Molehills and Mountains

You have heard of that old adage "making mountains out of molehills", right? I have noticed quite of few stories in the media over that last few weeks that seem to be "fight worthy" causes for some people (mountains) while being less than significant to others (molehills). It is an interesting time in our culture when people can take a random "cause" and elevate it to national bylines at least for a week or so before someone elses  perceived "wrongs" make the national news. 

Within the last few months, for example,  Starbucks was served with not one but two new lawsuits. Before we discuss these most recent suits, you have to recognize that Starbucks has a history of being sued. Much like a lot of big corporations, Starbucks has pretty much had a never-ending parade of lawsuits levied against them. The most popular being that their hot drinks are HOT.

Well..supposedly their hot drinks are TOO hot.  Sadly, for some of the litigants the strength of those  particular suits are disappearing into wisps of smoke (or dissolving hot froth) because one of the more notable cases was dismissed last year which set a precedent for the 1200+ pending suits that they may be left fighting an uphill battle. 


Anyway....Starbucks, undoubtedly, had some pretty experienced lawyers on speed dial for that suit as well as the bevy of other lawsuits that included being sued for discriminating against the deaf, against dwarfism, for spiking drinks with heroin, for copyright and trademark infringement, sexual harassment, unpaid overtime, for one man's penis being crushed, and a laundry list of other slights that have made their way into the court system. 

Poor Jeff Rossen...paid to create drama where none exists.

I am sure you will be happy to know that these hard working lawyers over at Starbucks have some additional job security thanks to two newer lawsuits.  The first was filed in mid-March by two Californians that are asking for a class action suit to be brought before the court for "unspecified damages" with the demand for a jury trial for what they deem as millions of people being short changed by under-filled lattes.

While they might actually have a case due to all the people that are now dumping their 16 ounce Grandes into calibrated beakers to determine how many ounces of brew they are being screwed out of...there is a lot of debate about the science of whip and foam. Not to be the devil's advocate, but what if 2 ounces of milk that is whipped doesn't always measure exactly the same due to humidity or air pressure.  Is "whip" by it's very nature always the same volume? 

Then when you think it can't more unjust in the world of $6.00 coffees, a Chicago woman has brought a $5 MILLION dollar suit to Federal court saying that Starbucks is filling her iced drinks with too much ice.  According to Stacy Pincus, iced drinks cost more than heated drinks but you only get half the product because the other half is replaced by ice.  Starbucks is countering her claims with the comment, "Our customers understand and expect that ice is an essential component of any 'iced' beverage." (NOTE TO STACY: Heads up if you want to prove this in court...do it fast before the ice melts!)

I guess we have to assume that some of those lawsuits and complaints are legitimate. Yes, just given the law of averages,  in some cases there were probably "wrongs" that were committed against employees and customers...., but  couldn't we, also, assume that some people are overly sensitive and making something "bigger" than it needs to be.

The Internet has a way of taking an innocuous events and turning them into a cause.  Remember the Red Cup promotion at Christmas? 
Yes, the infamous RED CUP CONTROVERSY aka Red Cupgate and #itsjustacup became big news on the Internet.

Because Starbucks failed to  put a "Christmasy"  motif on the seasonal cups, the Internet went wild with accusations that Starbucks was anti-Christmas.There was a video made my an Arizona preacher, Joshua Feuerstein, that went viral claiming that Starbucks hates Jesus.  (Seriously?)

Another example, of a recent flare up on social media is related to a NOVEL with the title Meternity.  Meghann Foye, the author of Meternity writes a fictional story about a woman named Liz that is mistakenly thought to be pregnant by her coworkers. Liz takes advantage of the situation, starts wearing a fake baby bump with the end game of being able to take some "me time" off for renewal and reflection.  Somewhere between the "it's only a fictional story" and the ensuing sh** storm that is playing out in the media, was the fact, that Meghann said in interviews that the idea for her book was based on the fact she feels it's unfair that non-mothers don't get some time off.

Poor obtuse, Meghann.   Clearly she has lost her mind to link the phrase "time off" and "maternity leave" in the same sentence, then actually say it out loud and not expect some controversy.    Even way back when...when I was a young mommy, maternity rights were a hard-fought battle and it's a very sensitive issue. (NOTE:  Meghann, you poor naive thing...don't go there. You have no idea how cranky an overwhelmed, sleep deprived, hormonal, new mommy can be. Don't say I didn't warn you.)

BUT...back let's circle back to the concept of people latching onto some individual's agenda and either making it into a  fight or trying to elbow their way onto the soap box. Whether it's under-filled lattes, unadorned red cups or an author's cluelessness about what a maternity leave is,  should we expect that every opinion  has the potential of going viral?   Is there any thought that could be thought in today's Internet driven world that doesn't have the possibility to be so incendiary that it could spark hot debates over all the morning news, the daytime talk shows and Internet comment sections?

I am fairly certain that not only will the irritated moms get past caring about what Meghann thinks and go about their busy lives but another NEW cause will take it's place. Yes, indeedy...the idea of Meternity leaves has already spurred a new cause. If moms get maternity leaves and non-moms want time off, then pet owners need equal treatment. Can we hear a "Woof Woof?"  That idea  prompted  Lindsay Putnam of the New York Post to write an article last week asking for implementation of Paw-ternity leaves in the U.S.

Paw-ternity leaves are actually a thing in Britain.  Five percent of the employers (so it's not a BIG thing..just a thing) offer paid time off for pet owners that need to take care of their pets. Of course, it could be pointed out that in Britain, women get paid maternity leave for sometimes up to a year, so it would appear that they are a quite a bit more generous with their "time off" policies than the U.S.

