Messing With A Classic

Taking on a classic is always difficult, frequently provocative, and sometimes just plain wrong. Take the example at left - Marcel Duchamp's LHOOQ [pronouncing the letters approximates a French phrase implying a portion of Mona Lisa's anatomy (not visible in the painting) is worthy of note]. Note, also, the moustache and goatee modeled by La Gioconda; it just makes me think of Jim Croce's advice of what not to do with "Big Jim" in one of his songs. Then again, dadaist Duchamp had no objection to provoking his audience [the degree of difficulty, it should be pointed out, was low: Duchamp had only to scribble his changes on a cheap postcard reproduction. He worked much hard on another of his notorious "readymades"; the piece he titled Fountain ]. But what about those whose patronage depends on public approval?

Consider the good folks that make Sun-Maid products, most notably raisins. Since the early years of the last century, their trademarked icon was a young girl, reputedly spotted drying her long black hair in a California yard. Sure, she was "updated" a few times in the 20TH Century; each time, though, the final image was undeniably that of the young girl.

Then, around three years ago, Sun-Maid decided on a major re-imaging: "Sun-Maid Girl" [she has no name currently, but may eventually get one] was aged about 10 - 15 years, put on a strict diet [too much baby fat in the original], and is now usually pictured at work in the fields [instead of in a moment of repose]. The people at Sun-Maid probably expected a little publicity with the change [after all, it had worked for Betty Crocker and the Morton Salt Girl]; instead, the change went virtually unknown until recent weeks, when it has become the object of derision and [seemingly] bad-natured humor [some critics call the new look "a Barbie doll in Amish attire". In fairness to Sun-Maid, I live near Amish country, and no decent Amish woman would wear red like the Sun-Maid Hussy does].


Looking at the whole Sun-Maid "redo" [noted in this link-packed Yahoo! feature], the obvious question is, Why? Sure, Aunt Jemima needed [and got] her racially-awkward "baggage" removed [as have Uncle Ben and the Cream of Wheat "Chef", although their modernization was less spectacular than "AJ's"; that said, when was the last time you heard the Cream of Wheat Chef referred to by his traditional name of "Rastus"?]. But Sun-Maid Girl [maybe she should have become a super-hero, her feats of strength and skill fuelled by eating raisins] seemingly had no baggage, no issues that needed correcting. So why change? [At the time. a Sun-Maid official noted it was a good time to get on the "health" bandwagon. Some bandwagons have slippery floors...]


Still, it could have been worse for Sun-Maid: original plans called for the new Sun-Maid "Girl" [I think the new image should be known as "Sun-Maid Woman"; she seems a bit long in the tooth for "Girl" status] to appear in a series of commercials, showing her at the spa, grocery shopping, etc, all made easier by the energy derived from those raisins. Rumor has it that she may become multi-lingual, reflecting the diversity of the nations where Sun-Maid grows its products [a lovely gesture, don't get me wrong. But wouldn't it be better for Sun-Maid Woman to monitor the practices of the companies that grow, harvest, and sell the produce she eats, and to speak out against any questionable actions along the food chain? I may be wrong, but the image of Sun-Maid's animated icon speaking publicly against the corporation that supplies her computer-generated living would be attention-getting, to say the least].


BTB, I'm kicking around re-writing Beethoven's Ninth Symphony. Maybe changing the Third Movement to a rumba. Waddya think?

-Mike Riley

PS: More "Messing With A Classic" here...-MR

Ponzi, and other, schemes

The debate continues as to whether or not Bernie Madoff's $64.8 billion scam is the largest in American [or world, for that matter] history. That said, no one seems to be in any hurry to rename the type of fraud Madoff allegedly perpetrated in his "honor". For the foreseeable future, anyway, it looks like it will keep its current name of "Ponzi scheme", from its first notable operator, Charles Ponzi [left].

It's a little surprising that Madoff was able to play his game as long and as large as he did; in addition to the classic Ponzi case [this explanation, from the Mental Floss web site, is the best I've seen], more than a few others tried the operation, to varying degrees of success, before its revival in the new millennium by Madoff [here's a list from Wikipedia that includes a few of them]. You'd think that at least some of the investors would know better.

