Day off...family struck down by cold virus...grandparents visiting...sure, sure, you say. The same old bloody excuses.
Anyway, on to today's late-edition cortex-mushifier. It's a two-parter, ripped from the tattered pages of the once-mighty news organ The Brooklyn Daily Eagle:
On December 3, 1936, a front-page story announced that Special Prosecutor Thomas E. Dewey had busted open a multimillion-dollar monopoly racket in New York, through which a handful of individuals had illegally come to control the market for these secondhand items. "The racket, which is estimated to have cost the city more than $840,000 since Sept. 1, 1935, maintained a complete monopoly on the industry by a reign of terror, which consisted of burning trucks, holding up drivers with guns and beating up dealers."
But the big story on the front page, given a screaming headline and supported by two supplementary front -page items, was about another scandal of even bigger proportion. The first four words of the headline read " "Won't Give Up Wally..." The subhead read "Baldwin Bars House Debate; 'Armistice' Seen." Three other pieces on the front page address the same story. One led with this arresting image "Working men in their rough clothes, smoking smelling pipes, talked volubly today of the ---- case, in uncomplimentary terms, cursing heartily."
What secondhand market was this criminal conspiracy monopolizing? And who was at the center of the really big story overshadowing Dewey's gang-busting?
First correct answer posted to comments wins two tickets to see Baby Sandy, Mischa Auer, and Shirley Ross in "Unexpected Father," on a double-bill with "I Stole a Million" (George Raft and Claire Trevor) at the RKO Albee theatre at Flatbush and DeKalb Avenues. (Air-conditioned!) No Googling or bribing old uncle Abe down in the news morgue to look it up. One guess per comment, but post as often as you like.
Posted by BT at April 16, 2004 10:50 AM1. Milk bottles?
2. The VP nomination?
Incidentally, the "unavoidable delay" phrasing comes from a recently deployed recording now used in the subways when things are held up. I have yet to hear an announcement offering an apology for an avoidable delay, nor one making the perfectly reasonable suggestion that as the delay in question was unavoidable, no apology on anyone's part should be necessary.
Posted by: BT on April 16, 2004 10:54 AMAnd Gavin -- those are good guesses, but nope.
Posted by: BT on April 16, 2004 10:55 AMthe decimal system & Wally Sparks
Posted by: teenidol on April 16, 2004 10:56 AMAnd James -- those are bad guesses, but nope.
Posted by: BT on April 16, 2004 10:57 AMsecond-hand jokes?
Posted by: LAURA on April 16, 2004 10:58 AMChilblains?
As in, used Chilblains and Wallace Chilblains. Wallace H. Chilblains.
Posted by: Scott on April 16, 2004 10:59 AMbottles, Hoover
Posted by: LAURA on April 16, 2004 10:59 AMroses, Fannie Brice
Posted by: LAURA on April 16, 2004 11:01 AMJames, players who post as "BT" are an abomination in my sight.
Posted by: God on April 16, 2004 11:02 AMNo correct answers as of yet.
Posted by: The One True BT on April 16, 2004 11:03 AMWhat are: self-deprecating jokes and penance?
Posted by: teenidol on April 16, 2004 11:03 AMThis is going to be one of those philosophical quizzes today, innit?
Posted by: LAURA on April 16, 2004 11:14 AM1) Cars
2) Theodore Dreiser
Books and Hitler?
Posted by: Garthmeister J on April 16, 2004 11:15 AM1. Scrap metal?
2. Mae West?
rose and Bloods
Posted by: teenidol on April 16, 2004 11:20 AMJam jars and the French?
Posted by: Garthmeister J on April 16, 2004 11:20 AM1) Horses
2) Raoul Wallenberg
These always have to be history quizzes, don't they? We can't just have a nice, clean question about weights and measures.
Posted by: Jonathan on April 16, 2004 11:21 AM1) Sherry casks
2) Sir Walter Scott
a guess and a slight threadjack (sorry):
rail road tracks and the IRS
==
I've been curious about having a weight & measure question verified, Jonathan (assuming you have some knowledge on the subject). Could you tell me if this is accurate (in your opinion)?
unverified toon
Posted by: teenidol on April 16, 2004 11:31 AMnope
for #2, think beyond u.s. borders
Posted by: BT on April 16, 2004 11:35 AM1) netsuke
2) Lin Zexu
OK, beyond US borders, but not Hitler or the French...
Clothing and Mao Tse-tung?
Posted by: Garthmeister J on April 16, 2004 11:39 AMSecond-hand trash cans, I say, and Mao Tse-Chilbains.
Posted by: Scott on April 16, 2004 11:42 AMOh, fine, throw me a bone:
1 Avoirdupois ounce = 28.349 grams
1 Avoirdupois pound = 16 ounces = 454 grams
1 Troy ounce = 31.103 grams
1 Troy pound = 12 Troy ounces = 373 grams
So an ounce of gold does weigh more than an ounce of copper (or feathers, or oatmeal), but a pound of gold weighs *less* than a pound of any of them!
Note that the nostrum "a pint's a pound, the world around" equates volume with mass, which only holds if you confine the comparison to Earth, and probably only to select pubs in Sheffield and Birmingham, at that.
Thanks, I feel better now.
