Todd Stadler's blog

Police blotter

From a gossip article saying that The Police may be reuniting:

On Thursday night at the Walt Disney Concert Hall in Los Angeles, Sting dedicated a lute version of "Message in a Bottle" to the pair of former comrades who happened to be seated in the auditorium.

Criminy, Sting! How are the writers at The Onion supposed to top that?

Todd Stadler: freelance package copyeditor

Am I the only one that thinks that this carton of half-and-half could use some copyediting?

Fig. A: Sunshine Dairy half-and-half, with enlarged package copy on the upper right

I mean, I applaud Sunshine Dairy's efforts at reducing the amount of bovine growth hormones involved in the dairy-production system, and there's no reason they shouldn't trumpet those efforts on their cartons*. But I'm pretty sure a hyphen would go a long way towards clearing up some possible misconceptions here.

As I read the yellow triangle in my grammar-retentive state, it assures me that only the freshest of bovine growth hormones were used in the dairy products within. And also that I should not have to pay for this carton at the checkout stand.

At least one of which sounds kind of icky. And probably both of which are probably, you know, untrue. Just sayin'.

*And how nice of our federal government to require the dairy to inform me that "According to the FDA, no significant difference has been shown between milk derived from rbST treated and non-rbST treated cows." I don't in any way imagine this is a craven kowtow to the chemically-enhanced wing of the dairy industry. Because I know that the FDA requires warnings like that on all manner of product labelling.

Why, just the other day, I saw small print explaining that "According to the FDA, no significant difference has been detected between the old version of this product and the current one which claims to be 'new and improved'." They're really helpful and informative like that. And that's just one example.

Yes, your federally-funded FDA watchdogs. There's no claim they won't slap an asterisk on! Or, as in this case, there doesn't even have to be a claim! Just information, which is just as potentially dangerous! Like all those cereals that trumpet "Contains 12 essential vitamins and minerals** (**The FDA wants you to know that this cereal is still sugary junk food, folic acid notwithstanding)"

Starbucks: urinal to the world

Ah, Starbucks! You are as present in my thoughts as you are on street corners. How often my thoughts turn to you!

The main reason I think so much about Starbucks — aside from their marketing department having made it impossible for me to do otherwise, of course — is that I am torn between my disdain for its virulence and lousy coffee (but admittedly tasty milkshakes) and my disdain for those who insist it's the worst company in the world, ever.

But this morning, I found reason to rejoice in Starbucks' much-noted ubiquity. Namely, that for every Starbucks I see on the street, there is a one-to-one ratio of more-or-less public restrooms.

It's true.

If you're like me (and I am), then you've noticed a general paucity of free, public restrooms. Trust me — I like to drink coffee and I like to walk around. You notice these things pretty fast.

To add to the problem, many stores have policies that only paying customers can use their precious toilets (so take a hike, non-paying customers — go pee in the parking lot or something).

But not Starbucks. I don't know if it's a company policy, but the barista I asked said she didn't care if I bought anything or not, I was free to use the restroom. Which was good, because I was otherwise about to notice a very under-watered shrub somewhere behind that store.

This idea of asking (while simultaneously searching for the cheapest item on display, expecting rejection) differed from my usual approach, in which Julia eyes the menu while I head off to the restroom. When I return, I always ask her if they have any low-carb coffee. To which she always responds in the negative, thus requiring us to leave, as we are of course devout Atkinsists. It's astonishing that not a single Starbucks has low-carb (black) coffee advertised on its menu! (For that matter, I have yet to find a McDonald's that sells low-carb fries, either. Strange.)

I've probably bought drinks from Starbucks less than a dozen times (which is why I'm the only person who ever actually stares at their menu and looks confused about how many options there are), but I'm familiar with their restrooms not only all over Portland, but in at least three countries on two continents!

In fact, to put too fine a point on it, I've almost certainly lost more liquid in Starbucks stores than I've taken in (let the reader understand).

So to the many people who find fault with the inexorable spread of American fast food shops, especially Starbucks, I offer this solace: don't think of it as having lost another local business, but as having gained another public restroom.

Todd Stadler on language

If, like me, you are a casual observer of the popular culture, then you will have no doubt heard many a sassy teen utter the phrase, "Oh no you didn't!"

Of course, if you are a keen observer of said matters, you likely noticed this many years ago and think I am "not with it" or a "square dude".

Regardless, the point is that, even for cultural neanderthals like myself, the "no you didn't" meme has run its course and is very, very tired.

