The Faculty Lounge

Instapundit, Amazon, And The Morality of Lesbians

OK, I'll admit it.  I was just visiting Amazon to look at their 50% off sale on cookware - after seeing a link at Instapundit.  And like any shopper, once I'd decided against the Calphalon wok, I wandered down some other aisles.  I looked at the Gold Box specials.  There I found, to my surprise, the Gold Box Forum.  Featured near the top of this discussion board was a string of posts titled "Is Being A Lesbian Morally Wrong?"  I know where I come out on this one.  NO.  Of course, many of the 300-odd replies don't share my view.

I don't have a problem with people arguing about sexual orientation (or basketball or hair color) in the privacy of their own prestigious discussion board.   But why is Amazon in the business of hosting this particular conversation?  Does Jeff Bezos think that this pleasant chat is going to put me in a shopping mood?   

Is Starbucks Seattle's Best Coffee?

I may be the last person to the party on this one, but until this very morning, I thought that Seattle's Best Coffee was a competitor of Starbucks.  It kinda made sense.  Starbucks has the Barnes and Noble Cafe account.  Borders has the Seattle's Best account.  Some airports have Starbucks.  Others have Seattle's Best.  And a few - like Hartsfield Jackson Airport in Atlanta - have both.  And at the supermarket, both brands appear to battle for shelf space - just as Duncan Hines and Betty Crocker go misto-a-misto with each other in the cake aisle.  It all looked like pretty normal competition to me, though Starbucks seemed to clearly have the lead.  Then this morning, as I was surfing the web in search of...well, I don't know what...I discovered this remarkable piece of news: Starbucks owns Seattle's Best Coffee.   

It's hardly the only company that owns major competitors: laundry titans Tide and Cheer are both produced by that Satan-lovin' brand, Proctor and Gamble, for example.  And I suppose that the two coffee titans do occupy different market spaces; the two bookstore chains may have similar cultural cache, but I'm guessing Starbucks was happy that Seattle's Best scored the Steak n Shake account.  Still, this not-so-news only heightens my affection for two wonderful small-time roasters that I've come to love over the years: California's amazing Graffeo and Philly's own La Colombe.

Cookie Dough Pucks, Melon Rinds, And The Missing Tray

We learn today, from the Chronicle of Higher Education (subscription required), that university food service operations are feeling financial pressure from the rising cost of food.  How to make ends meet?  A number of ideas surfaced in the article - everything from cutting half an ounce of cheese from a slice of pizza to leaving the skin on chunks of honeydew melon.  Some schools are even baking from scratch rather than using "expensive pucks of pre-made cookie dough."  (And they wonder why college students play with their food?)

The smartest strategy of all, though, is simply making it tougher for students to carry the food to their tables.  Schools like Western Washington and Middlebury College are banishing the cafeteria tray.  Sure, a tray may be a convenient way to tote your Italian Noodle Casserole, salad, cookie, and Mr. Pibb, but do students really need all four?  Not if food service accountants have anything to say about these matters. 

To quote Woody Allen:

"Boy, the food in this place is really terrible.'"   "Yes, and such small portions."

Web Free Zones: Should Schools Ban Internet Surfing In Class?

The University of Chicago Law School announced this week that it is now blocking student web access in classrooms.  Not everyone is on board.  Doug Berman argues that:

I have never thought that my experience in the classroom, rather than the experience of my students, is of paramount importance.  Thus, unless and until my students tell me that they prefer a classroom setting without laptops or the Internet (or alumni/practitioners tell me that a web-friendly classroom was not helpful training for their future careers), I will keep trying to create and improve a 21st-century classroom experience for students rather than self-servingly conclude that preserving a 20th-century teaching environment is needed "to help [students] concentrate on course instruction."

I agree with Doug.  When I was in law school, students always found ways to avoid paying attention to the professor.  First among them, in that pre-technology age, was the New York Times Crossword.  (Now, of course, students do crosswords on line.)  I think that professors do need to find ways to engage students.  And I also think that web access offers benefits to professors who figure out ways to incorporate it.  I haven't always been successful in this project, but the few times that I've used the TWEN polling function during class, I've found it to be quite useful and interesting.

At the same time, however, Doug does ask a question worth further inquiry: is this surfing starting to bother other students?  My recent conversations with some first year students suggest that the answer to this might actually be yes.  Students are reasonably tolerant of surfers (and the real action: IM) but prefer that these folks sit towards the back, so everyone else doesn't get distracted by the action.  Students are essentially battling their own capacity to ignore visual noise in the classroom.  Which leads me to wonder whether an anonymous TWEN poll might yield some interesting empirical results on the issue of student support for web access.  Rather than doing some comprehensive national survey, a bunch of us could poll classes at our law schools.  And I'm not even sure we'd need IRB approval!

Any takers on organizing a TWEN polling project, across law schools, on this burning web access question?

