I wasn’t going to comment on the discussion of coffee sizes at Starbucks, inspired by a Dave Barry column and still ongoing, but somehow I feel I need to. Perhaps I still haven’t gotten over being told by a Starbucks barista that ordering a large black tea did not, to her, communicate that I wanted a large cup of tea without milk, but rather that I wanted some sort of iced beverage of uncertain provenance. The issue of ludicrous names for sizes never bothered me, as I viewed it as much like Denny’s insisting that one order the Rooty Tooty Fresh’n’Fruity rather than the waffle with strawberries (or whatever it was).
My own local coffeehouse has posted on the counter the Doonesbury strip about this issue, culminating in Michael’s cry to Supersize his coffee. Which is exactly what’s happening, of course. I can’t recall which particular hundred-year-old commentary I was reading that mocked somebody’s penchant for tea in pint mugs, but I was amused only until I started thinking that my own mug was much more than a pint. More, even, than an English pint (25% bigger!). Actually, to be honest, I guzzle tea by the quart, although suggestions that I actually suck on the spout of the teapot are meant to be insulting (and perhaps evocative) rather than accurate.
Anyway, it’s clearly not good for a person to drink tea (much less coffee) in immense quantities; an eight-ounce cup is probably a good idea. Soda is worse than either, as far as I know. We use the eight-ounce ‘short cans’ here rather than the 12-ounce cans of my childhood or the now more or less ubiquitous 20-ounce plastic bottles. And am I misremembering this, or when convenience stores started selling 32-ounce soda cups, wasn’t part of the marketing the sheer ludicrousness of a 32-ounce soda? Within a year or two, the 32-ounce cup was the standard ‘large’ soda. Of course, that includes 24 ounces of ice, so it’s a bit different.
Anyway, I’ve wandered pretty far from the topic, if there was one. Oh, yes, silly names for drink sizes. You know, this is the third time this week Starbucks has poked its caffeinated head into this blog? That can’t be good.
Thank you,
-Vardibidian.
IHOP
was/is the home of the Rooty Tooty Fresh ‘n’ Fruity.
They just changed their menu, though, and I’m not sure this old favorite has survived.
They also no longer list the side orders on the same page as the breakfasts; they just encourage you to add that breakfast side (which you know they must serve) without checking to find out that they charge $1.50 per egg or something like than. An unworthy trick, I think.
I’m mostly just rambling about this to take the occasion to say that I’m still reading and enjoying but entirely without the time to comment on anything that actually requires thought.
If you go to an IHOP in the near future and can’t get the RTF’n’F, I recommend the banana-nut pancakes.
Chris beat me to it; the RTFnF is in fact an IHOP creation. And it is still on the menu; when last we were there, there was a sign in the anteroom that used their “funny name, great breakfast” or some such marketing slogan.
I think Chris orders it just because it’s fun to make the server say it back to you.
Now, that’s embarrasing. Of course it’s IHOP. I can’t believe I made that error, particularly as I haven’t been in a Denny’s in five years (not that I frequent the IHOP these days, living as I do in the land of the waffle joint).
Thanks,
-V.
soda is worse because of the corn syrup. add that to the list of KFCs (killer fats and carbs).
when i first heard that starbucks had baristas in its employ i thought, they’re angry about price fixing; they’ve hired an army to overthrow the government of colombia. in the last few years the barista movement has become quite large, now in the tens of thousands, though the individual cells operate in shifts to hide their true numbers. like many guerrilla armies they do not have a fixed supply of weapons, relying in this case on their troops to acquire arms for themselves or to develop relationships with local elites so as to gain access to the use of local paramilitary forces.
the money model is simple, because, like many institutionally-sponsored movements, barista cells principally finance themselves through drug sales. this is where their elites-only strategy is most effective. their association with local elites make it difficult to investigate their financial or tactical activity. to bolster that, they are able to raise large amounts of money in short periods so as to bribe those they cannot charm. (in wealthy countries, this is a largely non-violent movement – probably due to a religious component of “service” that appeases many potential opponents.)
in poorer countries, access to local paramilitary forces has proven effective in gaining political ground. in addition, by relying on third-party militia, the non-violent reputation of the drug sales operation is maintained at a high enough level to allow fundraising through legitimate business channels as an elite narcotics operation, an unbelievable achievement that has vast ramifications for future guerrilla operations.