Perhaps, I should take some "me time", move to Britain and buy some cats....
OR, I could just stay here and think of a cause that would benefit me in some wonderful way and make it into the next big national debate. 

Rules, Laws, Guidelines or Suggestions

Today is tax day.  Not a fun day for a lot of people, I suspect. Most of us have come to terms with it as  just  being one of the many rules that we have to deal with if we are to  live in the U.S.A.  That particular set of rules is complicated.  Tens of thousands of bureaucratic  undecipherable, conflicting, dos and don'ts and cans and can'ts. 

Rules...today I struggle with the good and the bad of rules. Not just rules, really,  but laws, requirements, mandates, suggestions...so many directives and so many gray areas.

While I usually think of myself as somewhat of a libertarian, there are days that I find myself thinking some new law or rule needs to be implemented to fix a perceived problem.  As a consummate rule follower, I also want things to be concise and make sense. I know, I know...conflicted right?  I want some rules but don't want rules that were made for just the sake of having rules. They should serve a purpose...a reasonable purpose that makes sense. 

BUT..as of late a good many things don't make sense.

Thought Number One:  Frivolous versus Important

When I was a young mother, I gauged some of what I allowed or didn't allow my children to do,  on the premise "will this action impact anyone in any negative way".  If my child wanted to fingerpaint on top of the kitchen table and was having fun doing it, was there anyone impacted or hurt in a negative way?  NO, so why not let him or her paint?  Wiping up some messy water based paint didn't bother me so, all is fine.
Conversely, I wouldn't let him or her loose with paint next to the neighbor's car.

I haven't progressed much past that. All the rules, laws, mandates etc. should have some value as far as providing a greater good for someone or something.  They shouldn't just be arbitrary just for the benefit of making people jump through hoops.

Last week, for example, I was talking to a good friend and fellow blogger, Leah, (check out her blog, Eating Life Raw)  about the fact that some writers go "ape shit" (technical term)  over bad grammar.  Out of all the things in my life, I have little care whether someone uses poor grammar.  I have the ability to ignore it.  If I read something poorly written, I could quit reading it, although in all likelihood would read it anyway.  I would It doesn't matter enough to make a huge deal out of it.

Another rule that has incensed me this week that I need to put into the frivolous category but seem to be stewing  over, is my community's HOA rules.

Last week I contacted a painter to repaint my house and he had an opening to start painting last Saturday.  Very quick turn around and I was ready to get on with it.  I sent an email last Wednesday (4/9) to the HOA architectural committee person (or at least the contact person with a link on the subdivision website) and said that I was having my house painted starting Saturday (4/12) but I was painting the house the same color that had been previously OK'd  several years ago.  Nothing is changing.  No response by Saturday so I allowed the painters to start.

Last night I get an email from the person that I had contacted, who said he is no longer on the committee but I needed to fill out the appropriate forms and send those to the association's president....which I did. I also, apologized for the delay but in all fairness, the delay is the result of my original request going to someone that no longer is involved with the HOA and he didn't contact me back until last night.

Well....This morning, I wake up to a 3 paragraph bitch-out about how there is a process that takes time and I knew the rules when I moved here..blah, blah blah.  She, also said she didn't believe that "it just occurred to me one day to paint my house" so I should of had plenty of time to work on getting the necessary paperwork done.  OK...now that just pissed me off.  How does she know that I didn't wake up last Wednesday and decide to paint my house?

 Silly her.....little does she know.... That is exactly what happened. I was talking to my daughter about who painted their house last Wednesday, I immediately called the painter and said "let's do this".  I am nothing if not impulsive.

Anyway, after getting her nasty email ....I, acting like the mature grown-up I am, shot back a equally snotty note.  (copies available upon request)   I haven't heard back yet but I am expecting a backlash. The fact that my house is half painted at this point isn't exactly bearing well on my previous statement claiming myself to be  a "rule follower", but has, instead led me down the path of when are rules important and when are rules just created to justify someone's position or driven by someone's need to impose their will on others?


Thought Number Two:  Rules that Make a Society Better

Now that I have started down that road of important versus frivolous...here comes the gray area. There are gaps between man-made rules that are bureaucratic in nature,  the societal rules that protect our rights and the rights of other, and the moral and ethical rules that make humans "decent" (some might call these god-given rules, if you follow religious teachings like the Ten Commandments) and even the rules of etiquette that just serve to make us "nicer".

What I know in my heart is that you can't mandate good behavior.  You can't  make a law or a rule that makes a person behave himself or herself.  You can only make rules that are designed to provide a good foundation for people to live in some style of harmony. That isn't how it often shakes out.
 
I am mired in sadness at the recklessness by people that break the "important" rules and leave the rest of us vulnerable to chaos.  This has been a difficult week in my community just as many of your communities have experienced prior to this event. (Note: referring to the shooting deaths of 3 people in my community of Overland Park, KS) Those that choose to break the important rules to the determent of others, those that  act out  on some misguided premise or maybe they are just so vile and evil they can't comprehend right from wrong.  I don't know how people think but I know that 3 people that were well loved lost their lives this week. 

There are a lot of little rules hardly worth noting but there are some rules of such importance that it's hard to believe that people would every defy them.  AND yet they do.


Off topic a bit....

Speaking of rules:  I saw this on Facebook and thought "as rules go" I could get on board with these.
Notice the reference to using "please and thank-you".








Come Join Top Sites Tuesday and be #1 on BlogDumps!
The purpose of this Meme is to encourage
Networking between bloggers and to have fun while doing it!
Make sure to visit all the other participants and leave comments