Month: February 2011

Can you say “catch-22?”

Truthout recently reported on a most disturbing trend: job openings not open to the currently unemployed. (Translation: a job one can’t get unless one already has a job.)

The real kicker, as the story goes on to report, is that the unemployed are currently not a protected class under current discrimination laws, at least not directly:

While the unemployed aren’t a protected class under civil rights laws, the practice could be legally problematic if it has a disparate or discriminatory effect on groups of job seekers who are subject to civil rights protections.

In a public meeting Wednesday at EEOC headquarters, several witnesses testified that excluding the unemployed from job openings could disproportionately affect African-Americans, Hispanics, people with disabilities and older workers — all federally protected groups whose jobless rates are well above the U.S. average.

So we can at least hold out hope that this is considered discrimination, albeit in a very backdoor fashion.

It shouldn’t come to that, though. It is a very unfortunate oversight that, until now, the possibility of discriminating against the unemployed has been overlooked as something that needs to be protected against. And for most of the last five decades, we haven’t needed to write that into the law books.

But, alas, it appears now we do. This is a new low for corporations, and to be honest, I’m not even sure what such an arbitrary exclusion is supposed to actually accomplish. Regardless, whatever companies are doing this (the Truthout story is unfortunately lacking names) should be ashamed of themselves.

What are they thinking in Iowa?

A recent care2.com article reports on proposed legislation in Iowa that would go far beyond the already idiotic ban on caffeinated alcoholic beverages such as Four Loko. As reported by Reason and cited within the care2.com story:

The bill defines “caffeinated alcoholic beverage” as “any beverage containing more than one-half of one percent of alcohol by volume, including alcoholic liquor, wine, and beer, to which caffeine is added.” Hence it apparently applies not only to drinks with a noticeable caffeine kick but also to coffee-flavored liqueurs with detectable amounts of the stimulant, such as Kahlua or Tia Maria, and any cocktails made with them, such as a Black Russian or a Mudslide.

Elsewhere in the article, the penalty is listed, which is a fine between $65 and $625 and up to 30 days in jail, and revocation of any liquor license if applicable.

This is a giant step too far and smacks of knee-jerk reactionism. (While I disagree with the FDA’s hardball stance on Four Loko and its ilk, that’s not what is at issue here.) For decades, bars have been making such drinks and serving them with no observed ill effects.

I fail to see what possible good could come of passing this bill. Seriously, don’t the cops in Iowa (and for that matter, Iowa’s ABD agents) have better things to spend their time on? Are they really going to cite people for ordering a shot of bourbon, a cola, and actually mixing the two?

To Starbucks, size matters

I almost didn’t get around to writing about this one while it was still somewhat timely. However, we’re still three months away from the actual change happening on a nationwide basis and there is no shortage of blog posts weighing in on this story, some of which are still being written as I’m putting the finishing touches on this one.

CultureMap Houston’s recent story about Starbucks introducing a new Trenta size takes a rather dim view of it. The story’s author, Dillon Sorenson, appears to be of the mindset that this is a contribution to the growing obesity problem in the US.

First a summary for those of you just now catching up. Starbucks is well known for its oddly named sizes: Tall (354 mL), which is actually the smallest of the three; Grande (473 mL), which, while larger than Tall, is still not the largest; and Venti (591 mL), which comes from the Italian word for “twenty” (the size is about 20 ounces). Starting in May, Starbucks will be adding a fourth size, the Trenta (916 mL), which again is derived from an Italian word, this one for “thirty” (though it’s actually closer to 31 ounces; you can hardly blame Starbucks for the fact “Trentuno” wouldn’t flow off the tongue quite as easily).

Anyway, Mr. Sorenson makes a rather dubious comparison to 7-Eleven’s infamous Big Gulp fountain drinks:

How big is 916 mL, you ask? Well, an average bottle of wine is 750 mL, and the average capacity of the human stomach is 900 mL. In other words, the Trenta is Starbucks’ version of the Big Gulp.

And later on, the more direct accusation that the Trenta is part of our obesity problem:

My vehement opposition to the Trenta is not about my snobbery. It’s about what this symbolizes for America. In a nation where 75 percent of the adult population is overweight or obese, the Trenta is the last thing that is needed. Of course, drinking coffee in such large quantities is bad for the brain and heart alike. But the caffeine is the least of my concerns: I am more worried about the sugar-filled syrupy beverages that Starbucks distributes under the guise of coffee.

Though I am not a huge fan of Starbucks, I find myself defending them here. First, Starbucks is doing what almost any corporation is destined to do: maximize profits. It would appear adding an additional size for its iced drinks is an attempt to do just that. I personally have wished that the sizes for at least iced tea didn’t stop at Venti for some time. (My usual order at Starbucks and similar coffee shops is iced tea, however sometimes during the coldest of the winter months I will order hot chocolate.)

And that leads into my second point: Starbucks wouldn’t be doing this if the demand wasn’t there. Again, you can’t fault Starbucks for giving the people what they want. If Starbucks doesn’t do it, their competitors will and take the profits away from Starbucks in the process.

My third point is a challenge to the notion that slightly larger portions of coffee and tea really contribute to an obesity problem. It would be far more effective for Mr. Sorenson to attack the many c-store operators that sell fountain drinks larger than whatever size he feels they should be. I’ve purchased and consumed 64-ounce fountain drinks (yes, that’s half a gallon) during my heyday as a courier. In hindsight, I’ll admit this was not one of my healthier choices; in fairness to me, I’m trying to avoid returning to that line of work as it was full of similar choices, a rant I’ll save for another day (and perhaps a different blog).

Even so, the demand is still there for super-sized products; while Mr. Sorenson’s angst and disgust may be justified, I think they are misdirected. Without demand, there is usually no supply. So, if anything, Mr. Sorenson should just ask the people out there “please don’t buy Trenta-sized drinks at Starbucks so they go away.” The only problem with that, of course, is that the hollowness of the entire viewpoint he espouses is then exposed to the sunlight.

My fourth point is in regards to economy of scale, with a bit of an environmentalist twist. I’ve been more than a casual observer of sizing and prices, especially with regard to sodas. It’s not entirely by choice, as I have more experience than I could ever want dealing with tight budgets. I postulate that the size of the drinks offered at Starbucks will do little to actually change purchase and consumption habits of their products, and from that and my other previous knowledge, I offer two points of theory: first, the same customers who would buy a Trenta-sized iced tea or iced coffee would probably just wind up buying two of a smaller size, and second, that it takes less material to make larger (Trenta) cups totaling a given capacity than it does smaller (Venti, Grande, Tall) cups. And from that, I conclude not only does a larger size make sense from a profitability standpoint, but from an environmentalist standpoint as well.

Yes, it’s a bit of a reach, and one that I’ll probably draw some heat for. But really, it all comes back to Starbucks doing what its customers are willing to pay for, providing a supply to satisfy a demand and make a profit. If you think a Trenta is too big, don’t buy it. But please, stay out of the way of those of us who want one.

[Edit 2021-08-01: fix punctuation error]

What not to do as a newscaster, demonstrated by Owen Conflenti

This one has me shaking my head.

As recently reported by MediaBistro’s TVSpy blog, KPRC-TV anchor Owen Conflenti recently made an obscene gesture while on camera, apparently directed at someone else in the studio. Mr. Conflenti thought his display of “the bird” was out of frame; unfortunately, he was quite wrong, as evidenced by the screenshot. The video’s missing (more on that later) but a lower quality copy is, however, available as part of the guyism.com story.

It’s one thing when an average person does something like this, but a professional newscaster should have a much higher standard of conduct. However, there are things that make this blunder in judgment worse: the absolutely abysmal handling of the incident from a PR standpoint.

