Poverty Is No Excuse for India’s Shitting Problem

EPGAH writes:

And no, a sewage system is never “beyond reach due to poverty”. Britain installed one when the British ran India, what happened to it?

If they cannot run their own country, why don’t they admit it and give the country back to those who did a better job?

The whole problem seems to stem from their pride and their funny idea of being an “independent” country. You’re not really “independent” if another country pays your bills and takes in your excess population.

Let’s see, paying your bills, and picking up your shit…Don’t we call that a “pet”?

The rich people in India run the country. They are called “conservatives.” They believe in minimal government, just like conservatives do everywhere. India is a good example of what you get when you put conservatism’s minimal government madness in place. What you get is a 3rd world shithole. All 3rd world shitholes have one thing in common – they have almost no government whatsoever.

The government at all levels in India is only 5% the size of the US government at all levels. In other words, the US has a government at all levels that is 20X larger than India’s. India’s government is starved for money because the rich pay no taxes like in most of the Third World. The rich who run the government simply refuse to build toilets for all of those poor people because those rich people do not want to spend one fat dime on India’s poor.

Further, India is not too poor to build toilets, so poverty is no excuse. For instance, Moldova has the exact same per capita income as India. In other words, Moldova is just as poor as India. Everybody in Moldova’s cities has a working flush toilet, and I believe there is an up to par sewage treatment system. There is a bit of a shitting problem in Moldova’s countryside, but it’s not due to people shitting on the ground. Instead, the toilets in the countryside are for the most part outhouses. Outhouses are ok, but bottom line is having outhouses in your rural areas to deal with sewage is not going to solve the problem because at some point, the outhouses become a problem themselves.

Therefore, since India is just as poor as Moldova, India could easily install toilets for all of its urban residents and outhouses for all of its rural residents and a working sewage treatment system in the cities.

Poverty is no excuse. India has a shitting problem simply because India defiantly refuses to spend the money to fix the problem.

36 Comments

Filed under Asia, Conservatism, Europe, Government, Health, India, Political Science, Public Health, Regional, Social Problems, Sociology, South Asia

36 responses to “Poverty Is No Excuse for India’s Shitting Problem

  1. India as all Westerners have known it since Vasco de Gama has no civilisation. When people shit in the streets, there in no material civilisation whatever worthy of any name : in Haïti, the poorest and most corrupt country of its hemisphere, there is no such thing as running water, but you have to shit onto specific latrines or into particular ditches rather than others (even though the pigs are roaming everywhere about the shanties), not anywhere, that is the local custom enforced by the street kidnapping gangs themselves who will kidnap and ransom the first man who deliberately opens his pants in the middle of the public space, even though the government is nasty to the point of dumping garbage in the streets instead of picking it just to intimidate the people. It is not only a matter of economic justice but of general attitude you can see in all enterprises Indian operate overseas, including in their supposed forte, yoga and spirituality. Indians shit in the street in order to shit on people who live in the street, they believe that making poorer people more unhappy by shitting onto their heads casually and also ritually will bring economic luck to themselves. Haiti has a primitive, rudimentary, low-IQ civilization. India has got no such thing as civilization.

  2. Halal Butcher of Lhasa

    The problem is far more complex than ‘not enough govt’ or lack of money. I have pondered the issues for a while and my conclusion is besides lack of funds and poverty,the followings are also main consideration..
    1)Why not let the hot south Asian sun to sterilize the shit. The average toilet there could be just a hole in the ground and the shit could leak into and contaminate the ground water.
    2)It’s their culture,no one’s else. And they are obsessed with shit..
    “..Mahatma Gandhi, obsessed with fads about diet and defecation,..”
    http://mcomments.outlookindia.com/story.aspx?sid=4&aid=204110
    3)For 3rd world country like india, shit is fertilizer. ‘God resides in cow dung”
    http://news.discovery.com/human/health/cow-dung-medicine-spiritual-india.htm
    4)With the help of Japanese technology,they can turn cow dung into ‘steak’
    http://www.dailytech.com/Japanese+Make+Delicious+Nourishing+Steaks+From+Human+Feces/article21932.htm.
    5)The ever presence of shit actually foster immunity against bacteria and toxins.. Even indian bank notes are infested with ‘Delhi belly’ bacteria which can send non-indian tourists to hospital sick beds

  3. Jason Y

    Robert, no offense, but your anti-India articles are cheered on by the far right, cause it seems (thought it’s not true) like your saying lower caste Indians are sub-human.

    • People who love to treat others as sub-human by shitting on them or by shitting everywhere on the downtrodden’s premises for them to pick up literally just do not deserve to be called human, not even clean animals. Apart from that, I love many.many things about Indian culture and far more Indians than most do, but there is no such thing as a material civilization in that country.

      • Jason Y

        But didnt you get what I was saying? They have to shit on the street. They don’t have a choice. The government won’t build a sanitation system for them, and they’re too poor to build one themselves.

  4. EPGAH

    But America a long time ago had a minimalist Government and was what Liberals nowadays would call a bunch of “Dumb Redneck Hick Farmers”, how come we didn’t shit in the streets?

    Hell, even if you go to Tennessee now, the parts that aren’t Nashville, you have no chance of stepping in HUMAN shit! Why is that?
    If I’m picking on Tennessee too much, then pick whatever part YOU consider “Dumb Redneck Hick Farmers”?

    As Halal hinted, it’s a culture problem, not a Government problem.

    • Jason Y

      Minimal government worked when the US was full of farmers (Of course, the slavery thing caused a problem for it back in the day.) However, with the rise of big business, minimal government simply meant enslavement to large companies and monopolies. Look how a little minmial government, as in the case of repealing stock market regulations, caused the 2008 crash.

    • Kartoffeln

      Not everything can be attributed to “culture”. I agree with Robert here, India has a government problem. Indian leaders (if one can call them that) have made a good joke of democracy by grouping people under caste (or linguistic) groups to stay in power, in return for keeping their influence out of the general lives of people. The government has not penetrated enough and India has failed to understand the notion of a modern nation, while it still pretends to be one. India has laws on the surface, but it often runs on arbitrary rules and personal or group conveniences.

      Anyone who has been to India can tell how little the interaction between different castes and different economics groups are. Why does one actually expect them to share closed public toilets? It’s all much easier to take a dump in open public spaces, which Indians rarely consider their own, which goes to show how non-inclusive the lazy governments have been.

  5. Johnny

    India is a curious country in that it’s the primary inheritor of British India and before that the so-called Muslim Raj. The masses have rarely taken part in any real democratic process other than following demagogues who turn up quite often. In fact, some have asked how was this massive region conquered so many times? Because the masses were never part of the political process due to the caste system. With that said, British India was not as positive for this region as I once believed. In fact, it was not positive for the people in Britain itself (just reading Charles Dickens shows just how little the spoils of the empire went to the majority population) whereas Germany, without much of an empire, became a self-reliant industrial giant that challenged most of its neighbors and beyond in two world wars. Getting back to India, its current US-inspired neoliberal system has led to a slowly growing middle class and wealth concentration at the top while the masses remain in poverty. Worse still is this issue of sewage. Without some sort of, frankly, redistribution of wealth to pay for infrastructure and uplifting the masses (as China has been doing) India will continue on this path. It’s also a great warning country of where an unregulated crony capitalist society can end up (not necessarily with filth in the streets). By creating a system that rewards the few the many essentially not only suffer, but create an unlivable landscape.

    I recall recently watching an episode of the excellent news series Vice on HBO and the focus was on India. A very wealthy industrialist was interviewed and he was quite interested in showing off his wealth, but was beyond contemptuous of the people around him, shooing people away if they got to close etc. I was struck by one thing, what’s the point of this one guy amassing money and then buying luxury items (while probably hoarding the rest)? No jobs created, no social progress and you’d think he would be concerned about the environment around him. Not at all.

    India would do well to follow a different path, but the problem is it has a corrupt political process that is largely democratic (excluding secessionist political parties makes it fall short of say the US and Europe though) and would not be easy to fix. In short, they would need some truly courageous leadership to really make wealth work for the country’s development and not the enrichment of the few. A trajectory that every GOP debate reminds me we are headed towards if one of them (take your pick, The Donald, Cruz, Rubio etc) gets into the white house.