And it's not even as if Ponzi invented the whole thing in the first place. Wikipedia's article on Ponzi schemes notes that Charles Dickens, of all people, wrote about such a scheme in his 1857 novel Little Dorrit [there is, incidentally, no evidence that Dickens ever actually carried out a Ponzi scheme. He did use a ploy common to many authors until fairly recent times; namely, selling subscriptions to upcoming books. The money taken in was used to help support the writer until the work was completed, or to defray publishing costs. In exchange, the author would usually include a list of subscribers in the first edition of the book, as a sort of "dedication". Dickens was said to play the "subscription game" better than most, reputedly delaying the release of new works until the optimum amount of subscription money was collected. He is also credited with the practice of releasing books by chapters, forcing the reader to keep buying new segments until the work was complete (and probably paying more in the process than if the book had come out whole).].

It should be noted here that Ponzi schemes are not limited to unscrupulous individuals or groups. Consider this article from CNNMoney.com, via Yahoo!. In looking at the ten US states suffering the worst in the current economic crisis, it notes that two [Nevada and Florida] are hurting because of a lack of new "players" [businesses and residents, respectively]. Is it just me, or are these two states running a Ponzi? What if the Federal government steps in to prop them up? (Logic tells us that investing in a Ponzi scheme, even in the late stages, should be profitable, if Government intervention leads to compensation of investors) Should bad behavior, even if necessitated by selfish state residents who consistently have refused to allow tax increases, be rewarded? Just asking...

A personal note: I live in what may be the most-economically-challenged corner [Niagara Falls] of the most-economically-challenged region of New York State [Western New York]. In one of my other blogs [Challenging The Thunder; why not stop in?], I look at the history of Niagara Falls daredevils, stunters who have attempted to go over the Falls in a barrel, or [in one disastrous case] a kayak [Yeah. Really. This guy was nuts. Plunging in a barrel makes a lot more sense. It really does. Trust me on this one]. Although both the US and Canada now make every effort to stop potential feats of daring before they turn tragic, it was not always so. Some early challenges were actually sponsored by local merchants, and at least condoned, if not welcomed, by authorities. Maybe it's time to return to that mindset. Hey, as long as the daredevil signs a document freeing the Government from any legal responsibility for his or her demise [which, of course, means all such stunters would have to be over the age of 18], why not? Tourism has been down on both sides of the border the last year or two; maybe the prospect of imminent death would draw a crowd. It works for auto racing. Let me do some math here...okay, the combined width of the American and Canadian Falls is around 33-hundred feet. okay, what's the record distance for a motorcycle jump? 395 feet, last time I checked. Alright, a rocket-powered motorcycle might be able to do it [don't laugh: someone once tried to ride a rocket-powered jet-ski the width of both Falls. Probably would have made it, too, except that his safety parachute failed to open. Sources disagree on whether his body was ever found; either way, it probably wasn't pretty...]. Okay, rocket-powered motorcycle, back-up parachute...wait, we can't do it....

...it's a Fonzie scheme.

-Mike Riley

Blog Action Day - So Many People In The Same Device

I am by no means the oldest blogger in the world, but, being in my 50's, I think I have a different perspective than the typical poster. For instance, I'm actually old enough to remember an era when music recordings were stored in analogue form, on vinyl discs [okay, most of you probably know about vinyl. The progressives among you may even own an example or two]!

I remember 1975's release of the self-titled debut from Ambrosia. One of its tracks featured the group putting music to lyrics Kurt Vonnegut, Jr. wrote for his book Cat's Cradle. The song was "Nice Nice Very Nice" [lyrics here]; its theme, the interconnectedness of life.

Of course, interconnection can be good, bad, or, as frequently happens, both. Take India's Kasmir glaciers. They serve as water sources for millions of people who live in the region. Unfortunately, because of the planetary warming caused by climate change, the glaciers are melting too quickly. The anti-poverty group ActionAid has noted that most of the glaciers in the area [the waters shared by India and Pakistan] have shrunk dramatically. The group adds that rain and snow fall have been affected in many areas worldwide by climate change; the changes have reduced food production in many regions of the world. Thus, the Kasmir crisis is being repeated many times over, frequently in areas that were having trouble feeding their populations even before climate change.