Coffee Or Nude Celebrity Photos: A Tale Of Two Evergreen Posts

  As Paul Secunda noted, the other day, some blogs benefit mightily from evergreen posts - blog entries that Google searchers visit again and again.  At my old blog, Concurring Opinions, it was an open secret that significant amounts of traffic arrived in the form of web surfers seeking out pitcures of Jennifer Aniston buck naked (or is it butt naked?)   But I was always pleased that my own personal obsession - Starbucks Coffee - drew repeated guests as well.  Looking at today's Site Meter for Co-Op, I discovered to my great surprise that, in the last day or so, my Starbucks Secret Menu post attracted 45 visitors, while Dan Solove's Jennifer Aniston Nude Photos and the Anti-Paparazzi Act entry drew a mere 40.  It sounds to me like the star of Friends is out of vogue, while Starbucks only grows in popularity!  Does this mean that Jenny's fan base is aging or the new Starbucks market repositioning is working?  I don't suppose we'll ever know...

Delta And Northwest Merge. What Is The Future Of The Minneapolis Hub?

One of the less talked-about aspects of airline mergers and consolidation is their impact on hub cities.  While some airline hubs are located in towns that generate substantial traffic on their own, many are not - and these cities stand to lose a lot when an airline reduces its presence.  Some examples?  Pittsburgh had been a hub since the days when US Airways called itself Allegheny.  As a result, the airport opened the first serious airport mall.  More importantly, the busy airport offered loads of flight choices for the locals.  When US Airways pulled back, the airport suffered serious contraction.  The same happened in St. Louis when American swallowed TWA.    Sometimes we even forget old hubs. When I clerked in Durham, I once rushed a friend to the RDU airport for her non-stop to Paris.  RDU to Paris, non-stop?  Incroyable! 

Now that it appears that Northwest and Delta are merging (with corporate offices in Atlanta), what is the future of a Minneapolis hub?  In the short term, the airline will clearly maintain a strong presence.  It would only be politic.  Over time, however, Delta/Northwest will have to determine whether it needs both an Atlanta and a Minneapolis mega-presence.  And if Minneapolis does lose it's hub status, that might have a significant economic impact on the city and state. One real cost is that it becomes harder for cities to attract and hold onto major corporations.  It is almost a given among those in the Southeast that Atlanta's rise as the center of the South is largely attributable to its airport. 

Will Minneapolis be the next victim of air consolidation?  Are these significant political-geographical effects important enough for the federal government to put brakes on the deal?  I'm betting that Al Franken and Norm Coleman will have something to say about it in this year's Senate race.  It won't be a laughing matter.

The New Starbucks Culture, Trading On Its Pike Place Market Roots

Today's cup of Starbucks coffee arrived in a fresh looking cup, with a fresh looking jacket (that now boasts "Starbucks Fresh Roasted Coffee".)  The cup contains text about Pike Place Market (and I'm drinking a new Pike Place blend) all of which screams: we really are a Seattle coffee company.  The fight is clearly on for America's leading purveyor of pricey strong coffee to become cool again.  And no suprise, really.  They've been to Ronald McDonaldland, and it's not pretty.  Stores are tight and dirty; many of the barristas are barely more than cashiers; and your three dollar cuppa java is served in a chain restaurant cup.  The question is whether a burst of Pike Place Market nostalgia - this Seattle landmark was home to the first Starbucks in 1971 - can provide us a better explanation about why we're spending the three bucks. 

Personally, I like the new brown and white cups, with the old fashioned logo.  I'm less moved by the signs announcing that I've discovered the neighborhood's best espresso (even though it's probably true.)  And I continue to believe that Starbuck's ultimate, inexcusable sin is the pastry collection.  They are, as they always have been, south of mediocre.

What keeps me coming back?  First, I think the coffee is pretty good - it is over-roasted (which buries the complexity of otherwise fancy beans) but the flavor outruns Maxwell House by a mile.  Second, it's damn convenient.  This is 2008, and I'm living on a flywheel like everyone else.    Third, the stores remain coffee cultural centers.   They're not what they used to be (though they really have never been that good, since they went national) and they certainly aren't what they ought to be, but they more comforting than my local 7-11.  That matters to me.  I spent my formative, wasted, wonderful post-college, pre-law years hanging out in San Franciso, being vaguely productive, and living in cafes.  I used to read books.  I used to relax.  Starbucks references that past, albeit in a sterile stainless-kitchen-with-ubatuba-granite-counters sort of way.

But I also admit that I'm kind of rooting for the bastards.  I'll keep visiting Starbucks either way - I'm a drug addict - but if it could be a little nicer, a little more reminiscent of an earlier time (or, more specifically, my earlier time), I'd feel better laying down $1.77 for my morning dose.  Even as I rush back to the office and past those cafe tables that I no longer manage to haunt.

The Backroom Story: Prada, Gucci, And Fendi Knockoffs On Canal Street

Here is one of those Steven Levitt Freakonomics mysteries I've been pondering recently.  As many people know, designer knockoff bags are sold by vendors on Manhattan's Canal Street.  You can walk up and down the avenue and pop into shallow shops featuring hundreds of handbags for sale.  But if you're seeking genuine fakes - leatheresque handbags that look like Prada and bear the Prada mark - you have to go a step further.  You have to enter the back room.  It's not difficult to get there.  Walk in and ask "do you have Prada?" and you're shown straight back.  In fact, in many cases, an employee will prod "are you looking for Gucci, Chanel?" and point to the back room.  The back room often isn't immediately visible.  It is protected by a closed door (often covered in merchandise like the rest of the walls) and it's staffed by an employee.  But anyone would quickly notice the traffic streaming in and out.  Any snoop with the remotest desire could discover these fakes with ease.  This setup can't possibly deceive police or corporate monitors.

Thus the Levitt question: why do these backrooms exist?  Is there some sort of formal or informal agreement between police or the trademark owners and the vendors?   Do the vendors think these rooms prevent detection?  Do vendors imagine that these rooms reduce the likelihood of active enforcement?  Or is something else going on?  Naturally, I don't have the slightest idea.  The whole process struck me as very odd - a complete charade.  But in our somewhat rational world, I suspect that there are some hard, instrumental reasons for this phenomenon.  Theories, of course, welcome.

Fear For Sale: Volvo's Psychokiller Detector

I must not have been paying attention but I've only recently discovered, watching a Volvo ad, that the car now offers an optional "heartbeat sensor" - or psycho killer detector as another arch blogger put it.  This neat little product alerts a driver, on her key fob, if there is a heartbeat detected in a car.  This will help avoid those nasty horror-movie scenarios when a person is sitting inside the car waiting to assault the returning driver.

But seriously folks, does this happen a dozen times in the United States per year?  I'm always impressed with American ingenuity when it comes to translating pathological fear of rare crimes into profits.  It's really nice to see that political and media paranoia campaigns do more than just produce bad criminal justice policy.  They also generate sales.  This is old news in the sex offender registry biz where several sites offer free searches for a fee.

There are suggestions that a second use of this technology is to help remind parents when they've left children in the car.   That's a rare enough phenomenon, but it does happen.  Alas, Volvo's advertising is directed entirely to the psycho killer scenario since that frame apparently sells the donuts.

For Marketa Irglova, Once Is Not Enough.

Glen Hansard and Marketa Irglova won the Oscar for Best Song tonight for Falling Slowly.  After Hansard gave his thanks, Irglova started to speak as the music ran her down.  This is pretty normal for the Academy Awards which seem to give particular audio space to the big money big winners.  Once, the movie that won this award, was made for $100,000 and a relatively few people have seen it.  (Count me among them.)  For the next five or ten minutes, I wandered around my living room, cleaning up, feeling very irritated.  Irglova should have been allowed to say something, I felt.  I don't know why I really cared about this petty indignity...but I did.  Then something I never expected, happened.  Jon Stewart called Irglova back on stage to give her a chance for a brief thank you.  So I'm left wondering: why?

Was there a national email uproar?  Was it the apparent sexism of only letting the man talk?  Was it Irglova's eagerness to get onstage, followed by her silencing?  Did the crowd boo during the break?  Or did someone at Academyland take individual responsibility and correct what we might call in the legal biz, plain error? 

This event was a reminder to me that in any given moment, even very minor things can seem important.  The Oscars are literally meaningless compared to the nightmare realities of American crime and criminal justice for example.  But for that moment, I was sucked straight into my TV.  Very disconcerting!

Frequent Flier Mile Deflation: The Rest Of Us Pay

The Times reports what most of us with frequent flier miles already knew: it's really hard to use them.  With loads of miles outstanding, and airlines selling more and more of their (uncomfortable) seats, people with stockpiles of miles will have difficulty booking a seat on that New York to Paris non-stop.  Frequent flier miles have been devalued.

What may be less obvious is that this devaluation may have concrete effects on the average non-frequent flier.   Frequent flier miles were initially designed with one key purpose in mind: encouraging brand loyalty among road warriors.  To the degree that these miles are now devalued, you might think that frequent fliers now have less of an incentive to stick to particular carriers.  But that simply can't be the case.  Instead, airlines are substituting new bennies for the true frequent fliers - people who actually spend cash on plane tickets.  They're giving them seats on aisles, in exit rows, near the front of the plane, and in slightly more spacious sections.  And who does that hurt?  The rest of us, of course!  Because in the old days, we all got a shot at good seats - but the frequent fliers racked up serious miles.   Now we all get a shot at accumulating miles, but frequent fliers get the good seats.

Airlines are the winners here, of course.  They get compensated for all the decreasingly useful miles they sell to credit card companies, hotels, and florists.  They hold on to the frequent fliers by doling out something that costs them near nothing - aisles and exit rows.   And the rest of us pay more and more to sit in the middle seat.