And yet, I concede the point that fresh-faced (and "fresh") young people need some way to convey their disbelief whilst snapping their fingers in a zig-zag motion. Not merely content to complain about the problem, I herewith offer my royalty-free alternatives to this trite phrase:

• Oh that thing was likely not done by you!
• Oh I believe that is actually not true!
• Oh you were not the agent for the referred-to object!
• Oh I find it quite dubious that events transpired in the manner described!
• Oh I'm incredulous as to the veracity of your having done that!
• Oh the sentence describing that action did not have you as its subject!
• Oh I believe that your version of events typifies the literary device known as the "unfaithful narrator"!
• Oh, in the aforementioned scenario, pronouns for which you were the antecedent were not in the nominative case!

Overheard at my house

A snippet of conversation from the Stadler household, after I'd done something nice for Julia:

Julia: Thanks, dear! You're so sensitive!

Todd: Baby, I'm beyond sensitive ... I'm freakin' sore to the touch!

A tale of two airlines

Traveling during the holidays is always fun. As in "fun and annoying".

This is, of course, mostly the airlines' fault. It is they who have intentionally held back on building some sort of plushly outfitted supersonic plane. It is they that always seat too many grumpy babies near my row. And it was they who at one point suggested that a nice way to fly from Portland, Oregon to Dallas, Texas was via Toronto. Ontario.

Fig. A: Yes, I am conveniently ignoring things like map projections and great circles in calculating the numbers for this overly-produced graphic

Hmm. I was generally under the impression that trips from the Pacific Northwest to parts south and east generally needn't pass through Canada (okay, fine, excluding you, Point Roberts, Washington).

But then I also used to think that flying over twice the distance necessary was a bit ... um, unnecessary. (The suggested itinerary covered 3,290 miles for a journey that's 1,610 miles as the crow flies — the crow, you see, having wisely eschewed the hub-and-spoke system.)

The inefficiency of this route is further made clear when you realize that its two legs make an angle of 42°. I generally like my flight plans to involve obtuse angles. In fact, my new rule of thumb is that any flight plan with an angle less than right is wrong. Man, that's catchy.

But that's not the reason I sat down to write this rant. Julia and I ended up finding a more direct (though less cheap) flight from Portland to Dallas, and there was merriment and feasting and warm family moments.

No, with the new year comes a fresh, new topic to complain about: airplane food.

It used to be that airplane food was lousy. Now, on American Airlines, it's lousy and it costs $5. Or, at least, I assume it's lousy. Because I'm not paying $5 to find out if just maybe Jacques Pépin is hiding in that tiny galley serving up some tasty vittles.

I'm not sure I've even seen anybody pay for an American Airlines meal. Maybe they don't even have them on the plane anymore, but they like to see if anyone is dumb enough to try and order one. If anyone does, they make a note on his account and charge him 50% extra on all subsequent ticket purchases. Because hey, he'll pay.

I'd much rather take my $5 and spend it in the airport before I board. At least that way I could buy a small bag of pretzels ... or half a beer. Ha.

Okay, but I really don't get how airlines' trying to save money by charging me $5 for bad food is a good move. If they secretly increased all plane fares by $5, I wouldn't notice — in fact, I'm fairly certain they increased the fares this Christmas by well over ten times that amount.

But rubbing their cost-savings in my face while I'm a captive audience on their plane just seems like bad PR ("What's that, Seat 29D? Is that your stomach I hear growling at the sound of rustling cellophane, lovingly puffed up with warm, moist air, covering some kind of food? Well fork over the cash, bub!").

I mean, look — I'm blogging about it, aren't I? And don't they know the power of the blogosphere to punish blogged-about corporations? They saved $5 and now I'm even grumpier than I usually would be about their service. Better put that money towards your retirement, Mr. American Airlines, because this blog has you squarely in its sights! Yowza!

Ahem.

This miserliness was put in stark contrast on the second leg of our route home, which found us catching a Horizon Airlines flight from Seattle to Portland. (Okay, let's ignore the fact that this itinerary also violates my new-but-still-clever rule about flight plans and right angles — the flight is so short it hardly matters, with the flight attendants scrambling to finish drink service for forty people in the time after we reach cruising altitude but before we begin the descent.)

It was that (hurried) drink service that makes me think Horizon is such a great airline. Why? In addition to the usual sodas that American Airlines and their ilk serve for free (for now), Horizon serves complimentary wine or beer. And, being decent Pacific Northwest folk, they offer quality local microbrews, not, say, Heineken.

And it's not even like I had a whole bottle or a wide selection. Nope, the cart had only Widmer's Snowplow, poured out of large bottles into plastic airplane cups. It's not even my favorite beer.

And yet the mere mention by the flight attendant of complimentary beer and wine caused one passenger to applaud. And that's what I'm talking about. Horizon likely paid much less than $1 to serve me a cup of beer that makes me think they're just the greatest little airline, and American gets nothing but my sneer.

Penny-wise, pound-foolish, people.