    • The British Raj did no good to India even though the evil had already been done by the Muslim invaders. The British intervened like an apathetic witness of a highway robbery who just clubbed the robber in his turn to get the money for himself.

      • Johnny

        I mean that’s the thing, the way that particular society (it’s not alone, China was very similar) was set-up (in a manner similar to Europe as well when the Romans arrived in places like Gaul) it left the masses ever more disconnected from the rulers. If anything the British needed the local powers (Muslim, Hindu and Sikh royals mostly) to be at loggerheads with each other. The so-called divide and conquer method, which worked great, especially with the residual caste system.

        The Muslims were nomadic and tribal when they arrived (from the Turkic groups through to the Afghans), but the Mughal Empire was significantly better than the British Empire for the masses. Yet it’s also comparing apples to oranges given their differences and the coming modernity.

        • EPGAH

          The terrorists are still tribal, but there’s enough of them, and they can buy modern enough armaments, that they’re a threat to civilization, from Cologne to Canada–and of course, America!

      • EPGAH

        Yes, of course, the terrorists were only there for the Greater Good, right?
        Not to steal the Indian numeric symbols and call them Arabic numerals?

        https://themuslimissue.wordpress.com/2015/08/31/islamic-invasion-of-india-the-greatest-genocide-in-history/
        I wonder what they mean by “Greatest Genocide In History”?

        And of course, the terrorists broke off a piece of India and made Pakistan.

        • Johnny

          The Muslim invaders who came into South Asia aren’t quite the same as those of today. They had no modernity to view in comparison to their way of life so that’s incorrect to paint them all in the past as the same. In their day everybody ruled with force.

          No, the Muslims came to India because they could conquer it. India was also invaded by the Aryans, Scythians and numerous other groups. Okay, I really have to question your sources here. I studied some of this period in college (a survey course on the gunpowder empires of the Ottomans, Safavids and Mughals). They did not kill 400 million people. That’s just so wrong I don’t know where to begin. Do you have actual evidence besides the supposed statement of one person? Man, get a grip. Do you even view people as human or just as groups now? The population was something 100 million in 1600: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_India

          And I’d like to know how thousands of invaders somehow killed hundreds of millions of people? Did they put them in gas chambers. Do you really believe they were better at killing than the Nazis or Soviets?

          No, Pakistan was formed by secular Muslim nationalists (just as Israel was formed by secular Jewish Zionists). Jinnah, the founder, even drank alcohol and his daughter married a non-Muslim. Pakistan was formed from a region that was associated with Indo-Islamic civilization in the east (Punjab and Sind) and Afghanistan and Iran in the west (Khyber and Baluchistan). India was never a real country (British India was part of an empire as a region that stretched into Burma which is not very “Indian”) until nationalists started thinking it was in the 19th century. Indian academics simply don’t take this view. Again, it pays to actually study this stuff and not read someone’s blog whose intent is to paint entire populations as sub-human monsters. In my view, “India” would have been better off as several countries, but not everyone would agree with that. See, that’s the difference between my own POV and something that can be proven with data.

        • Johnny

          Again, I just got through saying I don’t blame the British for creating an empire. The Mughals were considered part of the civilized world back then. They were quite advanced in various fields and the Europeans viewed them as peers.

          Yes I studied the Ottoman Empire. They tried to conquer Europe, I know. What’s that have to do with anything? The Crusaders tried to conquer the Holy Land (and were a very interesting group, some of whom became quite enlightened and tried to learn from the more advanced Islamic world at the time) as well. This isn’t news. You can’t draw a correlation from then to now. The Turkey of today is not the Ottoman Empire. I’m still not getting what relevance this has. The British, French and Spaniards all created vast empires as well. And the Brits used pirates to attack Spain. So what? That’s the past and I’m not blaming them or holding them to modern standards as I’ve stated already. I know I stated they invaded because they could. Why did the French go to Indochina and seize it? Because they could. Not seeing any parallels here at all?

          Yeah I don’t agree with the rest about Orcs or whatever.

        • EPGAH

          I’m talking about the modern Moslems, pretending to be refugees, then raping and murdering the people gullible enough to let them in.