Posted by: Jonathan on April 16, 2004 11:52 AM1) particle-board furniture
2) Prince Edward in a can
Give him a decameter, he takes a hectare.
Iceboxes; Castro?
A couple of hints before I'm off to the zoo:
1. The monopoly in question was on something in almost perpetual, everyday use (though only people in a certain industry would actually manipulate them, the rest of us make use of them constantly). Most were/are probably unaware of the big trade in the "secondhand" version.
2. The second item was an international scandal, political in one sense and yet more symbolically than practically so. Another one of the front-page stories from the day was the Roosevelt administration's "laughing" at the idea that it was taking a position on the dilemma. The head of that story read "F.D.R. Opposes ---- ? Ha, Ha!"
The photo on that page showed a picture of a little girl, whose fate was tied up in the controversy. She is now one of the most well-known women living.
Posted by: BT on April 16, 2004 12:08 PMrecycled jokes & Lindberg
(yeah, a stretch)
Razors; Aung San Suu Kyi?
Posted by: LAURA on April 16, 2004 12:22 PMI'm sticking with trash cans for part 1. Part 2, overseas well-known woman in her 70s. Queen Elizabeth. Though I don't know it could be about.
Posted by: Scott on April 16, 2004 12:26 PMWHAT it could be about. Chilbains, maybe.
Posted by: Scott on April 16, 2004 12:27 PMplay dough and Shirley Temple (Black)
(reminds me of a recurring dream I have)
#2: Ah yes, Prince What's-his-highness wouldn't give up Wallis Simpson, and abdicated the British throne instead.
But #1? I dunno. Refrigerators?
Posted by: terry on April 16, 2004 12:29 PMNot stealing, helping terry: Duke of Windsor (inventor of the tie knot), right?
Posted by: teenidol on April 16, 2004 12:31 PMsubway tokens and Shirley temple?
Posted by: torridjoe on April 16, 2004 12:35 PMMy second apology for a second threadjack, but while BT's at the zoo:
Too bad we couldn't organize for the World's Largest Media Trivia Contest (whatever that means)
here.
Something about last year's contest gives me a good feeling.
Posted by: teenidol on April 16, 2004 12:42 PMWhat y'all got planned for April 8-10, 2005? With the global coverage of the Wombat network we could have this 50 hour thing licked.
Posted by: teenidol on April 16, 2004 12:49 PMStreet signs (Stop, e.g.), and the British Royals.
Posted by: Scott on April 16, 2004 12:56 PMSince part two seems pegged, my next guess for part one is "our pee-wees."
Posted by: Scott on April 16, 2004 01:22 PMPer: The monopoly in question was on something in almost perpetual, everyday use (though only people in a certain industry would actually manipulate them, the rest of us make use of them constantly). Most were/are probably unaware of the big trade in the "secondhand" version.
Posted by: Scott on April 16, 2004 01:24 PMEspecially: "though only people in a certain industry would actually manipulate them"
Posted by: Scott on April 16, 2004 01:24 PMHar har har!
Posted by: Scott on April 16, 2004 01:25 PMHowsabout newspapers.
Posted by: teenidol on April 16, 2004 02:15 PMor mattresses
(not googled, just looked over at the cover of the paper)
Posted by: teenidol on April 16, 2004 02:17 PMtoilet paper and Marilyn Chambers?
Posted by: torridjoe on April 16, 2004 02:35 PMWell, Terry has part 2 right -- the full headline ran WON'T GIVE UP WALLY OR CROWN, IS KING'S DEFIANCE TO ULTIMATUM. The story reported on a parliamentary victory for Edward VIII in his bid to remain king and still have snuggling privileges with an American floozy.
As for the part 1, one more quotation from the story:
"This monopoly has wiped out the bidding system for city proceedings involving condemnation, thereby boosting the price, and has cost the WPA housing projects in the neighborhood of $170,000 a month, it was also said."
Another fun detail from the story -- with absolutely no clue-value in terms of the answer, relates to the background of one of the accused conspirators: "According to Special Assistant District Attorney Paul E. Lockwood, [accused conspirator Isadore] Edelstein is the son of Hyman Edelstein, one-time King of the Horse Poisoners in Brooklyn."
King of the Horse-Poisoners -- now, THAT's a criminal record.
Posted by: BT on April 16, 2004 05:05 PMwood?
Posted by: torridjoe on April 16, 2004 05:11 PMtoilets?
Posted by: torridjoe on April 16, 2004 06:03 PMPipes or other plumbing?
Posted by: Gavin on April 16, 2004 07:56 PMOr maybe windows?
Posted by: Gavin on April 16, 2004 07:57 PMStoves?
Posted by: Gavin on April 16, 2004 07:57 PMbricks.
Posted by: boxjam on April 16, 2004 10:20 PMelectrical wiring?
Posted by: Sara on April 16, 2004 11:16 PMI think Gavin's got it with plumbing.
Posted by: Jonathan on April 17, 2004 12:37 AMBricks is the correct answer. Another triumph for boxjam!
Credit for the source goes to a big collection of reprints of pages of the Brooklyn Eagle from 1894-1954. Thanks, Ann and Bruce!
Posted by: BT on April 17, 2004 08:48 AM