for a vote only after making a case for a particular issue (the poll appears below your own opinion). I think that skews the results in favor of the position that you hold as you always make good, well-articulated points. This is like asking a jury to vote after only hearing the prosecution's case. I think it would be more fair and would present a better picture of the readership's stance if the poll was given before your stance - so you'd see the voting buttons and then after that you'd explain your opinion. Just a suggestion.
Bar soap? ick - all the hair from other people that sticks to it! No thanks.
Are you using a communal bathroom down the hall? What other people? If we're talking about hotel rooms, it's the squeeze bottles that have been handled by other people. How much you want to bet they get wiped down between guests? The soap always comes (came?) new and wrapped.
I'm talking about at home. I grew up with many siblings and it would gross me out to pick the hair out of the soap. I have a mid-size family of my own and don't care to repeat that experience that anymore
I live alone. I like the aroma of Irish Spring and the only hair is mine.
Have to go with bar soap over liquid. Years ago I started preferring shower gel, used on a scrubber or loofah. But as my concern for the environment and abhorrence of plastic pollution has grown, I switched back to bar soap. Gave up the plastic mesh balls in favor washcloths too. It's really not that hard a habit to change and I feel just as clean. Slivers get added to the new bar; not that difficult.
For hotels, Johanna is right. In that context, liquid soap in containers is considerably less wasteful.
Hotels don’t care about waste, they only care about cost. There was an interesting podcast, I think “Planet Money“ on the recycling of used bars of hotel soap. I thought it was very interesting.
Or it might have been "The Economics of Everyday Things" podcast. Anybody else remember?
I carry my own soap when traveling. Try to get a good lather with hotel soap.
My husband was delighted on our latest trip over the holidays to learn I packed our preferred bar soap in a reusable container. Kept saying "this is so much better" and "why didn't we do this before?" (we = me, of course). It was better of course, even though the liquid products in our preferred hotel chain aren't AWFUL. Dial Gold Forever!
I got the refillable Dove container and use the concentrated liquid refills + water - way less plastic. I do agree with you, though. I use TruEarth strips for laundry, household cleaner (like 409) and toilet bowl cleaner. They work great for all of those...
Even though I had to think hard before guessing if the Sox would lose 110 games next year I still felt insulted that the team wasn’t listed in the prediction for winning record. BTW, I picked 1 team to have a winning record so that you wouldn’t think I forgot to answer the question.
It’s a toughie. It’s hard to imagine a team having records that bad for so many years in a row. But who’s left? A subpar Leon Robert? It’s tough to win with a AAA roster and Jerry is obviously in save money mode.
Someone tell me what the joke is in Quip of the week about the potato. I got nothing.
You mean that you chew the potatoes before they get to your stomach so your stomach thinks all potatoes are mashed?
Oh wait, you probably mean the one about buying the domain names of people and putting potato pictures on the site. Yeah, I didn't find that one too funny either.
'I met a woman at a party the other night who told me when people piss her off she would buy a domain name of their name and make the website just a picture of a potato. And every few months she would change it to a different picture of a potato.'
i think the last sentence is saying he continues to check in on this website that has dissed/mocked him, months after he found out that's how this woman disses/mocks people who piss her off. glutton for punishment [bad pun]? masochist?
now that i've explained it [if i'm correct], of course it's not funny.
Eric, your request for an unpopular opinion needs some further guidance. Your example of bar soap/ body wash is really a preference. It would have more bite if you said bar soap must be used and body wash or gel should be prohibited.
As it stands, no big deal. Me, if I use someone’s shower, I just hope there is something in there to wash with. However I do agree with the post that I do not prefer using soap caked with hair.
And what would qualify as an unpopular opinion? Is “Donald Trump will be a good President” a popular opinion based on votes and thus not up for discussion?
I think we should eliminate obvious “trolling” opinions like women should not be allowed to vote.
So I offer these unpopular opinions not for discussion but do they qualify as worthy of consideration.
1. Capital punishment should be retained in the US.
2. We need to institute the ERA now and fight to enforce it.
3. Eliminate the debt ceiling.
4. Make burning the American flag a misdemeanor.
5. Rescind the Second Amendment as guns now present a major problem to all Americans.
I am not looking for replies to these items, I need to know from Eric and other folks, are these opinions/topics in bounds…or out of bounds?
