-
by: Josh Roseman | 11Alive.com Web ProducerAdmin
Mon, 30 Jun 2008 18:14:15 PDT
First they came for Dawn soap users, but I don't use Dawn, so I let it go. Then they came for Kellogg's cereal eaters, but I've never been brand loyal to cereal, so I let it go. They came for Edy's ice cream, but I'm on a diet. But this is the last straw. The grocery store shrink ray has hit Publix store-brand yogurt. Let's all have a moment of silence for that. ... ... Okay, good. We got that over with. I went to Publix tonight to do my weekly grocery shopping. As I got to the yogurt section, I noticed that some containers had plastic tops, while some just had peel-off film. That was my first clue. I rather liked that Publix still had the double-cap; it meant my daughter could eat half a container and we could put the rest in the refrigerator. Well, no more. Then... then I noticed the size differential. I invite you to view these photos I took (you may click them to visit the full-sized versions):
That's the front. Notice the changes in cap type, but nothing else is really different. Here's the side:
Unfortunately, I didn't get a good shot at any angle of the serving sizes, but if you click through to the bigger picture, you'll see, just barely, that one 8-oz container equals one serving... but so does one 6-oz container! Publix did a great job not making it obvious -- they pulled all of each flavor off the shelf before replacing it. But I found that one Mango one in the back and was able to make this comparison. They came for my yogurt... and my favorite flavor (black cherry) was the first to go. And all you Yoplait lovers... you're not safe either. Turn your yogurt over and look at the bottom of the package. Just keep your eyes open for stuff like this. You never know when it's going to hit a product you love.
-
by: Josh Roseman | 11Alive.com Web ProducerAdmin
Mon, 30 Jun 2008 12:27:19 PDT
I just flew to and from Ft. Lauderdale on Spirit, also known as the airline with the low fares but nothing for free. (That's not an advertising message. I am not compensated.) We checked two bags, and Spirit gave me a deal on them -- $20 per bag, round trip -- because I'm part of their e-mail club.
But there were a few folks who had larger-than-permissible bags on the plane. Spirit didn't say anything, but I imagine that soon enough, with all the fees, they may start having to. From the AP, via 11Alive.com: Now that some airlines are making money on checked baggage, they plan to crack down on people who try to stuff oversized bags in the overhead bins.
The airlines note the carry-on policy is a federal one not set by the industry. But they agree it's only fair to the honest, fee-paying customer to keep others from trying to sneak bulky bags onto planes.
The fees for checking bags were introduced to help cover soaring jet fuel prices.
If a passenger is stopped from boarding with an oversize carry-on, Fort Worth-based American Airlines will charge that passenger the $15 fee to check it at the gate.
I say, measure the bags at the security checkpoint. That way, you won't have to schlep them through there. And give a discount if security gives you a "this bag is too big" tag -- like $5 or something. But if you try to come through with a bag that's clearly too big...? Well, that's your own fault for having to check it.
I'm more concerned about commuter airlines like ASA, which I fly every year to Minneapolis, which have extremely small overhead bins. 95% of carry-on suitcases have to be gate-checked. I fear the day that roll-aboard bags get dinged for a fee. PS: if you were wondering where I've been, now you know: vacation.
-
by: Josh Roseman | 11Alive.com Web ProducerAdmin
Fri, 20 Jun 2008 14:41:27 PDT
I want to start by unequivocally saying that I am against teenage pregnancy. I feel that teenagers -- even those above the age of majority -- are not emotionally capable of parenting a child in the way that child needs to be parented. Sure, there are exceptions, but very, very few of them. All that said... I'm sure by now you've heard about the Gloucester, Mass., teenagers who made a pact to get pregnant and raise their babies together. I'm sure the very idea makes you put your head on one side and wonder what in the world they were thinking. I'm with you. But let's say it wasn't teenagers. Let's say it was a group of moderately-successful single women, aged 28-32, who got together to do this. Let's say you've got a retail assistant manager, an executive assistant, a marketing specialist, a registered nurse, an IT specialist, a police officer, and four teachers who work at various public schools. Let's say these ten women are all friends, or friends of friends -- maybe the nurse doesn't know everything about the teachers, but she saw them at the retail assistant manager's wedding... that sort of thing. So one of the teachers -- let's call her Jane -- gets the idea that it's really hard to find a man she wants to settle down with for the rest of her life. She may meet that guy at some point, but she's had no luck. But she's thirty, and she wants to have a kid now, while she's still "young enough" (her words). Jane talks to Kate, the executive assistant. Kate and her husband just got divorced, and she went out and made some poor life choices, and is now pregnant. Lisa, the IT specialist, is divorced with a five-year-old son, but she wants to have a second child. And so on, and so forth, right down the line to Suzanne, the creative-writing teacher who's read some Robert A. Heinlein novels. One of the precepts Heinlein espouses in his later works -- I'm thinking specifically of The Cat Who Walks Through Walls and Time Enough For Love -- is