Thursday, September 23, 2010

Penny Ante

A friend and co-worker got married last weekend. The most interesting station at the reception was the candy bar. In a corner of the room stood a table filled with jars containing a wide variety of penny candies, a smorgasbord of sweets.

Aside from a considerable sugar-buzz, this conglomerate of confections produced a pang of nostalgia. Being old enough to join AARP, I remember the small "Mom & Pop" stores that carried these tasty tidbits. The favorite stores in my hometown were Don's and Keefer's Korner. During school months, by 3:15pm lines of kids clutching nickels awaited their daily candy fix.

Swedish fish, Double Bubble, Mary Janes, Bit O'Honey, paper sheets covered in candy-buttons, atomic fireballs, wax bottles filled with sugary syrup - a veritable cornucopia of candy was crammed into eager mouths. By the 70s, these establishments began dying out. Today, the Internet is the largest purveyor of penny candy. While it's reassuring to be able to purchase these tactile memories of youth, ordering on-line and waiting for delivery doesn't capture the same ambiance of a local store and a queue of classmates. With ubiquitous inflation, a penny no longer suffices.

Some attribute the decline of penny candy's popularity to the inception of shopping malls and the demise of the small family-owned stores, some to the rise of mass-marketing. Browsing a book store, I came across "Whatever Happened to Penny Candy" by Richard Maybury. I expected an nostalgic romp into a world of delicious wonder. What I got was an economic treatise.

Written less onerously than most fiscal tomes; it still wasn't what I expected. Discussion of our free market system modeled on Austrian economics, comparisons of neoclassical and subjective theories of value and methodological individualism did not whet my appetite. I found solace, however, in a pound of gummy bears and some pixie sticks - as ever BB

"Candy is dandy, but liquor is quicker
You can drink all the liquor down in Costa Rica.
Aint nobody's business, but my own." - Taj Mahal





Wednesday, September 15, 2010

Acute Hirsute

One of the secondary sex characteristics of the human male is the increase production of body hair. Through the ages, man has had a love/hate relationship with his facial hair. Some civilizations embraced beards to others they were anathema.

Archaeologists found clam shells believed to be used by Neanderthals to pluck facial hair. Alexander the Great banned the beard from his army to deny foes whiskers for which to grasp his soldiers. The Greeks and Romans saw beards as a sign of virility.

By the 17th century, facial hair fell out of fashion in Europe. Peter the Great so strongly desired to follow the continent's lead that he levied a whisker tax to trim the Boyars' beards. Two centuries later, facial hair experienced a regrowth and entered its Golden Age.

The 19th century saw muttonchops, mustache wax and meticulously manicured beards. No American President sported facial hair until Abraham Lincoln. Abe's beard started a trend and for the next 52 years, all but two chief executives followed suit. The last President with facial hair was William Howard Taft.

"Never trust a man in a beard." 20th century society embraced this adage. A man in a beard must be hiding something. Only bohemians and ne'er-do-wells wore whiskers. Anarchistic beatniks donned goatees as they played the bongos. The word "beard" became slang for subterfuge. Married movie moguls romancing young starlets would attend premieres and galas with their paramours and a good-looking young actor. Said actor was the mogul's "beard" to throw off inquiring gossip columnists.

At first genes, then later corporate policies, gave my facial hair a close shave. However by my 40s, my free spirit manifested itself. For the past 15 years, I have sported a Van Dyck as an outward sign of my non-conformity. Well, that and the tattoos - as ever BB

"There's many a man has more hair than wit." - William Shakespeare

Wednesday, September 1, 2010

All the News in Fits of Pique

Before movable-type, the public received its news by word-of-mouth. People assailed travelers with questions about happenings outside of their parochial environs. By the 15th century, the printing press and use of the vernacular expanded information.

Time marches on...radio and newsreels gave life to the headlines. Television brought these images into our homes. In the 50s, national news took 15 minutes out of the programming day. The 60s expanded coverage to a half hour of national combined with a half hour of local news. Over the next decade coverage increased, and the dam broke in 1980 when Ted Turner created CNN.

The news is now major programming and provides networks with millions in advertising dollars. With several 24-hour news providers, the focus is no longer on facts. Broadcasters interpret and opine. They present a myriad of dross as news no matter how inane.

Demagogues rule the airways. Kowtowing to popular desires and prejudices has replaced journalism. Thirty minute press conferences generate hours of analysis. Coiffed talking-heads explain what we heard, how it affects us and what we should think about it. Celebrity peccadilloes prompt hours of coverage.

Integrate this with tweets and social website postings to replace thinking with indoctrination and propaganda. What me worry? - as ever BB

"...the press affords sufficient information to elate vanity and stiffen obstinacy, but little to enlarge the mind." - Dr. Samuel Johnson in the mid-18th century - some things never change!