Candy corn cravings

The New Neo Posted on by

[NOTE: The following is a slightly edited version of an old post.]

This year I noticed that, when kids came to the door for Halloween, they seemed to grab the little packets of candy corn first. That doesn’t surprise me, since I’m a huge fan of the disgustingly sweet stuff myself and have absolutely no ability to resist it.

So it’s best if no candy corn is left over come November first, because if there were I’d just eat it. I’m hardly alone in this; it’s estimated that twenty million pounds of the classic treat (invented in the 1880s) are sold every year in the US. I personally might be responsible for approximately a ton of that if I gave in to my worst impulses. However, I keep my addiction in tightly-controlled check.

Once I even went to a Halloween party dressed as a piece of candy corn, and I was already a grownup at the time. And apparently I am not the only adult who has dressed up as candy corn on Halloween. And no, I didn’t look like this—more’s the pity (although to be technical, isn’t she dressed as two pieces of candy corn, the body and the hat?):

candycorncostume.gif

Even some fanatically health-consciously vegans seem to crave candy corn although alas, the treat is off-limits to them because of its animal-related ingredients. Animal ingredients? If you doubt my words, just take a look:

Sugar, Corn Syrup, Salt, Honey, Soy Protein, Gelatin, Confectioner’s Glaze, Dextrose, Artificial Flavor, Titanium Dioxide Color, Artificial Colors (Yellow 6, Yellow 5, Red 3, Blue 1)

Gelatin and honey must be the big no-nos. But happily, a thoughtful vegan (are there any other kind?) mother has come to the rescue with a recipe for candy corn so complex and labor-intensive that it undoubtedly reflects a devotion to the stuff even more intense than mine. Try it if you dare—and if you are insane.

There are various gourmet variations on candy corn, and I’ve sampled quite a few in my day. To my mind they can’t compare to good old Brach’s. But after watching the following highly informative video, I may just try some Goelitz:

And here’s a burning question I was reminded of by the video: do you eat your candy corn in sections? And, if so, do you consider the top to be the yellow part or the white part? I’ve always seen the little white triangle as the “foot” of the candy corn, but I learned when I designed my costume years ago that most people see it the other way. For those who might be inclined to disagree with me, I offer the following exhibit from the realm of science:

corn-components.jpg

Spambot of the day

The New Neo Posted on by

Bot who’s not a Lady Gaga fan:

What i do not realize is actually how you are not really much more well-liked than you may be now. You realize thus significantly relating to this subject, produced me personally consider it from numerous varied angles. Its like women and men aren’t fascinated unless it’s one thing to do with Lady gaga! Your own stuffs great. Always maintain it up!

I want to assure this devoted bot that I try to always maintain it up.

Herman Cain and the sexual harrassment allegations

The New Neo Posted on by

So, Politico has dug up some dirt on Herman Cain.

And it’s dirt of a sort so common in our modern PC world: allegations of sexual misconduct of an unspecified nature that ended with a payout (from the National Restaurant Association).

Such charges are, quite literally, indefensible—it’s “he said she said” in the modern age, in which the victim is always right. Unfortunately, a payoff means nothing except that the organization has decided it’s cheaper to pay than to fight in a game where the deck is stacked against an alleged perpetrator.

That’s true whether the supposed perpetrator is Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative, white or black. What’s more, the system encourages false claims, because the name of the accuser is protected. Even now, in the case of Cain, Politico is not releasing the accusers’ names for “privacy” reasons—although perhaps the names will leak out over time, as these things often do.

Starting way back in the 80s or even earlier, I became skeptical of all such allegations since I saw firsthand (mostly through an incident I witnessed at a university) how unfair they can be and how the deck is stacked against the accused. In the case I knew best, it shocked me to learn that all that was necessary for the charge to stick was nothing more than an assertion by the accuser that the accused had done something that made her uncomfortable. The locus of the offense was in the definition/reaction of the hearer, not any objective standard of right or wrong.

How far we’ve come from the bad old days when sexual harassment in the workplace was winked at (literally). Now the worm has turned so decisively that the accused pretty much calls the shots. This does not mean that sexual harassment doesn’t occur, or that’s it’s okay when it does. But it does mean that we should regard all such allegations with automatic suspicion (as I did with those against President Clinton, until a certain blue dress appeared).

Let’s see what has been alleged about Cain’s behavior [emphasis mine]:

During Herman Cain’s tenure as the head of the National Restaurant Association in the 1990s, at least two female employees complained to colleagues and senior association officials about inappropriate behavior by Cain, ultimately leaving their jobs at the trade group, multiple sources confirm to POLITICO.

The women complained of sexually suggestive behavior by Cain that made them angry and uncomfortable, the sources said, and they signed agreements with the restaurant group that gave them financial payouts to leave the association…

The sources ”” including the recollections of close associates and other documentation ”” describe episodes that left the women upset and offended. These incidents include conversations allegedly filled with innuendo or personal questions of a sexually suggestive nature, taking place at hotels during conferences, at other officially sanctioned restaurant association events and at the association’s offices. There were also descriptions of physical gestures that were not overtly sexual but that made women who experienced or witnessed them uncomfortable and that they regarded as improper in a professional relationship.

Notice that the locus of the offense appears to have been in the perception of the accusers.

It occurs to me that, although the exact date of the Cain allegations and settlement is not specified except that it was “in the 90s,” we know it had to have been after 1996 because that was the year Cain became affiliated with the restaurant organization. So if the charges were trumped up, it would have been possible for the accusers to have gotten the idea from the Anita Hill hearings against Clarence Thomas, which had such high visibility in 1991.

Cain alleges that he didn’t even know about the payments:

“If the restaurant association did a settlement, I wasn’t even aware of it,” [Cain] claimed, “and I hope it wasn’t for much. If there was a settlement, it was handled by some of the other officers at the restaurant association.”

That is certainly possible as well.

Which enemies of Cain’s might be responsible for pushing this story? There are a host of possibilities on either side, way too many to choose from. And isn’t it interesting that Politico is refusing to go into more of the details of the allegations?:

Politico’s Jonathan Martin: “And also, what actually happened to these women as well, we want to be sensitive to that, too. It includes both verbal and physical gestures.

“These women felt uncomfortable, and they were unhappy about their treatment, and they complained to both colleagues and senior officials. In one case it involved, I think, inviting a woman up to a hotel room of Cain’s on the road ”¦ We’re just not going to get into the details of exactly what happened with these women beside what’s in the story.”

How very “sensitive” of Politico.

I imagine we’ll be hearing more about this story.

You think the postal service is bad now?

The New Neo Posted on by

You should have seen it around 1815:

To send a letter from the United States to Britain, you addressed it by domestic U.S. Mail to a shipping house on the coast, enclosing money to cover ocean travel and inland postage in Europe. The captain of the transatlantic ship was the real carrier, and passengers sometimes undercut him by agreeing to take letters at 25 to 50 cents apiece. But the total cost of a letter from the New World was never less than a day’s wages, or two days’ wages in the other direction. Time taken was rarely less than two months, even if the letter was an important official dispatch carried by fast frigate. In 1817 the new president, James Monroe, wrote to John Quincy Adams in London, summoning him to be Secretary of State, on 6 March; it reached Adams only on 16 April, the fastest of four identical letters sent by different routes.

Early snow comes to New England

The New Neo Posted on by

It’s not so very unusual for a dusting of snow to occur in New England right around the beginning of November. But a more substantial snowfall is predicted:

Simpson cautioned that the early snowfall is not an indication of what the winter might bring.

“This doesn’t mean our winter is going to be terrible,” he said. “You can’t get any correlation from a two-day event.”

It’s pretty weird, though. But not unheard of. I well remember a fairly large October storm in 1979, although I had the good fortune not to be in Worcester, Massachusetts at the time (a record-setting 7.5 inches).

