As easy as 1-2-3-4

The resourceful Cambodian spirit just might be rubbing off on us. Since living in Cambodia, we’ve become much more passionate about trying to make things at home. Baby wipes are one of those things.

It beats buying packs of wipes every other week or so (no Superstore or Costco where I can buy bulk here in Cambodia), and since we’re using cloth diapers, there isn’t any extra work involved. We just toss the wipes and the diapers into the same pail. We’re washing diapers multiple times a week, what’s an extra few bits of material right?

Homemade wipes are also surprisingly easy to make.

Step 1: Get some fabric and cut it into the size of wipes you want. (I’ve folded mine over for the photo on the left). You could also use baby washclothes. I picked out some soft cotton at the market and had a tailor (I don’t have a sewing machine!) serge the edges.



Step 2: Make baby wipe solution:: Mix a tablespoon of baby soap (any kind will do! I’ve used Johnson’s and Kodomo pictured in the photo) and a tablespoon of baby oil with a cup of water. I usually double the recipe and put it in a larger sized (see right) jar so I don’t have to be mixing ingredients as often.


Step 3: Find a tupperware container – or whatever container you prefer – and layer the wipes inside. I fold mine so that they are easier to pull out of the container.

Step 4: Drizzle the baby wipe solution on the stack of wipes in the container and allow to soak through for a few minutes.

Voila! Your own baby wipes.


One thought on “As easy as 1-2-3-4”

  1. Don’t worry you’re not the only blog I comment on. Talk about me having lots of time on my hands! You’re the one hand making baby wipes and THEN blogging about it…..but it’s for SOCIAL JUSTICE so I understand.

    There are some people who spend all their time writing about feminism, equality or social justice, I spend a lot of my time exposing the fallacies of the doctrines of “social justice” and the totalitarianism that lurks behind the ideas. So I’m just the polar opposite of all those folks you read or learned from in university.

    All these authors of these books you post who influence your thinking, whether they are Marxist or not, consider themselves as an anointed elite….you’re one of the minions that follows them. The anointed elite and their followers are people with a mission to lead others in one way or another to better lives. At the heart of their social vision is the belief that there are “problems” created by existing institutions and that “solutions” to these problems can be excogitated by these intellectuals.

    “Solutions” are not expected by those who see many of the frustrations, ills, and anomalies of life – the tragedy of the human condition-as being due to constraints inherent in human beings, singly and collectively, and in the physical world in which they live. In contrast to the vision of todays anointed, where existing society is discussed largely in terms of its inadequacies and the improvements the anointed have to offer, the tragic vision regards civilization itself as something that requires great and constant efforts merely to be preserved-with these efforts to be based on actual experience, not on “exciting” new theories.

    To those with the vision of the anointed, it is such evils as poverty, crime, war, and injustice which require explanation. To those with the tragic vision, it is prosperity, law, peace, and such justice we have achieved, which require not only explanation but constant efforts, trade-offs, and sacrifices, just to maintain them at their existing levels, much less promote their ehancement over time.

    The two visions differ fundamentally, not only in how they see the world but also in how those who believe in these visions see themselves. If you happen to believe in free markets, judicial reststraints, traditional values, and other features of the tragic vision, then you are just someone who believes in free markets, judicial restraints, and traditional values. But to be for SOCIAL JUSTICE and SAVING THE ENVIRONMENT or to be
    ANTIWAR is more than just a set of beliefs about empirical facts. This vision puts you on a higher moral plane as someone concerned and compassionate, someone who is for peace in the world, a defender of the downtrodden, and someone who wants to preserve the beautify of nature and the planet from being polluted by others less caring. In short, one vision makes somebody special and the other does not. These visions are not symmetrical.

    Because the vision of the anointed is a vision of themselves as well as a vision of the world, when they are defending that vision they are not simply defending a set of hypotheses about external events, they are IN A SENSE DEFENDING THEIR VERY SOULS- and the zeal and even ruthlessness with which they defend their vision are not surprising under these circumstances. But for people with the opposite views, who may for eample believe that most things work out better if left to free markets, traditions, families, etc, these are just a set of hypothesis about external events and their is no huge personal ego stake in whether those hypothesis are confirmed by empirical evidence. Obviously everyone would prefer to be proved right rather than proved wrong but the point here is that there are no such comparable ego stakes involved among believers of the tragic vision.

    This difference may help explain a striking patter that goes back at least two centuries, the greater tendanncy of those with the vision of the anointed social justice saviours (leftists) to see those they disagree with as enemies who are morally lacking.

    Arthur C. Brooks of Syracuse University, sent out to test the extent to which liberals and conservervatives donated money, blood, and time to philathropic endeavors showed that conservatives donated on average noth a larger amount of money and a higher percentage of their income to philanthropic causes, and they donated more hours of their time as volunteers.

    Sometimes the term “social jsutice” is used to provide the semblance of a basis for their arbitrary assertions. But “justification”, even as the term is used in carpentry or printing, means aligning one thing with another. But what are these assertions to be aligned with, other than feelings, visions or groupthink that heppend to prevail amond the intelligentsia? The groupthink of the intelligentsia is still groupthink and their prejudices are still their prejudices.

    The professed beliefs of intellectuals center about their concern for others-especially for the poor, for minorities, for “social justice” and for protecting endangered species and saving the planet. The real questions is: what are their revealed preferences?

    The phrase “unintended consequences” has become a cliche precisely because so many programs and policies, intended for example to make the situation of the less fortunate better have in fact made their situation worse that it is no longer possible to regard good intentions as automatic harbingers of good results. Anyone whose prime concern is improving the lot of the less fortunate would therefore, by this time, after decades of experience with negative “unintended consequences”, see a need not only to invest time and efforts to turn good intentions into policies and programs, but also to invest time and effort afterwards into trying to ferret out answers as to the actual consequences of those policies and programs.

    In short, one of the ways to test whether expressed concerns for the well-being of the less fortunate represent primarily a concern for that well-being or a use of the less fortunate AS A MEANS TO CONDEM SOCIETY, or to seek either political or moral authority over society, would be to see the revealed preferences of intellectuals in terms of how much time and energy they invest in promoting their vision, as compared to how much time and energy they invest in scrutinizing the actual consequenses of things done in the name of that vision and to examine the benefits to the less fortunate created outside that vision and even counter to that vision.

    If the real purpose of social crusades is to make the less fortunate better off, then the actual consequence of such policies as wage control become central and require investigation, in order to avoid “unintended consequences” which have already become widely recognized in the context of many other policies. But if the real purpose of social crusades is to proclaim to oneself to be on the side of the angels, then such investigations have a low priority, if any priority at all, since the goal of being on the side of the angels is accomplished when the policies have been avocated and then institited, after which social crusaders can move on to other issues. The revealed preference of many, if not most, of the intelligentsia and their student recruits has been to be on the side of the angels.

    More later Aimee, my hands are tired,

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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