          The rest of the world grew up, became less violent. The Moslem Cult didn’t.
          Why is that?
          I’m holding MODERN Moslems to MODERN standards.

          Or should I hold them to lower standards because “They Don’t Know Any Better”? And if so, how many centuries will it take before they DO know better, and shouldn’t we keep them corralled until then?

          And as to the “More Advanced Moslems”, where do you get that? All the Moslems did was steal tech from one place and force it into another. Everything they “invented” was actually made by their Dhimmi slaves, or even Rome before they even invaded! From public baths to streetlamps to Algebra.
          Algebra just wasn’t CALLED that before the terrorists got their hands on it!
          Abu Ja’far lived between 780 and 850 AD; algebra initiated in ancient Babylon, Egypt, and Athens, 2,500 years before Abu Ja’far was born.
          What’s 2.5 millennia between enemies, right?
          If you try to credit them with inventing flying before Da Vinci, Firnas threw on a pair of manmade wings, jumped…and broke his back. On the bright side, Firnas probably helped them “learn” why human-powered flight was impractical with the materials of the time!

          The French, English, and even arguably the Spanish all tried to upgrade the places they went, rather than sit around demanding Protection Money while others worked. Sure, they may have made the savages work, but they also brought a minimum of 400 years progress in months!

          I knew about the British pirates, but Moslems are pirates NOW!
          There is not one Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindi, Scientologist or even Atheist pirate off the coast of Somalia and Nigeria. Why is that?
          And for that matter, why hasn’t there been a massive push to obliterate the pirates and their home ports like there was before? Who is Somalia valuable to other than the pirates themselves? Without a massive(ly painful) rebuke from the Civilized World, they’ll keep doing it!

    • EPGAH

      Germany was not a self-reliant industrial giant. They had to BUY or CONQUER all the resources, starting with iron from Finland.
      Cut off their supply chain and they’re Finnish before they started!
      (Yes, I stole Robert’s joke)

      The MAJORITY population of England benefited from the Empire. People who didn’t participate in the economy got no benefit. Think of the current “low” gas prices–people without cars don’t benefit. Of course, if you don’t make anything other than more people like yourself and trouble, why SHOULD you benefit?

      India was its single largest trading partner. India supplied raw material and provided a huge market for British goods. In the late 1800s, British exports to India accounted for over 20% of their total exports. A significant number. By the early 1900s, Britain was sending in excess of 150 Million Pounds worth of goods to India. Indian exports to Britain like cotton, tea, spices ended up as finished goods in India or were further exported to other countries. In fact this was one of the reasons that Tilak’s (and later Gandhi’s) call for Boycott of British goods touched a raw nerve.

      Why should that one guy give to panhandlers? They don’t benefit him, they don’t benefit India. They have no skills, he couldn’t hire them. There are factories for unskilled workers in India…Are the bums in the street too good to work there? The Lib meme is that foreign scum do the Jobs Americans Don’t Want. But who does the jobs foreign scum don’t want?

      How is this guy an “industrialist” if he doesn’t create jobs? Industrialist, by definition, means he runs factories or mines or something. Even Tony Stark and Bruce Wayne hired people in their respective fictional universes.
      And of course, whatever luxury goods he had, SOMEONE had to build them. If they were built by machines, someone had to build the machines, and so on.

      And of course, without Britain’s upgrades, outsourcing tech jobs to and bringing H1B scabs from India would elicit a curious look or outright laughter from anyone you mentioned them to. (Assuming an Alternate Universe where Britain never kicked out the terrorists and upgraded India.)

      • Johnny

        Germany took a very different path without an empire to be successful. They also had lots of resources in places like the Ruhr Valley: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruhr

        An empire can also be something people depend upon rather than having a society that is more self-reliant. Surely a conservative would agree with this?!

        Which stat shows that the majority of Brits benefited from the spoils of the empire? And are we including the costs they had to bear to maintain it just so a few people could grow rich? They quit the empire because it was too expensive and due to pressure after WW2. Again, a university course can clear all this up. Most empires suffer this same fate when dealing with the cost to benefit ratio and size.