First, as mentioned previously, KPRC-TV falls back on a ludicrous copyright claim for what is clearly a fair use of their broadcast. Due to the way YouTube takes down videos, there’s no way to even find the uploader and ask him/her to contest the copyright claim. (Hopefully he/she is out there reading this blog.) Shame on KPRC-TV for using copyright to interfere with the criticism of the on-air conduct of one of its news anchors.

Second, Mr. Conflenti and the VP of news at KPRC-TV, Deborah Callura  does what everyone in PR is trained not to do when confronted with an inconvenient question: say “no comment.” Ms. Callura could have simply stated something along the lines of “this is unacceptable conduct from an on-air personality and we will take steps to ensure it will not happen again.” Mr. Conflenti did eventually apologize (as evidenced by this follow-up story on TVSpy):

“I’m sorry to everyone for my offensive gesture on television last week,” Conflenti told the Houston Chronicle. “My actions were careless and unprofessional. I can assure my viewers it will never happen again.”

However, this didn’t happen almost a full week after the initial incident. This is an unacceptable delay for someone who is in the business of communications.

The silver lining to this cloud is that it’s a near-perfect case study for those entering the communications business, with a crystal clear lesson: don’t make obscene gestures (or use obscene language) when there’s any chance of you being on camera, and apologize quickly if you do and it gets noticed.

(An aside: I will admit my initial reaction was to find it a bit humorous. That does not change the fact that it is a story about unacceptable conduct by a communications professional, and I want to be sure my readers understand that.)

The dumbest laws of all time?

Okay, this might well be one of my crazier ideas, but I think it’s crazy enough to work and possibly get a wider readership than I’ve had in the past. And it fits in oh-so-perfectly with what has become one of the regular topics of my blog, that being our justice system (whether DAs, judges, or law enforcement).

The feature I have in mind is a countdown of the dumbest laws of modern times (probably a top 50, maybe a top 100 or even a top 200 depending on what exactly comes up). Just to thin the field somewhat, I’m going to limit what I consider for the feature. I have the following qualifications in mind, but they are by no means set in stone right now:

  • The law in question must have been on the books at some point after 1911. (I just picked a year, just to have a cutoff somewhere.)
  • The law must have actually been passed and written into the books, even if it was then either repealed, ruled unconstitutional, expired, or otherwise nullified.
  • Laws currently on the books today are eligible; the laws under consideration need not have been repealed or nullified.
  • Laws at any level of government (national, state, county, city) are eligible. I may lump similar but not identical laws together into one listing, such as juvenile curfew laws, but I may list some of these laws twice if certain jurisdictions add parts I consider to be especially dumb.
  • There are no restrictions on the type of law such as civil or criminal. However, it must be an actual law passed by a legislative body and not merely a regulatory agency rule. So, as much as I’d love to feature a few of them (heck, a lot of them), FCC, FAA, FDA, etc regulations don’t qualify. Maybe another time, though.
  • As “dumb” is a rather subjective criterion, I’m open to outside input. This feature need not necessarily fit just what I personally consider to be a “dumb” law; I’m willing to consider the political climate surrounding it, the intent behind the law, as well as the actual reasons why the law didn’t work in practice. If anyone would like to volunteer to be part of the “think tank” that decides what makes the cut, drop me a line.
  • I’m a bit divided on what countries to include. I’m leaning strongly toward making it US-only, maybe including Canada as well. If I make it international, it’s difficult to figure out where to draw the line. If I were to allow the laws of, say, Singapore, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, China, Egypt, Sudan, and many others that they could easily dominate the list. On the other hand, I don’t want to appear overly US-centric, so if the US-only first round is a success, I may do a  feature for “the rest of the world” as a followup, but even that will have to be limited somehow.

Some of them are going to be obvious (I risk losing credibility if I don’t include Prohibiton somewhere in a top 100). Some of them, much less so.

I’m planning to make this a series of posts to start in mid- to late March, with the final post on 2011 April 1. Yes, April Fool’s Day. But this is not an April Fool’s joke, by any means.