Out of Their Hats

Nothing annoys me more than uninformed people 

not considering the effects of what they say.

— Charlotte Ritchie

The Golden Age of Hollywood is a delightful Facebook group that posts "lost" movie-studio stills.

A still posted yesterday showed an ashen and attenuated Humphrey Bogart, riding on a swing with his seven-year-old daughter. 

One inconscient commentator wrote, "How could this pipsqueak ever have been a romantic interest in film? I will never understand."

Her comment unleashed a predictable torrent  of rejoinders to the effect that Bogie had been the heartthrob of millions, and that the poignant still had been shot only days before the beloved actor's early death from throat cancer.

Granted social media gives a grandstand to goofballs, I still must ask: why do so many uniformed nobodies feel the need to tear down adored icons? 

And why do they always seem to be speaking out of their hats?

The reason is deep-seated: iconoclasm is a handy form of ego defense, a band-aide for wounds received in childhood at the hands of critical parents, caretakers, siblings, and peers.

When those wounds go untreated, the child grows up to be an asshole: an unrestrained critic of all the things others hold in esteem.

And she can't help but come off as a mean-spirited fool.

Cabbage

Twenty years ago, I was devoting four solid days a week to writing a Civil War novel that I never finished.

The novel was set in 1861, the first year of the war.

Two hundred pages in, I was deep into a scene in which the characters (civilians all) conversed over a sumptuous lunch, when I suddenly realized I didn't know how they'd pay for it.

So I dug into the topic of cash in the 19th century.

I learned that in 1861 people used banknotes, issued by local banks, to pay for most purchases.

Until the following year, the only form of legal tender in circulation was the federally issued coin.

Federally issued scrip—later known as the "greenback"—didn't exist. 

If you wanted to use paper for purchases, you used banknotes. 

Banknotes were convenient, but had a serious downside.

If you carried them, instead of coins, you ran the real risk they'd become worthless overnight, should the issuing bank fail. 

And banks failed all the time, especially during financial "panics," which occurred like clockwork every 20 years and whenever a blip in the economy occurred.

China this week put the kibosh on 2021's version of banknotes by banning all transactions that rely on cryptocurrencies. 

China's crypto crackdown is based on the premise that cryptocurrencies, by being unregulated, foster illegal transactions.

That may be true.

But even if it's not, I'm troubled by cryptocurrencies, myself, perhaps because their fans—who are avid—remind me of the people who advised me in the early 1980s to invest all my savings in Cabbage Patch Kids (and a decade later, in Beanie Babies.)

Cryptocurrencies are supposed to be money; but money for the past century has been printed by governments, which control its supply and, more importantly, guarantee its worth.

No reliable entities backstop cryptocurrencies.

Money, moreover, allows us to make purchases of any amount at lighting speed, with no extra fees and relative anonymity. 

Cryptocurrencies allow none of those conveniences and, in addition, are easier to steal.

So what's the allure?

Beats me.

I'll stick to cold, hard cabbage.

Fluff

I notice that you use plain, simple language, short words and brief sentences. That is the way to write English. Stick to it; don't let fluff and flowers and verbosity creep in.

— Mark Twain

Verbose writing is frilly, flowery, frivolous and fluff-brained. A thing, at all costs, to avoid.

But some fluff is tasty.

Take, for example, the kind used to make a Fluffernutter.

The Fluffernutter was invented in by one Emma Curtis, who with her brother began making and marketing Snowflake Marshmallow Crème in 1913 in their home-state of Massachusetts.

The great-great-great-granddaughter of Paul Revere, Emma knew to keep watch on her competitors, of which there were scores.

To outdo them, she published brochures packed with recipes for marshmallow-crème treats, and advertised the brochures in newspapers and on radio. 

One, published in the middle of World War I, contained Emma's short recipe for the Liberty, a marshmallow crème and peanut butter sandwich.

The Liberty became her all-time hit.

But, sadly, Emma was not to reap all its rewards.