        India wasn’t a trading partner, it was a place to get raw materials and then purchase goods. You generally have to be an independent entity to be considered a trading partner. Really though we have on real idea how India would have been without the British: http://www.ggdc.net/MADDISON/articles/moghul_3.pdf

        There is evidence that the Mughals were doing a pretty fair job for much of their rule as well: http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00islamlinks/ikram/part2_17.html

        Lots of speculation though as to what might have been. It was definitely not richer in terms of the masses when the British had left though. Not that I blame them per se. They were imperialists like the Mughals and left behind a mess though (an incomplete partition that should have been completed before they left). It’s usually better not to judge people so harshly in the past since they simply didn’t have our standards of civilizations nor did they have the levels of access to information that are now available.

        Much of the world, by this perspective, was trading more globally if you include internal empire “trade.”

        Your takeaway is that he may not be an industrialist and you’re naming Iron Man and Batman as examples?! Do you mean Bill Gates or Elon Musk perhaps? I never said he should give to panhandlers. I do think he should consider doing something that would benefit his country though yeah. He drives a few miles from his house and there’s poverty and the sewage issue right there. The neoliberal mindset at work here. Take everything and who cares what else happens.

        Generally, companies are the ones who look for cheap labor (i.e. the scabs in your view). They set the policy that govts then go along with. Do you really believe Obama or Cameron are sitting around going we need to get more scabs to work in our country so that companies can pay them less than our own workers?! Seriously, I really don’t know where you’re going with any of this stuff. Have you ever actually sat in a classroom and studied these places, time-periods and economic and political theories?

      • EPGAH

        Cost:Size ratio is what I brought up when you started talking about Cuba being able to take care of their whole population–when it’s less than NYC ALONE!

        As to self-reliant, that’s a whole other topic. I consider going to a new land and taming savage land and savages ON the land to be the ULTIMATE self-reliance. Brave and a little crazy.

        What costs did they have to bear that taxes from an increased business wouldn’t pay and then some? It was once said that “What’s Good For GM is Good For America”. So for Britain it would be “What’s Good For East India Company is Good For Britain”?
        Someone had to build all that infrastructure. Trains don’t just assemble themselves. Even if they had the Indians lay the track, where did the trains come from?

        Thank you for admitting we have “on” (I assume you meant “no”?) real idea how it would’ve been without them. But the whole idea of Mercantilism and Enumerated Goods was to set up dummy COUNTRIES and trade among them.

        How could they complete the partition? Would the ingrates of India stop attacking them long enough to let them do that?

        I don’t even know whom you’re talking about. But first you say he’s an industrialist, then you say he creates no jobs. All industrialists, even in fiction create jobs. In fiction, they don’t even HAVE to create jobs, they could be handwaved rich in a company or royal position that does nothing!
        But at least the more realistic fictions have underlings and office politics!
        Elon Musk has been called the real-world Iron Man, so sure.
        I mentioned him in a reply to you on another thread.

        People and even Corporations CAN create infrastructure, but why would they do that when it would be a cost to them, and might benefit their enemies? That’s why we don’t have a coast-to-coast fiber-optic network.
        That’s why the creator of MegaUpload has been cock-blocked in his quest to bring the world free Internet. (Go ahead, make your Kingsmen reference!)

        Building sewers for his employees or his businesses is a good thing, a justifiable expense he will reap the benefits from many times over. Building it for EVERYONE, not so much.

        And please keep in mind, the British had built them magnificent Porcelain Thrones, but they kept growing their population, so a lot of them now have nothing to go on! At risk of “judging people in the past”, how did they NOT know that kicking out their betters would mean no further infrastructure?
        And after doing so, simple math should’ve said “We have X infrastructure, we cannot have more than say 4·X population”. India actually invented Arabic numerals!

        Yes, I DO believe that Liberals in power let in more scabs, regardless of country. (Scabs is a Union term, you’re pro-Union, even for “Public Servants”, so you should know this!)
        Conservatives say “NO! OUR people come first, fuck the scabs, let them be their own country’s problem!”
        Even Reagan, who gets the blame for the first Amnesty, did so because the Democrats promised a wall to keep further illegals out, and of course, it would be the last one (Every one is the Last One–until the NEXT one! We’re now on #11!)
        What happened to that wall? At best, they were negotiating in horrible faith, at worst, they took advantage of a guy with Alzheimers!

