BLOG POSTS

How long is a roll of wallpaper?

As one who owned a professional painting and decorating business in the UK for a number of years, I can tell you the answer. It’s thirty-three feet, or 10.05 meters. It always was thirty-three feet, or 10.05 meters, and there’s no reason not to believe it always will be.

If you think I might be wrong, please check out the links at the foot of this page.^[1][2]

It’s important that a roll of wallpaper be thirty-three feet, or 10.05 meters, because that allows for at least three drops per roll on most walls, even if the pattern drop is 20 – 24 inches.

If a roll of wallpaper was, say, sixteen and a half feet long, and the pattern drop was twenty inches, even on an eight foot high wall only one drop of paper could be utilized, leaving a near useless length of around seven feet.

One drop to a roll! Ridiculous! No-one could entertain that. The waste would make it economically unviable.

On this side of the Atlantic, Americans agree. Thirty-three feet, or 10.05 meters, is the right length for a roll of wallpaper.

Well, actually two rolls of wallpaper – in one roll.

A roll of American wallpaper is sixteen and a half feet long (I kid you not!). But as sixteen and a half feet is useless for wallpapering, US wallpaper manufacturers combine one roll into two rolls, but on one roll, if you get my drift?

Don’t worry if you don’t. I didn’t for quite some time. The whole idea is so ridiculous the human brain doesn’t handle it well – until, you realize the reason why US wallpaper manufacturers have devised this convoluted system.

They charge twice as much. They sell a single roll of thirty-three feet as a ‘double’ roll, and charge you double for it. I guess that’s why it’s called a ‘double’ roll! Of course, they’d like you to believe you’re getting twice as much on your roll, but you’re not. Thirty-three feet has been an industry standard for wallpaper rolls for forty-odd years, to my knowledge.

Recently, I purchased eight rolls of wallpaper. The website of the Sherwin-Williams Company advertised the paper at “$22.49 a roll”. They also stated, “This wallpaper is packaged in two rolls. It is priced in single rolls.”

I ordered eight rolls, expecting to receive four packages of two rolls, shrink-wrapped together, each thirty-three feet long. What I received was four individual rolls thirty-three feet long – only half as much paper as I’d expected and needed, each costing, not $22.49 but $44.98. The label informed me these individual rolls were ‘double’ rolls of paper.

To proceed with my decorating I would have to purchase double the amount of paper I’d received, at double the price. Nearly $360.00 for eight rolls of wallpaper.

No wonder they call them ‘double’ rolls. This is an obvious case of ‘double-dealing’.

To perpetrate such a scam in the United Kingdom would never be tolerated.

But then, I guess that’s what marks the difference between the evil Socialism, and Capitalism.

^{[1] “Wallpapers Direct (UK)”}

^{[2] “Ask.com}

Postscript: Since writing this article, I’ve priced a similar wallpaper in the UK. It works out substantially cheaper to purchase in the UK and have it shipped, than to buy one’s wallpaper on High Street, USA.

At last, Americans have the reassurances they’ve waited for. We can all come out onto the streets and dance in celebration after today’s speech at the Woodrow Wilson International Center, by John Brennan, Deputy National Security Advisor for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, and Assistant to the President.

I swear these titles become more absurd with every passing Administration!

According to John Brennan, drone strikes are ‘legal, ethical, necessary and proportional, overseen with extraordinary care and thoughtfulness, and especially when the target is an American citizen’…though slightly less care and thoughtfulness is involved when the victims happen to be an innocent wedding party, or a group of Pakistani schoolkids playing happily outside their homes.

^{John Brennan}

Take a moment to study the face of this man, imbued with ‘extraordinary care and thoughtfulness’.

It’s been a source of disquiet for (just a few) Americans that the technological achievement of robotic airborne assassination was, perhaps, less than ethical in its usage. John Brennan has now put their fears to rest.

Unfortunately, for the small minority of inconvenient souls not quite ready to swallow wholesale the propaganda of those so arrogant as to believe any utterance they make will be readily accepted as divine truth by the masses, John Brennan failed to supply any references to back up his nauseating statements.