A local competitor, Durkee-Mower, trumped Emma, not by running ads, but by sponsoring an entire radio show. 

Named The Flufferettes, it aired in the half-hour spot before The Jack Benny Show and featured comedy, music, and recipes—including the recipe for the Liberty.

In 1960, Durkee-Mower's ad agency renamed Emma's sandwich The Fluffernutter, and rest, as we say, is history.

A Catholic Conundrum Cleared Up At Last

Faith may be defined as an illogical belief in
the occurrence of the improbable.

— H. L. Mencken

As Whole Woman's Health v. Austin Jackson proves, right-wing Catholics on the Supreme Court are a clear and present danger—to women. 

By recriminalizing abortion, they will increase women's misery beyond calculation.

Believe what you will about fetuses; that's your right.

But recognize the Roman Catholic Church, following Aristotle, for nearly two millennia held that a fetus had no soul until it was six months old—and therefore couldn't be murdered.

Early-stage abortions weren't sinful.  

Only a modern bit of dogmatic gymnastics changed the Church's position on abortion.

And the change came about ass-backwards.

Before 1854, Catholic canonists had struggled with a thorny riddle: how could Jesus have be born of a woman stained by Original Sin?

It's uncanny! 

To solve the riddle, Giovanni Mastai-Ferretti (Pope Pius IX) declared that Jesus' conception was "immaculate" because Mary was born without sin.

Problem solved!

But Mastai-Ferretti's solution also led him to declare all abortions a mortal sin.

Why? 

Because Mary's sin-free life began not at viability, but conception.

Logically speaking, it had to.

Or so said the infallible Mastai-Ferretti.

So we've arrived at the bottom line:

Because an Italian decided 150 years ago that a Jewish woman was born without sin 2,000 years ago, no 21st century Texan can have an abortion without exposing her accomplices to fines and criminal penalties.

Makes perfect sense to me.

Thanks Amy, Brett and Neil, for clearing that up!

We look forward to your future legal decisions.

NOTE: Just so you know, I single out Catholics and exclude Evangelicals from blame for recriminalizing abortion for a simple reason: no Evangelical is intelligent enough to receive a Supreme Court appointment.

UPDATE: Amy, Brett and Neil didn't dawdle. We learned in May 2022 that they plan to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Above: Judging Amy by Robert Francis James. Oil on canvas board. 10 x 8 inches. Not available in Texas. 

What Happened to Leaning In?

The ambition and focus that propel you to success
can also be your downfall. 

— Judy Smith

Schadenfreude is unhealthy, but I nonetheless relish watching the once high and mighty humbled.

This month's fallen angel is Elizabeth Holmes, wunderkind and Steve Jobs wannabe.

Once the the world's youngest female self-made billionaire, Holmes now stands trial for defrauding investors of $400 million and faces 20 years in prison if convicted.

In 2013—the same year she reached the top of the world by selling her company's fake blood tests to millions of unsuspecting consumers—Holmes' Silicon Valley neighbor Sheryl Sandberg popularized the phrase leaning in.

Facing a prison cell, it appears Holmes is no longer leaning in, but weaseling out.

While the Northern California DA alleges she committed fraud, Holmes is trying to walk between raindrops, claiming she was only following Silicon Valley's "playbook," and that an "emotionally abusive" boyfriend led her into temptation (he will also go on trial for fraud next year).

Hogwash.

Hey, Liz, now that you've been caught with your hand in the till, how about leaning into the truth a little?

Why dodge your actions and blame others—and why blame a boyfriend?

An op-ed in The New York Times insists Holmes is the innocent victim of the "male-dominated world of tech start-ups" and the "boys’ club that is the tech industry." No man would be put on trial for swindling investors.

More hogwash.

If you want to lean in, lean in. There's no in betweenin'.

UPDATE, NOVEMBER 30, 2021: Holmes testified yesterday that her boyfriend drove her to commit her crimes.

UPDATE, JANUARY 3, 2022: Holmes was found guilty of fraud. "The Svengali Defense didn’t work," said journalist John Carreyou.