as i was at my monthly haircut session, i noticed some news stories [in the old newspapers and magazines that are a part of the salon visit experience] in the last week about some innovative solutions for the gulf of Mexico oil spill.
the most interesting one - which was contextual to where i was, was about using human hair to absorb the oil.
it sounded very logical.
i have heard of the tonsured hair from Tirupati being exported for making wigs, but this seemed to open up another market.
that set me thinking if my habit of keeping my hair short [full-short, in the language of the hair dresser] was not very social. if i grew my hair long, surely it would help the shampoo industry also. but then, would it mean consumption of more water that would only be polluted by washing the hair - as i am used to having head baths twice a day? also, with less frequent visits to the hairdresser, how would that industry survive? with a high level of attrition or shuffle among the technicians, and the growing costs, they already operate on hair-thin margins - mankind cannot afford to make them an endangered profession.
that is why, when some of my follicular-challenged friends say that they are charged more on their visits to the hairdresser, i can understand the reasons they are given ranging from an MBA-like answer such as since their visits are less frequent, and the annual RPC [revenue per customer] need to be at their industry norms, that have to charge higher, to a more frivolous reason that the hairdresser needs to spend more time searching for the hairs to be cut!
before i could get more confused, another report resolved the dilemma. with about 210,000 gallons of oil spilling every day, this was not a practical solution.
it was time for my turn and i decided to let this global problem be solved by the experts, while i relaxed and got my monthly 'full short'.