By the way, speaking of Worcester, Massachusetts (which I rarely do if I can help it), it used to be the location of the best southern Indian restaurant ever. Alas, “used to be,” because the place has been defunct for years. But it’s where I was introduced to this transcendental comfort food, the masala dosa, a jumungous crisp thin pancake made of fermented rice and lentil flour and stuffed with spiced potatoes (the white stuff in the little dish is a great coconut chutney):

Did that seem like an odd segue? The link is Worcester, and the connection is storm=comfort food. And if you don’t think that a fermented lentil-rice pancake stuffed with potatoes sounds good, just try one—if you’re lucky enough to locate an Indian restaurant that features the fabulous vegetarian food of the southern part of that country.

The Left’s view of the racist right and the problem of Herman Cain

The New Neo Posted on by

The mind continues to reel at the mental gymnastics of the left when confronted with the right’s support for Herman Cain. The latest exemplar is Karen Phinney, who said:

Let’s review the logic here. If Finney starts with what she considers a truism, that the right is racially bigoted, she is faced with a conundrum: how to reconcile this with their support for a black man. Rather than abandon the sacred meme “the right is racist,” Finney must instead reason that support for Cain is just a cover for racism, and that he’s either (a) not a “real” black man; or (b) a certain kind of black man who is acceptable to racists. Finney chooses (b), and rather than call him an “uncle Tom” (the preferred nomenclature for black people on the right) she calls him a black man who “knows his place.”

Finney herself is bi-racial, so perhaps she feels she is inoculated against the charge of racism herself. But she, like much of the left, seems to see almost everything through the prism of race. The fact that a certain not insignificant percentage of the left may have supported and voted for Obama in part because he, as a black man, made them feel good about themselves in the racial sense, is ignored. The fact that many people on the right choose candidates to like or dislike because of their politics rather than their race is also ignored; neither process conforms to the approved narrative.

But the strangest thing about Finney’s observation is that it fits the case of Herman Cain so poorly. This is a man the right supports because he “knows his place”—a phrase which, in the traditional racist sense when used about black people, has always meant their not rising very high in the world? But Cain is an extremely successful man and is in fact running for president of the United States. If that’s his “place,” according to the right, then how can the right be racist?

The mind boggles.

[ADDENDUM: And then there’s Joy Behar, who notes that “the Republican Party hasn’t been black friendly over the many centuries in this country.” It would be hard to find a more Orwellian comment anywhere, and if Behar isn’t even aware of the actual history of the Republican Party and its noble fight against slavery and racism, than we can add abysmal ignorance to her resume.

For those of you who, like Behar, may have slept through the entire American history curriculum, here’s a teeny introduction:

Founded in Northern States in 1854 by anti-slavery activists, modernizers, ex-Whigs and ex-Free Soilers, the Republican Party quickly became the principal opposition to the dominant Democratic Party and the briefly popular Know Nothing Party. The main cause was opposition to the Kansas”“Nebraska Act, which repealed the Missouri Compromise by which slavery was kept out of Kansas. The Republicans saw the expansion of slavery as a great evil.

But perhaps Behar knows all that, to give her the benefit of a doubt she doesn’t probably deserve. And perhaps this is her reasoning, somewhat akin to Finney’s twistings: the Democrats in the South who were actually the racists for lo nigh those “many centuries” were really closet Republicans, and the Republicans were really closet Democrats.]

Time rocks on

The New Neo Posted on by

Time treats people (even rock stars) differentially.

Some look great: Billy Idol, Bret Michaels (who’s a mere 48, though, so it’s not a good test), and Bruce Springsteen. Pat Benatar looks better than in her youth, and David Bowie looks good without seeming to have had any cosmetic surgery, since his eyes are hooded in a way that’s normal as a person ages.

Meat Loaf looks better, too—but then he had almost nowhere to go but up. Other “goods” are Joan Jett, Van Halen, Tom Petty, Ted Nugent, Sting, Bon Jovi, and Annie Lennox.