We live on a planet that is virally interconnected; the latest Michael Jackson news, reported in Los Angeles, becomes headline fodder for London, Caracas, or Sydney in seconds. While it's certainly good to have multi-national communications, there are downsides. People in underdeveloped countries get glimpses of the industrialized world, and aspire to be a part. Consumerism drives countries to demolish their precious eco-structures, to free up more land for industry and resources. In the world of the "haves", consumption and pollution run rampant. It makes me think that the bravest person ever has yet to make an appearance. We'll know who it is when the first prominent politician in the developed world suggests the possibility that people may need to do with less - less electricity to power fewer "toys", less petroleum to fuel cars, less opportunity to waste the finite resources of Planet Earth.

This is the part where some clever person stands, delivers a brilliant idea, then lets his or her suggestion become the basis of a plan that saves the world. Sorry. If you picked this blog for Inspired Wisdom, you're obviously not a regular reader. All I can do on this Blog Action Day is what many of my colleagues are trying to do; open up the discussion, ask what we hope are the right questions, and sincerely ask Who- or What-Ever It Is We Worship for someone with the right answers.

Hopefully, this isn't the only Blog Action Day-themed post you encounter today. Read as many of them as you can; if nothing else, be aware of the breadth of the problem of climate change. Comment, if you're so moved. A healthy conversation among the peoples of the world is the first step to a solution. If you want to learn more, do some research [you do have Google on that computer, don't you?]. More to the point, don't let your interest end today. Keep your political leaders' "feet to the fire" on this one - it really is a matter of life and death.

-Mike Riley

Is there something to "The Twinkie Defense" after all?

First of all, I'm assuming we all know what's meant by "The Twinkie Defense" [if unaware, please click on the hyperlink; it not only explains the term, it debunks the myth that it was successfully used in the case that first brought the term to national attention].

Anyway, the Twinkie Defense [hereafter TD] is based on the theory that too much processed foods, especially sugar, can cloud your mind, rendering it incapable of rational thought. Although thoroughly discredited in the Dan White prosecution, Science may have just jumped the gun on its conclusions.

A study in Britain has thrown out the proposition that giving children too many treats may turn them into violent adults. We're not talking about the children being violently ill from a less-than-nutritious diet; this is the kind of acting-out violence most demonstrated in the UK by their beloved soccer hooligans. Well, at least most of them can sing...

Actually, this theorem seems to have a healthy dose of evidence behind it. Senior lecturer Simon Moore discovered, while doing research on violent British children, that kids who were most likely to committ violent crimes as adults had the worst diets in childhood.

Moore took his research a step further, using the results of a massive study of English people born during a certain week in 1970. By chance, the survey asked the subjects at the age of ten if they ate candy daily; at age 34, they were asked if had ever been convicted of a crime. A stunning 69 percent of regular candy-eaters had at least one conviction by age 34, versus 42% results from those who weren't. Next, Moore eliminated various factors: parenting styles, financial levels, even location [urban/rural]. The numbers remained steady.

Simon Moore says there are several possible reasons for his results, and that all should be looked into:

- are there certain compounds in sweets that cause this behavior? Well, perhaps. A further question would be "were candy manufacturers aware of this, and hid the information?" If so, shouldn't someone sieze Willy Wonka's passport, post haste? [If there's a bigger flight risk than him, I'd like to meet 'em]

- is excessive candy eating an indicator of possible future problems? For what it's worth, Moore leans towards this theorem; he believes that kids who got daily treats may not develop the patience needed to delay gratification [see A Clockwork Orange. But not on a full stomach]. This, the theory goes, leads to impulsiveness [a key factor in violent acts, according to Moore]. Another possibility suggested by this, says Moore, is that evil children get more candy, just to keep them calm. And are you keeping your porch light on this Halloween? They can't all move out of state...

- were British children born that week just more toxic than the usual run?

Always a possibility. Never eliminate random chance from the Human Equation.

- is this true only in England? Combine the American obesity epidemic with the increase in violent acts. Then do the math...

-are there any solutions? Four words: A Generation Of Supernannies [in whatever language is required]!