Who, exactly, has reached the perilous conclusion that death dealt from the skies, without trial or justice, is legal, ethical, necessary and proportional? Did John Brennan consult the God Almighty on this issue, or even the head of his own Christian church?

Has he even consulted a dictionary?

Ethics

1. pertaining to or dealing with morals or the principles of morality; pertaining to right and wrong in conduct.

2. being in accordance with the rules or standards for right conduct or practice.

Where, in the name of sanity, is the morality, the rule or standard of right conduct, that decrees it acceptable to summarily apply the death penalty to persons thought to be possibly, or maybe, or remotely, likely to inflict some minor trauma on the Great United States of America? Surely, it can only reside, like some great malignant neoplasm, inside John Brennan’s head.

John Brennan added this postscript to his message:

…drone strikes usually take place with the co-operation of the host government, in full accordance with the law.”

Here, it seems, the Deputy National Security Advisor for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, and Assistant to the President, has become totally confused over his words, perhaps, as a result of that cancerous tumor. He apparently used the adverb, ‘usually’, when he meant to say, ‘rarely’.

We know this to be true, as most airborne assassinations occur over Pakistan, and John Brennan will be more aware than most of us that the Pakistan government has been demanding the cessation of these cold-blooded killings almost since their inception.

John Brennan must be a very confused man. He’s obviously in need of a vacation. Where better than some peaceful haven, away from the trials, tribulations, and responsibilities of life in the Obama administration. (Sorry, I used the word, ‘trial’ illegally. It’s now been deleted from the American dictionary, considered unnecessary).

I’ve heard the mountainous areas of northern Pakistan can be delightful at this time of year, and would prove a suitably recuperative resort for our Deputy National Security Advisor for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, and Assistant to the President.

Though, a word of caution Mister Brennan, I’ve heard it pays to keep an eye on the sky.

It’s not often that Sparrow Chat lends its support to a religious organization. Regular readers will be aware of the distaste this publication has for hierarchical, organized, religion. As a means of controlling large groups of the populace, and making vast sums of money into the bargain, religion is one of the greatest marketing, and propaganda, tools ever devised.

Today, though, the Catholic nuns of America have Sparrow Chat’s wholehearted support. A male-dominated, Mafia-style organization, known as the Vatican is accusing them of promoting ‘political views at odds with those expressed by U.S. Roman Catholic bishops, “who are the church’s authentic teachers of faith and morals.”‘

From Reuters:

The Vatican chastised the nuns for airing discussions about the ordination of women, the church patriarchy and ministry to gay people.

The Vatican also rebuked the nuns for spending too much time “promoting issues of social justice” while failing to speak out often enough about “issues of crucial importance to the life of the church and society,” such as abortion and gay marriage.

Determined to cleanse the sisterhood of “radical feminist themes incompatible with the Catholic faith,” the Vatican appointed Archbishop J. Peter Sartain of Seattle to effectively take control of the Leadership Conference, rewriting its statutes, supervising its meetings, and investigating its relationships with politically active groups.^[1]

The second paragraph of that Reuters quote encompasses much that is wrong with the Roman Catholic Church:

“The Vatican also rebuked the nuns for spending too much time “promoting issues of social justice””

Social justice is never a priority for the Catholic Church. The Vatican is much more concerned with maintaining its hold over the faithful by pious doctrine and false moral teachings.

Women have never held any position of equality in this medieval organization. They are downtrodden, expected to be subservient to their male ‘superiors’, and above all, not allowed to think for themselves.

Being male in the Catholic Church has many advantages. A man can become Pope, even though his youth was spent as a Nazi. Male priests can sexually abuse young boys and girls while enjoying the protection of their bishops and cardinals.

While the nuns of America toil to do the work of their Savior, the men of the cloth preen their egos by sitting around pontificating over contraception, abortion, and the evils of being gay.

Can anyone doubt for one moment to which group Jesus of Nazareth would have pledged his support?

^{[1] “Vatican crackdown on U.S. nuns a long time brewing” Reuters, April 20th 2012}