The bad ones (and it’s not always due to weight gain, by any means) are Grace Slick, Mick Jagger in one of the worst photos ever of him (they really had to search for that one), Ozzy Osbourne, Iggy Pop (terrifying), the most dreadful photo of Dylan ever (he should sue), Ron Wood (scary), and Neil Young (my goodness).

No doubt some of this is the result of long-term and determined abuse of the body through good old sex, drugs, and rock and roll. The rest? Dunno. And probably some of the “goods” have done their share of partying, too.

Dueling Madoff interviews

The New Neo Posted on by

Bernie and Ruth Madoff, who no longer speak to each other (at her request) since their son’s suicide, have nevertheless got dueling TV interviews going. Hers will be seen on this Sunday’s “60 Minutes,” while his with Barbara Walters is scheduled for Friday’s 20/20, and offers the following interesting (and believable) quote from this remarkably blank individual:

“I feel safer [in prison] than outside,” Madoff said. “Days go by. I have people to talk to and no decisions to make. … I know that I will die in prison. I lived the last 20 years of my life in fear. Now I have no fear — nothing to think about because I’m no longer in control of my own life.”

That has the ring of truth.

I also find the comments to the linked article about the Walters interview interesting. Since there are over 5,000, I’ve only read a small fraction, but they (as expected) excoriate his wife, assuming she knew about his crimes all along and was an accessory before the fact. The amount of hatred directed at her seems nearly equal to that thrown his way.

I’ve never understood that, but I seem to be in a small minority in that regard. From the start, it has seemed quite possible to me that Madoff had managed to keep his perfidy secret from the family, and I’ve seen nothing since to change my mind. If there had been evidence of collusion, family members would have been indicted as well.

Good con artists are really good, and anyone can be a victim, especially in a relationship that assumes love and trust. In January of 2009 I wrote the following, and I stand by it now:

There are people…who say Ruth Madoff must have known; a wife would know and a wife should know. There are people who say the same thing about child molesters, serial killers, adulterers, and most of the other varieties of human wrongdoing. But it is my observation that, although it is sometimes true that wrongdoers leave a clear trail and that any spouse who doesn’t intuit what’s going on is in a state of denial, sometimes the culprits are so slick and so clever, so good at dissembling, that no one would ever know.

To think otherwise is a self-protective lie we tell ourselves to reassure ourselves that we could not be taken in this way; oh no, surely not! But the evidence points to the fact that Bernard Madoff was a master at taking people in, gaining their trust, and then politely screwing them. He fooled people who would otherwise have been wary. His reputation was spotless, stellar, and lengthy.

And his wife, apparently, was part of his game, if only unwittingly.

That doesn’t mean that his wife is any sort of exemplary person; I do not think she was or is. But until I hear something new, I’ll reserve my vitriol for the one who clearly deserves it: Madoff himself.

[NOTE: Another theme in the comments section of the Madoff/Walters article is that Barbara Walters is a POS for giving Madoff a forum. I’m not sure whether I agree with that, either, although I am most definitely no Walters fan. But I’m interested in hearing what makes a financial sociopath like Madoff tick, so I plan to watch the interviews.]

The Democrats never went broke…

The New Neo Posted on by

…underestimating the intelligence of the American public.

Here’s the strategy:

(1) Presidents Truman and Clinton won re-election by complaining about their Republican-controlled Congresses.

(2) Obama wants to win re-election.

(3) Therefore he and the Democrats are complaining about their Republican-controlled Congress.

Only thing is—Democrats are in the majority in one house of the legislature, the one known as the Senate. The Democrats’ argument is that Republicans “control” that house by the use of the filibuster. They don’t, any more than any minority party with 40 or over seats in the Senate “controls” it; their power is limited to blocking legislation. If “control” is now defined as “having over 60 Senate votes in order to invoke cloture,” then surely the Democrats are closer to “control” of this Senate than the Republicans are, and to say otherwise is sophistry.

But apparently Democrats are counting on the fact that “polls taken over the last several years show that many voters are unclear which party runs the House and/or Senate.” In other words, the people may be getting the government they deserve.