that (and I'm simplifying this a bit) a family is a group of people who love each other and stay together for the purpose of raising children in a happy and loving environment. Now, these women live in different parts of Atlanta -- some in apartments in Buckhead, some in the suburbs of Smyrna, some in Decatur, etc. But they've all become friends and they all trust each other to at least a certain degree and they all have something in common: They all want to have a child (or children) and raise him, her, or them in a happy and loving environment. So what's the problem with all ten of these women getting together, getting pregnant however they want -- the old-fashioned way or with the assistance of modern medicine; with the help of their friends or one-night-stands with strangers; it doesn't really matter, but they all end up with fairly-similar due dates. Why is it so strange for the police officer to look after the marketing manager's baby? Or for the IT specialist to rent out her furnished basement to the retail assistant manager? Or, heck, for the IT specialist to take some freelance or telecommuting jobs and, with the help of one of the teachers, run a mini-day-care for three or four of the babies plus their own? Or why don't they all just sell their houses and move into a neighborhood? Nothing wrong with multi-family homes, and there's always someone around to help out with the kids if, for example, the executive assistant meets a really nice guy and wants to go out on a Saturday night. The point is this: in the past decade, I think that as a country we've really moved away from the idea of communities. I have more friends online than I do in real life -- as I write this, my online friend Evil Science Chick is over at the Ikea in Atlantic Station; it's physically the closest we've ever been to each other -- and I belong to several online communities. But as for "real" friends? I have three in this area. That's it. I know a few of my neighbors, but I wouldn't ask them to come over and feed my cats, and I don't know any of them well enough to ask them to babysit when I go to see Eddie Izzard next Tuesday night. (My daughter will be staying the night with my in-laws.) The buzzword around the internet these days is social networking -- that is, building online networks for the purpose of replacing the communities we've left behind. These teenage girls have built a community, and as reprehensible as we might find their behavior, I for one think they have the right idea, even though they've gone about it the wrong way. But if these ten fictional women I mentioned above moved into the three for-sale houses in my neighborhood, I for one would applaud the community they've built.
-
by: Josh Roseman | 11Alive.com Web ProducerAdmin
Fri, 20 Jun 2008 10:41:59 PDT
For anyone who's seen those pictures of cats with words on them and has no idea what they're looking at, here's a picture of a mama cat explaining the concept of captions to her kittens.
(Click for larger.) This is probably the funniest lolcat (that's what they're called) that I've seen all week. And as my co-workers will tell you, I see a lot of lolcats in a week.
-
by: Josh Roseman | 11Alive.com Web ProducerAdmin
Thu, 19 Jun 2008 10:02:09 PDT
I have no words. From the Sydney Morning Herald: A Canadian court has lifted a 12-year-old girl's grounding, overturning her father's punishment for disobeying his orders to stay off the internet, his lawyer said. The girl had taken her father to Quebec Superior Court after he refused to allow her to go on a school trip for chatting on websites he tried to block, and then posting "inappropriate" pictures of herself online using a friend's computer. The father's lawyer Kim Beaudoin said the disciplinary measures were for the girl's "own protection" and is appealing the ruling. "She's a child," Beaudoin said. [...] "I started an appeal of the decision today to reestablish parental authority, and to ensure that this case doesn't set a precedent," she said. Otherwise, said Beaudoin, "parents are going to be walking on egg shells from now on". [...] According to court documents, the girl's internet transgression was just the latest in a string of broken house rules. Even so, Justice Suzanne Tessier found her punishment too severe. Not only did this girl take her father to court over breaking house rules, but she managed to win the case? What was the school trip? An all-expenses-paid weekend in Canada's Wonderland (think Hershey Park, but in Toronto)? I would think the father would be more punished here anyway because, if there was a fee to take the trip, I'm pretty sure he won't get his money back, even if it is just $10 for museum admission and box lunch. And the judge? Does she not have kids? Has she never misbehaved as a child? Excuse me while I go bash my head against something. ... ... ... Ow. Much better. I really hope this gets overturned. It is the most ridiculous thing I've heard this week, and I have a one-year-old who's just learning to talk. Just you wait. Soon enough, some American kid will try to pull this. Probably in southern California. But it won't be over losing Facebook privileges or being held out of a school trip; it'll be over the parents not handing over $75 for gas for the kid's Escalade. And the parents will lose. This is apparently what I have to look forward to.
-
Thu, 19 Jun 2008 09:39:23 PDT
-
Mon, 16 Jun 2008 05:56:35 PDT
-
Fri, 13 Jun 2008 08:30:16 PDT
-
Fri, 13 Jun 2008 08:10:41 PDT
-
Thu, 12 Jun 2008 10:31:28 PDT
-
Thu, 03 Jul 2008 08:22:00 PDT
-
Wed, 02 Jul 2008 07:05:30 PDT
-
Mon, 30 Jun 2008 12:44:11 PDT
-
Mon, 30 Jun 2008 02:59:37 PDT
-
Sun, 29 Jun 2008 16:02:33 PDT
|
|
|
|