        If you truly BELIEVE that Corporations, not Government, make policy, then you can’t complain about deregulation, regardless of party, they’re “Only Following Orders”™ And that makes all the bullshit about left wing, right wing, neoliberal, etc. completely meaningless in the worst sense of the term!

        Yes, I DID take Political Science and History as electives. There’s a lot more electives now required to graduate than when I went to college. You don’t suppose they’re padding the bill, do you?

      • Jason Y

        quote by ep-gah

        The MAJORITY population of England benefited from the Empire. People who didn’t participate in the economy got no benefit. Think of the current “low” gas prices–people without cars don’t benefit. Of course, if you don’t make anything other than more people like yourself and trouble, why SHOULD you benefit?

        Ep-gah has a point, why are left wingers so extreme in their anti-imperalism, when they benefit so much from imperalism? Thier whole cozy comfortable lifestyle comes from it.

        • EPGAH

          It made the savages’ lives better too–the ones that actually participated.
          “If you work for us, we’ll build you a house WITH A TOILET and working sanitation”. Once again, the ones who sit out, get NOTHING!
          And the ones who actively tried to DESTROY what the British were building, why should they benefit?

          We don’t punish savages because it’s the only way we know how to associate with them. It’s because it works better than trying to be nice and taking their shit all the time.

          Or they kick their betters completely OUT of an area, then once the elation of “victory” is over, bitch that they don’t have the amenities and protections we brought.
          Their newfound cozy comfortable lifestyle they wanted to steal and/or claim as birthright came from the people they were murdering and kicking out!

          This happens to a smaller degree within the Civilized World, areas where savages “win” and kick out the cops, promptly start bitching that their betters don’t care about them. To some degree, they may be right, but it’s actually a direct consequence of kicking out their betters.
          If you want the Civilized World to butt out, YOU GOT IT — and everything that goes with it! Like police, sanitation, etc.

        • EPGAH

          What would happen in Germany or Canada, if they set aside an area for the Moslem terrorists, and made sure their own people stayed OUT of that area?

          The terrorists would mourn not having any rape victims, but in a broader sense, they’d turn those areas into the same war-torn Hell they “fled”!
          Like Robert’s earlier lament that Mexican invasion transformed California, only worse!

  6. Stary Wylk

    “Do you really believe Obama or Cameron are sitting around going we need to get more scabs to work in our country so that companies can pay them less than our own workers?!”
    If that isn’t what they want, why do they facilitate that?

    As for India and shitting on the ground: I suppose they all hate each other and enjoy their fantasies of others stepping in shit. It’s not that difficult to bury it. I was once caught out in the woods with diarrhea. I wiped my ass with ferns and buried the mess with a branch.

    In the book of Exodus the Hebrews were enjoined to shit outside the camp and take a “paddle” with them to cover it so God wouldn’t get his feet dirty. This tells us that the Babylonians already had that figured out.

    Does anyone here know if Pakis or Bangladeshis shit on the ground?

    • EPGAH

      It could be their shit manners, or coprophilic fantasies, or it could be their culture has made them apathetic, when they get dumped on, or step in it, they take it as “Shit Happens”.

      The irony is, the Western world–even on this blog–envies that and calls it a “Well-Adjusted Attitude”! It’s taken as a positive to say “Oh, well, that’s the way life is”, rather than by opposing, end the problem.
      https://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2016/01/16/the-final-three-steps-of-wisdom/#comment-249963
      This is why I consider apathy a bad thing, although again, taken to an extreme I never considered.

  7. Hey Robert is this Indian woman really considered a caucasoid?

    • I am not sure, but if you take away her dark skin and put white skin on her instead, her face looks like a white woman’s, does it not?

      Some South Indian types like Tamils have Australoid skulls.

      • SHI

        She’s beautiful in a spooky way. Women like that belong to the lowest rung of India’s socioeconomic ladder (and caste).