- Mike Riley

Sinister Musings

Okay, I'm back. My favorite writer, Dorothy Parker, was an expert at writing explanations for her frequent disappearances from the Public Eye [she once covered up a two-year gap in writing for The New Yorker by claiming she had spent the time in Switzerland!]. I wouldn't even pretend to be able to come up with a story like that [though anyone who spent the summer in Niagara Falls, NY and thinks they saw me may be onto something. Then again, I live there...], so just accept my return, ok? Think of me as the less-than-acceptable uncle, fresh from drying out after an extended bender. It's as good a story as any...

It's probably safe to assume that, from Time Immemorial, there have been left-handed persons. Not that this was always a good thing. From the Latin word for left, sinistra, modern English derives the word sinister. Classical Latin, for what it's worth, frequently used "sinestra" to mean "evil" or "unlucky". Some traditions in the early Christian church, for instance, claim that Judas, the disciple who betrayed Christ, was left-handed. Nowadays, though, left-handedness is just considered a characteristic of anatomy, one shared by around ten percent of humanity [If you'd like a truly intriguing time-waster, check out this listing of notable left-handers. For those not fully comfortable in English, the page is available in Spanish, French and pig Latin! Grad students have way too much time on their hands...]. Famous lefties, for what it's worth, include Joan of Arc, Julius Caesar [wonder if anyone had the "stones" to call him "sinister" to his face? Besides Brutus, of course...], and W. C. Fields.

Kermit The Frog is believed to be left-handed [as was his creator, Jim Henson], as are Bart Simpson and Ned Flanders [and their creator, Matt Groening]. Left-handed artists run the gamut from Michelangelo and DaVinci to M. C. Esher and LeRoy Neiman. Musicians? Sir Paul McCartney, for one [also, reputedly, Ringo Starr]; add David Byrne, Cole Porter, Paul Simon, and Carl Phillip Emanuel Bach, among many, many others [I won't even mention any of the notable left-handed athletes].

There is an interesting belief in present times; namely, left-handers are believed to be more intelligent or creative than their right-handed brethren. Believers in this theory [probably lefties, but I digress] point to the fact that eight of the 44 US Presidents have been southpaws [including current office-holder Barack Obama. Then again, both he and principal challenger John McCain are lefties, so that one was a pretty safe bet]. I'm staying out of this debate, except to note the list includes James A. Garfield, whose sole notable act as President was to die about a month after taking office [reputedly due to attending his Inaugural festivities, on a rainy day, without a hat or coat, and contracting fatal pneumonia. Not the brightest crayon in the box...].

So why am I bringing all this up? Big news for left-handed men; namely, a re-design of the classic "y-front" male underwear [Underwear. Another great topic, Mikey. What a fabulous re-start for this blog...]. Having family and friends who are lefties [including one of my brothers], I can see the excitement this would cause. I must confess, though, I've never heard any left-handers complaining about this problem; then again, they may all wear boxers...

Anyway, it's good to be back. Hope you missed me...

-Mike Riley

P. S.: Bloggers, please scroll down the right side of this page, and click on the "Blog Action Day" badge. We need mass action on this one, people!

Time Out...

It is with great regret that I must take a break from writing this blog. I have several personal matters to attend to, which will consume the vast majority of the time I used to spend writing it. As of now, I hope to return to blogging, in one form or another, in January of 2010.

I want to thank my readers and commentors for their friendship and insights. So that none of you will worry, please understand that my health is good. I just need to devote my full attention to these "off-stage" matters.

My intention is to leave the previously written posts up, for those who may not have yet read them.Entrecard advertisers: please be aware that I am taking no new ads. Any ads that I have already agreed to use will be presented as scheduled. I intend to leave the EC widget up, but EC may remove it because of no new posts.

Again, with regrets, I declare INTERMISSION. Smoke 'em if you got 'em...

-Mike Riley

The carnival is open...where the Hell am I?

It's been one of those weeks...I expected to have a "Can-Am Celebration!" post up here by yesterday...obviously, that hasn't happened. Sincere apologies to all of you who were waiting for it [all right, you weren't waiting all that strenuously for it], and a special bit of gratitude to those of you who are in on the extravaganza. I'll be here for real Saturday morning...'till then, enjoy the holiday weekend

-Mike Riley