I think they are all in bounds. Although, I don't know if all of those would be unpopular among the general US population, or with people in this forum. Popularity rating on some probably split between those two cohorts.
Skeptic, you bring up a relevant issue. What is the frame of reference as to “unpopular”?
My own opinion, the folks who post here, polls, general population, world opinion?
And how relevant should the opinion be to the audience?
Given that our launching point for this the form of soap, I don't think we need to be too strict or even consistent. I would recommend adhering to the principal of which is the most fun. For my tastes I would use the Chicago area as a frame of reference since this substack has its roots in Chicago journalism.
When we have the Picayune Sentinel Founding Members Subscribers meeting on New Years Day, we can vote on it. I think we should vote right before we vote on awards for commenters. I am feeling pretty confident that Garry Spelled Correctly will win Grumpiest Old Man by a wide margin.
So this would be the GOM award, a large gold plated middle finger…and yes I caste my vote for Garry Spelled Correctly.
And he gets Really grumpy if you spell his name wrong😉
Ah, you can tell the difference between Really Grumpy and a typical post from him. I can't do that. That is why you are the chair of the Grumpiest Old Man Award committee.
Hi Peter - I would strongly advocate that nothing should be excluded from discussion or debate no matter how "unpopular" any particular position or proposal may be.
The abolition of slavery and/or allowing women to vote may have been "unpopular" views at one time, but it was through discussion and debate that people's hearts were changed and these things became reality. Conversely, truly bad ideas are similarly exposed and widely viewed as having no merit after discussion on them.
I believe our society is much more well off following vigorous discussion on every subject without limits. And with that I wish you a very happy and healthy 2025!
Right back at you David, and thanks for the input.
Did you know that for a while in the 1840s and 1850s (maybe longer) there were rules in the House of Representatives that prohibited slavery from being discussed. That’s one way to stifle debate.
Hey Phillip - that's my point, that nothing should be off limits for discussion, and we should be very wary of anyone attempting to stifle our debate and exchange of ideas. Happy 2025!
As I have pointed out before, I appreciate this forum largely for the civility, even from those that disagree with me. In my experience, most social media platforms seem to exist for people throwing grenades at each other. This forum can be classified as educational. It's even possible to change minds based on polite disagreement. I can better understand what others are saying when they stay on point rather than attack personality.
Unfortunately, the PS is not immune from some who immediately go to labeling and judging people who state a contrary view. But you are correct that there are many regular PS posters who provide relevant information and employ logic and reason to explain and support their views. While you and I frequently maintain our respective differing perspectives, I always appreciate our exchanges.
Are there really people out there who don't clean any hair off the soap bar? Ewww. I guess I would be grossed out to find hair dried onto the soap but no one in my household would do that. Ewww.
Well, I had to look it up to remind myself that Michigan actually did win the 2024 national college football championship. Sic transit gloria mundi. —A fellow alum.
But it was fun watching MI beat Alabama. BTW, my kid’s schools (Illinois and Vanderbilt) beat MI and Alabama respectively this year.
Mostly because my skin needs it, I pack my own skin-friendly bar soap when I travel. The few times I’ve forgotten, I’m reminded how icky the hotel shower squeeze bottles are.
The ethics issue for Johnson's CPS leave-of-absence is obvious. But it raised other questions for me. Johnson has not taught in CPS since 2011. I could not find any start date, but my assumption is that his leave started in 2012 when he became a CTU employee. Whatever leave status he is on, it is not described in the CPS or CTU websites. In the real-world leaves are for short terms and even unpaid leaves are rarely more than a year.
So, what is Johnson's situation with his decades long leave? My guess is that this is another occurrence of the bizarre pension rules that provide bloated pensions to public employees, especially the union employees and political ones. I can't recall the guy's name, but a few years ago there was a mini scandal when it was reported that he returned to teach for one day after a couple of decades of leave which 'earned' him a full pension with a high pay calculation.
I would like to know what the actual financial and pension benefit is provided to Johnson and the specific leave type and terms he has been granted. It would also be interesting to know how many others have the same deal.
Amen, brother! Can someone remind me of the name of the politician that a few years ago substituted for one day and earned a teacher’s pension?
If you have a peanut allergy, you should not eat them. Otherwise, they are a nutritious and economical food source. If you have dry skin, you probably should not use bar soap. Otherwise, it is economical and utilitarian. As for the "slivers", they will adhere when wet to a new bar of soap. No need to waste them.