In Merrie Olde Westeros

With dashing knight Jon Snow

On our dragon like a sleigh

O'er the serfs we go

Scorching all that's in our way

At the Wall the forges ring

To make our swords shine bright

Past moon and stars we ride and sing

A slaying song tonight!

Pantsed!

I imagine a custom-tailored suit in a fine fabric can be quite comfortable.  Not so much with the usual off the rack stuff, and unless you are really into impressing strangers, you'll usually want to get out of one after the wedding or funeral you wore it to.  The usual cut of trousers, slacks or pants I have never found comfortable.  So it's blue jeans most of the time, as a default.  Recently, though, I found something new:  the Wrangler Outdoors pants made of mostly nylon with a fleece lining.  You can slide right into the car seat in them, and the lining makes quite a difference right now in December.  A little over $20, obtained on line or at a Vanity Fair outlet if you have one nearby.  Since I got two, the jeans have not been in use lately after being the staple for decades.  Students can wear them to school now and probably can't conceive that was grounds for being sent home back in the day (OK, way back).  But I probably would have had some baggy hand-me-downs then anyway, so it wasn't so much of a missed opportunity.

It's been much worse fashion- and comfort-wise in previous ages.  Take a look:

This ancient Celt should have had a mirror at home, don't you think:

I have a picture of my father having to wear boys' knickers, like these:

Sort of like wool cargo shorts.  Maybe not too bad.  But you probably couldn't wait to graduate to the big boy stuff.

And this style will always be remembered as au courant in the 1960s:

I still think they look good on the ladies.  Not so much on those of us on the other team.  And one more thing that almost always looks good on them and not us:

Speaking of not wearing shorts or jeans to school, for a little while back  in the early 1960s, the fad was a miniature belt with buckle on the top rear of the pants -- we called it "ivy league," but who knows why.

Jabberwacky

Have you been way out in the countryside recently?  Other than the observation that the corn fields have been cut, I'll bet the quiet made an impression.  Before the Industrial Age, there must have been a lot less noise all around.  In some environments -- public places, cities, big stores -- for the sake of your inner balance you can try to tune it out, but you do expect it in those environments.  Why then do people consciously add to the cacaphony  seek it out and, it seems, need it?

I'm thinking about two things:  voluntarily listening to an endless stream of chatter from media which one could turn off, and voluntarily using that portable phone 16 hours a week (on average).  It's said we endure 4,000 to 5,000 advertisements a day, also.  Wouldn't those three things, going on constantly or simultaneously, drive any normal person nuts?  Once, on a bus trip, I had to listen to a woman talk for the entire three hours at, not with, her seatmate.  I could not possibly think of enough to talk about for three hours straight.

That's irritating, but jabber has been getting dangerous:  cell phone use in vehicles leads to 1.6 million crashes a year.  Pedestrian deaths and injuries are up significantly also, and here's how that happens:

And believe it or not, texting and driving is six times more likely to cause an accident than drunk driving.  So, what's so important about jabbering back and forth that you'd risk it all for?  It's a mystery to me, except that it might just be another example of addiction in humans -- which of course makes no sense either, but it's deep and wide in our species for sure.  I ran into two teachers from Texas recently, and they said their students are so tied to their phones they have ceased to learn much of anything, have no context outside of their bubble, and don't seem to know how to actually do things.  That's scary.

         Your ears are soft and small
         and listen to an old man not at all...

                             -- John Crowe Ransom

The Four Faces of Design

Two years ago, to mark its 60th anniversary, the Museum of Modern Art installed a Fiat 500 as "an icon of automotive history and design."  It has been sold for many years in, they say, 100 countries, so it is of importance in automotive history.  But I have been thinking about this for these two years (and a few other things, of course).  The Toyota Corolla is as ubiquitous, with a shorter history, but will probably not be cited for its aesthetics.  The 500 does show an impressive use of interior space and is affordable.  But there should be more depth in an iconic design, and I think there are four areas that must be maximized to reach that status:   Quality/Reliability, Utility/Ease of Use, Affordability and Appearance.  In the first area, the Fiat is well known to have failed.  And as for aesthetics, that’s always an area of argument, but it looks like a big insect.  The Corolla is superior in all four areas but it’s not a head turner.  Giving due consideration to the four design criteria before purchasing a vehicle, though, the choice between the two is clear.

Audio speakers are always developing; today the goods are very impressive, and not only at the high end.  There have been many over the years which scored well in each design category.  The standouts are amazingly inexpensive for their quality and durability.  The still well-regarded Dynaco A-25 bookshelf size speaker sold new for about $79 apiece, and people did take notice; 600,000 were purchased.  The pair I bought new in the 1960’s still sound superb and look good.   While we’re here in audio land, we can’t forget the “silverface” era of the 1970’s for electronics such as receivers, integrated stereo amplifiers, preamps, and tuners.  Turn the big, heavy detented volume knob of this Kenwood, for example.  Behind the clearly labeled and easy to use front controls, the quality continued in big dependable power supplies and superior phono input sections.  The quality of the lower end of the line in many brands was surprising, and even today these units are available used, working just as well as they ever did.  What followed in the 1980s and 1990s was often overloaded with bells and whistles, difficult to use and ever poorer in quality.

Appliances have similarly become complex and really silly.  If you look hard, you can still find a washing machine or dryer with just three knobs each, all you will need.

Howls of derision will follow, but I’d say the Bell Touch-Tone pushbutton telephone was a fine design.  It was sturdy, easy to repair, had no menus to navigate through, and used numbers, letters and symbols in a clear and not obfuscating way.  It also did not require babying, battery tending or a $1000 replacement every few years.  Just sayin’.  From the same era, the IBM Selectric II typewriter was as far as such a device could go, but it did so perfectly.  Even though you couldn’t repair it yourself, there was rarely a need due to its durability and it was not a throw-away like a computer that can’t use the latest software.  Not portable, we’ll admit, but that meant you probably didn’t have to work and keep sending reports in while on vacation.  Bad typewriter design (just in my experience):  the manual Adler and Remington machines.  If you were fast, the keys jammed up!  You would have very strong fingers after a while, though.

Film cameras ended as an evolutionary dead branch like the typewriter, but wasn’t the Nikon F2 a beauty?  One could take some satisfaction in the skill and knowledge required to use it well, also.  Pricey to buy or repair, it still makes the design grade:  the Land Rover of cameras.