Don't you hate it when the articles you are reading do not tell you what you want to hear? I came across an article, "Our hand-cleaning paranoia," that I thought would be excellent support for my rant against our germ-obsessed culture, particularly in relation to raising young children. But no, the article is actually in favor of people washing their hands. I still think that some people's cleaning habits do border on paranoia. (Apparently a relation of mine, while visiting my parents, constantly wipes everything down with Clorox bleach wipes.) But perhaps there are some simple habits that we need to adopt. However, I still think a trend towards outright cleanliness paranoia may end up harming consequent generations more than it will help.
Look at that: I gave a viewpoint that wasn't exactly in line with my own beliefs, and didn't completely belittle it. Just like how Fox News does it...
Speaking of trends, and quality news sources, I was doing some high-brow reading the other day in Reader's Digest. (Give me a break. I'm in the middle of Cloudsplitter and I recently read A Confederacy of Dunces and some Salman Rushdie.) In an article about "Fads that have to go," the RD was right there with me on some things: I'm looking at you, Mister Talking-on-the-cellphone-in-the-public restroom. But some of the fads (not all are listed in the online version) just seemed a little to ranting-for-the-sake-of-ranting. Really, you're going to complain about flatbread? Without it, how could I make my homemade cheesy gordita crunch, which makes the Taco Bell version seem like dog food? Of course, I support ranting--it's one of my favorite hobbies--but I at least want a logical foundation to the rant.
Lastly, I'm sure we all know that Big Brother is watching us, via our cell phones and the Google. But it still unnerves me how much information can be learned through technology about our personal lives. Soon it might be time to go off the grid.