...and Lay Flat (to Dry)

If you haven't already, check out the washing instructions on most athletic gear. Like I, you've likely memorized the robotic tag directions (before smugly ripping the nasty, itchy little inhibitory bit of chicanery out of its seam and hurling it with satisfaction into the trash, where it belongs- certainly not at the base of a human neck, or pecking at one's waist): MACHINE WASH COLD, HANG OR LAY FLAT TO DRY. What are the manufacturers thinking when they make this clothing? Perhaps they are...preoccupied with maintaining the precious, synthetic veneer of the fabric? God knows. They certainly aren't thinking about how quickly bacteria spreads.
Take, for example,a quality pair of cycling shorts. They have a crotch pad for cushioning, yes? They're built to help the wearer remain on the bike, whose proportionally much-larger-than-the-narrow-Isthmus-of-Panama-seat bedonkidonk will be there for a good, long while. And during that long while, it is highly probable that the rider will sweat, and ooze, in the words of Dr. Strangelove, "precious, bodily fluids." These "precious bodily fluids" will seep into the crotchpad of those shorts. Why would one invite, yea, prolong the inevitable growth of bacteria in the shorts (and in the very area of the shorts that is indeed most sensitive for human beings) by washing them delicately in cold water after a ride? Does cold water kill bacteria? I mean, unless you are Lance Armstrong or Connie Carpenter and you can afford to buy a pair of cycling shorts at about a hundred dollars a pop and throw them away at the end of a ride, I have news for you: a delicate cold water wash minus the heat of the dryer is merely going to spread that bacteria all around. Mmm, mm, good.
The same thing is true for swimsuits, running shorts, and the like.
Lest you do not understand, in graphic terms, the consequences of the habitual, ritual, and perpetual cold-water wash of sporting apparel, let me further 'splain, Lucy, 'splain.
Staph bacteria is highly contagious; there are whole mutant forms of staph growing in many of the gymnasiums and locker rooms of this country, undetected, which are totally resistant to all of the classes and types of antibiotics made by and known to man. A person himself or herself may be very clean and have superb hygiene; however, let that person sit on a locker room bench which incidentally has even a spore of staph on its surface in those sweaty cycling shorts or tights after a spinning class and then go home and naively follow the manufacturer's instructions for washing. Hmm. Let's see, cool water, no dryer, and I see a huge boil, at the very least, on this person's rear end in a couple of weeks. Worse: I see a serious cyclist with normal abrasion (from riding so much) literally having said staph bacteria ground into his/her genital area on consecutive rides and a trip to the emergency room which may or may not resolve the now life-threatening infection. How do I know this? I've seen it happen to someone I love, and it is frightening, and it is unnecessary.
The manufacturers of sporting apparel must be mandated by congress to change their tags to include updated information and washing instructions for wearers of their pieces. Corporations that produce clothing for athletes should be required to issue a health warning (much like the tobacco companies must publish on the side of each box or carton of cigarettes)regarding the vulnerability of the fabric to bacteria growth when subjected to human warmth and moisture, along with specific instructions to wash the garment in hot water and dry it thoroughly in a hot dryer EACH TIME the piece is used. Further, manufacturers need to purposely cut the articles of clothing that they make and sell at least one size larger on purpose and indicate in the tag that this is done to ensure room for shrinkage. If the buyer then chooses to still purchase an article of athletic garb that fits at the time of purchase, he/she does so at his/her own risk.

Since When is the Rightful Maintenence and Distribution of Social Security a "Bailout?"

In perusing the news headlines the other day, one in particular caught my increasingly myopic eyes. "Wall Street Bailout First, Car Industry Second, and Now, Social Security." Since when has the minimal insurance policy that we Americans have technically been paying into since we were old enough to work, essentially our OWN bank account, then, been lumped together with the bailout for freeloaders on Wall Street and for their trickle-down nieces and nephews, those head-cracking car-business carnies? I was, am still stunned.
To my knowledge, Social Security was set up by the Roosevelt Administration in the wake of the Great Depression precisely to preempt the need for some sort of massive financial onus upon the government for the unemployed aging population in this country. It was a way, in a sense, of making the American worker responsible for himself, even if and when the banks and/or the government could not be. Clearly, then, if I have been contributing (a.k.a. having money taken even if I don't want it to be) to Social Security since I began working as a sixteen-year-old, and I am forty-eight now, what "bailout" would I, could I possibly need? How could my account be empty? No, my account, which the government forced me and millions of other working Americans to establish, should have the money in it that I contributed, plus whatever interest it has accrued. (Not to mention the taxes I, we, have all been paying over our lifetimes, which too should guarantee that the money is there. You can see the steam coming from my ears now.) Is the government telling me that somehow, that money is NOT in my account? Who has been dinking with my money, then (I really want to use stronger language)? And beyond that, even if the government could somehow come up with some sort of daffy explanation as to "where have all the dollars gone, long time passing?" that isn't enough. The fact that the money is gone is criminal, and the government must replace it. Childish and naive view? Of course. But this is my bank account we're talking about here, folks, mine and yours. And what's right is right. Yet on top of that, if there could even be something more disturbing than this revelation and consequently the need to demand what is rightfully ours and see it restored is the mentality of the purported leaders of this nation that is disclosed when they call the essential responsibility of replacing our missing Social Security funds a "bailout." What are these people thinking? Or rather, how are they thinking? Are they thinking?