        I’d say give her a proper head-to-toe wash with Bvlgari toileteries, sanitize her entire body with a disinfecting cleaner, use an electric brush to remove all that plaque and tartar accumulated over yeas of foul dental hygiene, a bit of operation to fix that nose and once she’s ready, send her over to Switzerland for finishing school.

        And behold, I believe she has what it takes to be the next supermodel to walk the ramp.

        • Optimus Prime

          She must be belonging to a tribal group in deep south. South Indians are dark, but not this much. Most People dont look like her.

        • Jason Y

          I’m wondering how australoids went from India to Australia.

        • EPGAH

          Who is going to go through that kind of trouble, when there are millions of people already ready to walk the ramp? Just have to pick one and promote her over her fellows.

          How ARE models or actresses picked or “discovered” anyways?

          Pick your favorite actress/starlet/model bimbo, from Lohan to Scarlet, go to the nearest high school or college, you’ll see at least a DOZEN that look just like her, but without the moolah to back it up!

          Worse, they’ll pay the existing stars MILLIONS, rather than pick one of the lookalikes and pay her maybe A MILLION, she could do just the same job, WITHOUT the ego and ridiculous demands!

        • EPGAH

          1.) Barbra Streisand During a recent visit to London, Barbra Streisand made similar requests at two different hotels. These included rose petals in the toilet, peach colored toilet tissue to match her complexion, and 120 designer bath towels, also in peach.

          2.) Christina Aguilera must have a police escort meet her at the airport and lead her limo because she refuses to deal with traffic. Backstage, she must have a jar of Flintstones Vitamins.

          3.) Mariah Carey insists a new toilet seat and gold faucets are installed in her hotel suite before she checks in. She flies in her own personal bed linens and must have enough of a certain brand of mineral water so she and her dog can bathe in it each day. Also, when on tour Mariah’s dressing room must contain one box of bendy straws, two air purifiers, puppies and kittens (oh dear Lord), an attendant to take her used chewing gum and Cristal champagne.

          4.) David Hasselhoff insists on a life sized cut of himself backstage.

          5.) Paul McCartney No more and no less than 19 six foot tall leafy green plants and four six foot tall plants should adorn his dressing room.

          6.) Yul Brenner Hotel rooms had to be painted a particular shade of beige prior to his stay. The kitchen of his suites had to be stocked with brown eggs, not white.

          7.) Eminem Backstage Eminem must have a masseuse, a Play Station, basket ball hoop, ping pong table, and lots of fast food from different restaurants.

          8.) Rod Stewart Has a special “darkening team” on staff to make sure no light comes into his room when he takes his afternoon nap.

          9.) Justin Timberlake requires someone go around every two hours to disinfect doorknobs.

          These are the ridiculous demands you could dodge if you hired someone with the right LOOK, but no Big Name. Apparently, among the rich, OCD is not treated, but indulged? These are luxuries that Marie Antoinette could never have imagined!

        • EPGAH

          Does this mean “Secondhand Rose” makes “Number Two Rose”?

      • EPGAH

        That could be the next Zombie movie…
        As everyone knows, we don’t have enough Zombie movies/TV shows/videogames.

  8. so whats the sanitation toilet issue like in china mexico africa etc?

    • In China, 7% of the population lacks toilets.

      In Mexico, there are a lot of people shitting on the ground in Mexico City, but at least they use toilet paper, which is more than I can say for the Indians. I am not aware this is a problem elsewhere in Mexico, but I do know that 27% of the sewage in Mexico is untreated.

      There is definitely a toilet problem in West Africa especially, but they people do not like living this way and want something to be done about whereas in India they do not give a shit, literally I suppose. In some West African coastal countries, they like to shit on the beach near the tide line. Apparently they have been doing this forever. So you might have to watch your step if you walk along the beaches of say, Ghana. But even that is better than Indian beaches, where in order to walk down the beach, it looks like you would have to imitate a hopscotch game.

      • EPGAH

        Mexico treats their sewage! They TREAT it as America’s problem by dumping it into the Rio Grande. America’s property, America’s problem!
        Illegals swim through it, thinking it will ward off Border Patrol.
        Some drown. I’m not witty enough to point out the Darwinistic irony there.

        So they dump their shit on us, two-legged or otherwise!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s