Damn Movie Theater Candy

So good, but so not worth it!

I just got back from seeing a movie tonight with a couple friends. The movie was hilarious, the company was good, and yet I'm angry. Why? Because all I wanted was a box of Raisinets to accompany my "cinema experience", but I am too stingy to pay the $4    for a 3.5 oz. box of candy. I have been boycotting movie theater candy for about two years now, and with little success. Perhaps boycott is not the correct word, but I am still part of a large movement to not by the ridiculously overpriced candy. Here is the secret on how I have not caved in: I bring my own candy from home- GASP!

Some people say that sneaking in your own food is wrong. However, there are no rules of the matter from the movie theater, it is just considered morally wrong so to speak. I disagree- as a consumer in America, I am given choices, not only between brands or Raisinets v. Milk Duds, but between buying and not buying. Although the right to boycott is not in the constitution, consumers may still buy what they want from the existing options.

I chose to research why exactly the candy at a movie theater is so expensive. It turns out that this information has been out in the open for almost 10 years now since CNN did a story on it. To sum it all up, the studios who make the movies take between 70 and 80 percent of the profits from ticket sales, leaving the theater with the leftovers. The only way the theaters can survive is on sales from concession stands, which is why they hike up the prices. CNN quoted one theater owner saying "'We have movies just to get people in to buy popcorn and candy, where we make our money'".


My research made me wonder, if I and everyone else who is not buying the candy at the concession stands continue our boycott, will theaters have to begin to charge more to see movies? After all, the two movie theaters in my area have both raised their ticket prices in the last year. And if they continue to raise their prices, then how much freedom do we really have as consumers?

PRESSure Makes Cain Drop Out

Herman Cain, one of the Republican presidential candidates, dropped out of the race Saturday after allegations were made about him having a 13-year affair and sexually harassing several women. If you are interested in more information about the situation, read this article. The reason Cain dropped out of the race, as I said, was because of allegations made against him. The first amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees freedom of the press, which allows almost anything to be published. Over the past 200 years, that broad category has been narrowed down to mean anything about public officials. Is it fair for the press to publish personal things about a presidential candidate that may cause personal damage to the person? 

My initial response was - of course. Freedom of the press is 

an essential American right. Herman Cain put himself in the public eye by declaring to run for president so he is a public figure who has to endure scrutiny. After more research, I find myself on the other side of things. After the  New York Times Co. v. Sullivan case in 1964, The U.S. Supreme Court decided that nothing may be published with "actual malice" - the intention of harming someone. Publishing information regarding an affair Cain may or may not have had was clearly published to intentionally hurt Cain, his campaign,  and his wife. Although I am not a fan of Cain's, I question whether the press may have gone too far this time in revealing such a personal part of Cain's life. On the other hand, I think the American public deserves to know what kind of candidate they are considering electing, and his actions reflect on what type of person he is. What do you think? Did the press have the right to publish intimate details about Cain's life? 

Here's a satirical parody of Cain: