Balancing act

Today is Labor Day, a federal holiday that commemorates the contributions of the American labor movement and sacrifices of workers. While I'd thoroughly enjoy discussing the legal and political history of industrial labor relations, this post concerns an issue more salient to many adults in this country: maintaining a balance between work and family responsibilities. 

Because of my own experience striving for "work-life balance", I'm quite curious (perhaps even nosy) about other families' work and child-care arrangements. I've known brave and capable women who return to work soon after giving birth, often sacrificing personal time to manage a household and earn a paycheck. Some of my friends - men and women alike - are selfless stay-at-home parents who meet their children's needs from sunrise until sundown while their partner works long hours. Others have managed a mixed schedule consisting of part-time work and part-time caregiving.  Still others have arranged to work from home certain days, allowing them to maintain a full-time workload while fulfilling familial obligations such as carpools and bus stop drop-offs and pickups. In addition to day care and/or school, most parents I know also rely on help from extended family members and/or babysitters to enable them to work (or do errands and chores kid-free). 

Social media is ripe with accounts of the struggle to balance work and family - specifically care of young children. In one such article, Why I Opted In To ‘The Motherhood Penalty’ At My Job, Jordan Jayson describes her decision to reduce her work-week to four days, and accept a proportional (20 percent) salary reduction in exchange. She discusses the satisfaction achieved by having one day per week to spend with her son when she'd otherwise be working, as well as the concerns about how her flexible work arrangement will affect her long-term earning prospects and professional reputation. The "mix of doubt, guilt, and self-criticism isn’t unfamiliar to working mothers. It comes with the territory," she writes. Furthermore, she talks about policy challenges involving parental leave policies, the perception of working moms as somehow "gaming the system," and the reality that in fact they work longer overall hours, toggling between childcare tasks and after-hours work once kids are asleep. Most significantly, Jayson criticizes the treatment of women as a "one-size-fits-all" constituency when it comes to desired career trajectory and the policies offered to help mothers in the workplace. 

Perhaps because the author's child is still young, one pertinent factor that the article doesn't address is the likelihood that over the course of her career one woman may need several different variations of a flexible-work schedule before returning to a "regular" full-time arrangement. As time passes, most children grow more self-sufficient with respect to both day-to-day self-care and entertaining themselves. They eventually spend most of their waking hours in school and other structured activities. Thus, if someone such as Jayson opts for a reduced workload after the birth of a child, she will eventually be able to return to full-time, therefore allaying her fears that she has forever harmed her wage-earning prospects. Still, the zeitgeist around working moms in particular seems to cast aspersions on any departure from a full-time work schedule in which the aim is to score every possible professional achievement. A working mom who returns to a regular full-time schedule will likely feel pressure to throw herself into work and handle emergencies or other last-minute developments with the same aplomb as her previous childless self. 

Of course, as Jayson also conveys, arranging atypical work schedules depends on the willingness of employers to accommodate workers' needs. In some industries this may simply not be possible; in others, flexibility may be easier to achieve. Another factor, of course, involves the practicalities of sharing childrearing responsibilities between partnered parents. Whether or not one has children, the way in which families handle the balance between wage-earning and childcare effects us all, insofar as it impacts how the next generation of humans is raised.  In my further posts, I plan to explore policies concerning parental leave and childcare, as well as the practices and attitudes surrounding which partner handles which household tasks. As always, I'd love to hear any reader reactions (including tales of flexible work arrangements) in the comments. 

On frequency & direction

I'm happy to report that more posts are coming! When I first conceived this blog, I had lofty aspirations of semi-regular, highly researched, topical think-pieces hashing out issues through my lens as both attorney and parent. Unfortunately, the stars have aligned such that I've not had time for any of these over the last year. Nonetheless, our nation's present political situation being with it is, I've felt more of a pull to write shorter commentaries on current events. Hence, that is what you will see for the foreseeable future... with an occasional larger research-laden article should the zeitgeist yield one. 

My aim in focusing on current events is to offer relevant perspective on timely sociopolitical issues, instead of in-depth analysis of topics that happen to strike me. If the last few months have taught us anything, it's that our political voices should not be confined to election cycles. Being civically engaged means participating in salient exchanges every day, so that we all reach a greater understanding of today's policy challenges. Here's hoping my contributions are worthwhile enough to inspire productive discussions. 

Screening out screens

"Tablet! Taaaaaablet!”

For a while, this was the first thing my 2-and-a-half-year-old said when she came downstairs in the morning, or after a nap. Lately, as she’s become more apt to speaking in full sentences, variations have included “Mom, I need tablet,” “I use tablet,” and “Tablet time!”

It was never my intention to allow my child to have semi-autonomous YouTube time, at least not beginning at the tender age of twenty months. At that time, though, she was firmly fixated on cell phones. The option of keeping my iPhone out of sight made me twitch a little, driving home just how much I’d been using it before. Once introduced to the tablet, my toddler became less obsessed with the ever-ubiquitous smartphone. So, letting her click around amongst kid-friendly videos amounted to the lesser of two evils.

Don’t get me wrong; she still gravitates towards phones. If she isn’t sufficiently engaged in a non-screen activity, and someone in the room so much as glances at a device, she immediately asks to watch videos or look at pictures. Once she's given pictures or videos to look at, that's all she wants to do for (seemingly) the rest of her life.  It fundamentally scares me that she can be sitting in a room full of toys and family members and would rather be watching a screen. Even if I guide her toward a non-screen activity, I know it's only a matter of time before she remembers that Mickey and Minnie are waiting for her inside the magical touchscreen rectangle. 

Desperate to impose some limits on the situation, I came up with a system in which she gets three instances of video viewing per day on the screen of her choosing. After each session, she colors in a box on a chart. The length of the sessions are variable, usually based on however long it takes me to finish feeding her baby brother or complete half a household chore. Sometimes she turns the tablet off herself after only five or ten minutes, while most of the time I need to give her a “last video” warning. Thankfully, she understands that if she’s watching our biggest screen, the TV, I turn it off when her videos are over.

So far, the system has seemingly conveyed that watching videos is a limited activity, and not something we do all freakin' day. Still, I sometimes get the sense that every minute she's not watching a screen is just killing time between tablet sessions. Also, lest I give a toddler too much credit, on more than one occasion she's asked for her third tablet session at 4 p.m., claiming to understand that she can't ask for videos later, only to react with complete and utter despair when I point to the chart and deny her request for more tablet at 6:30 p.m. Thus, I usually try stave off that 4 p.m. viewing in the hopes that she’ll agree to “save tablet ‘til later.”

Given our predicament, my husband forwarded me a recent New York Times article addressing the slippery slope of screen time for kids. In 2013, the American Academy of Pediatrics’ 2013 recommended a limitation of two hours of entertainment screen time per day for children over 2. Without contradicting this standard, the Times piece discusses some preliminary studies indicating the existence of benefits from “prosocial media.” The example the article uses is Skyping with Grandma, saying that the positive effect of this activity is time with Grandma, and not with Skype itself.

With our extended family living close by, Skype doesn’t get a lot of use in my house. The analogous compromise we’ve made is allowing our daughter to bond with visiting relatives by looking at photos or videos of past events. My thinking has always been that this isn’t harmful if it’s kept to short sessions in-between playing games, singing songs, and reading books. In line with the Times article, I often explain that “people are more important than videos” when curtailing electronic activities. Nonetheless, it troubles me when she seems to associate certain visitors with their devices, instead of other interactive experiences. I’m also cautious about visiting with friends who tend to leave the TV on for hours at a time or permit unfettered tablet use. I vividly recall my own mother telling my friends and me to turn the TV off and do something else. “You can watch TV separately at your own houses,” she liked to point out to her basement full of preteen girls.

Aside from the usual “how much is too much?” question, the Times broaches the notion that screen time tends to replace other more enriching activities. This is especially worrisome for children under age 2, “who need direct human interaction to learn and develop.” For older children, tablets and computers aren’t necessarily detrimental in small doses, but every minute spent playing a video game or watching a show is a minute not spent playing ball, interacting with family members, or reading. Furthermore, the sheer volume of media available on the Internet makes it a Pandora’s box of mesmerization once a screen is put on. “I watch one more,” my daughter sometimes tells me – several times in a row – when I’m trying to get her to turn the tablet off.

This problem is what motivates me to plead with relatives to keep their phones hidden while I actively pepper her with books, art projects, sing-alongs, and outside playtime. This is no easy task, as our family members have significantly increased their own smartphone usage over time, as has most of Western society. (Unlike my toddler, their brains are sufficiently developed.) I also need to consider my 4-month-old son, who will inevitably experience more screen entertainment at an earlier age. The looser I am with regulating his sister's viewing, the more premature exposure he'll get. 

My hope is that pretty soon my daughter will be easier to reason with about screen viewing. As she gets older and her life becomes more routinized, we'll likely move to scheduled times for screens (e.g. one show in the morning and some tablet viewing before dinner), which will eliminate arguments about when she’s allowed to watch. My husband has also tried to foster her interest in playing number-and-letter-learning games, instead of mostly watching cartoons. She’s learned a lot from Doc McStuffins and Elmo, but games will certainly impart more educational value.

Eventually, she’ll be using technology to do research, write essays, and Skype (or use its futuristic equivalent), and I’ll be telling her to go across the street and talk to her friends in person instead of on the computer.

Blast from the [electoral] past

In November 2012, my sister invited me to write a guest column for her (now defunct) social work blog. As we approach another presidential election, I present - unedited and in its entirety - my postmortem analysis of the last one:

            Although my undergraduate education doesn’t always prove useful in my everyday life, it has afforded me an invitation to write this guest column about our recent election.
            The most unfortunate result of my political science studies is an acute frustration with the general public’s regard for our political process. Americans of all stripes get entirely hot and bothered every four years when we need to elect a president. This isn’t surprising considering the president is our country’s head of state and most visible citizen. Nonetheless, so much more is involved in federal governance.
            With regard to the office of the presidency itself, the man (or, someday, woman) who we elect to hold the title isn’t the whole story. The President employs dozens of advisers, assistants, and aides (I trust that someone out there has seen The West Wing considering it was on for 7 years) who help carry out day-to-day activities and incubate policy ideas.  Those ideas can be passed along for execution by various cabinet departments – Education, State, Homeland Security, Health and Human Services, etc. Alternatively, the President and his/her staff might take one of these policy ideas and draft a new law, which it then sends along to Congress.
            Ah, Congress. During his debates with Gov. Romney, there was a lot of talk about President Obama’s failure to work cooperatively with our federal legislators. As the election neared there was also some media coverage of the Democratic and Republican majorities in the Senate and the House of Representatives, respectively. Nonetheless, I don’t think these other elections received enough attention considering how much of the action takes place in these legislative bodies. Each presidential candidate espoused his views on a variety of policy matters, but I question how much any of that really maters with respect to legislative outcomes.  Sure, the President has some influence over similarly-idealed Congressmembers, but it’s not like he can just wave his hand and make them raise taxes the way he wants or legalize gay marriage or declare his birthday to be a national holiday.
            Instead, elected lawmakers must work amongst themselves to pass the legislation that governs our lives, and ultimately they answer to their constituents. Then again, if most Americans are only obsessed with the Presidential election, their jobs become a little easier and remain in obscurity.  (I interned for a U.S. Senator, and could do a whole separate post explaining the inner workings of Congress and how difficult it is for our legislators to pass meaningful laws. At a minimum, I’ll encourage everyone to look up who represents them, investigate these individuals’ views, and pay attention to news reports of their activities in DC. That way, in 2 years, you can vote to either re-elect or replace your House member, and maybe a Senator as well.)
            State and local politics also mustn’t go overlooked. A lot of federal programs – Medicaid and some of the recent economic recovery efforts – distribute money to states, the governments of which then use the funds as they see fit. And the President has basically no influence on whether your municipality votes to increase its sales tax rate or impose new regulations on building construction. Of course, the news was wrought with mentions of controversial state ballot measures, such as Minnesota’s proposed amendment restricting marriage to straight couples and the marijuana legalization referenda in Colorado and Washington, but I’m sure there were others that merited consideration despite not making it to the headlines.
            Instead, most news outlets and therefore most citizens were chiefly concerned with who should reside in the White House for the next four years. The whole ordeal had the tenor of a sporting event, with the pre-game predictions and analysis stretching out for a seemingly interminable year. These activities reached their culmination on the evening of Election Day, during which the media coverage exacerbated the analogy by breaking down every possible statistic and reporting from polling places in battleground states every five minutes. This is the first Presidential Election I experienced via Twitter and Tumblr, which both had an odd play-by-play sort of feel as the projections started to come in. I cringed when people started freaking out early in the night when President Obama was losing the electoral vote 33-3. (I realize I’ve gotten this far without discussing the electoral college. Sound off in the comments if this is good or bad.)
            Witnessing the aftermath of the election via social media was perhaps the most disheartening. (My husband fell asleep on the couch as soon as CNN called the race for President Obama, so I really had no one else to interact with.) Posts by Obama supporters ranged from general notions evincing the joy of victory to outright personal insults directed towards Romney. I found the extent of this gloating a little ridiculous since reelection marks the mere beginning of the uphill battle towards full economic recovery and advancement of social justice issues. The President’s victory speech had a solemn and controlled overtone which conveyed this seriousness, as well as a determination to continue his administration’s efforts at making this country a better place.
            Meanwhile, on Facebook, other folks (presumably Romney backers) bemoaned the state of affairs in this country and threatened to move to Canada. To these people, I can offer the reminder that the reelection of an incumbent President does not necessarily mandate persistence of the status quo, and the defeat of your candidate should not be the end of the story until 2016. Join groups that support the issues you believe in. Write to political officeholders urging them to pursue policies that are important to you. The best part about the U.S. is that everyone can have a say in the political process. Regardless of the party with which you identify, and the issues you support, I hope the readers of this blog choose to educate themselves a little more and make their voices heard – and not just every 4 years.

How 'bout that, hmm? It's always educational to reflect on the past.

The only part I'll re-emphasize is that if you don't like the way things are, get involved. Thousands of men and women have fought for our right to vote; please don't take this opportunity responsibility for granted. 

Voting Primar(il)y for Progress

Ah, presidential primary season. As a student of the political process, I have many thoughts to share. That said, for the sake of brevity, I'm going to gloss over most substantive policy talk. (Please feel free to comment or email to hash things out in more detail.) Instead, I want to address the purpose - and pitfalls - of primary elections.

Under the veil of this (semi-)anonymous blog, I hope I've accurately represented myself as a progressively minded young lawyer-mom. Hence, even readers who don't know me personally shouldn't have trouble assuming that such a person tends to vote for Democrats.

Last week, I was speaking with another progressively minded 25-to-34-year-old woman about the Democratic primary candidates. If Donald Trump is the inappropriate drunk uncle at a wedding, we determined that Bernie Sanders is the wacky hippie cousin who shows up to the reception on a Vespa without having RSVPed, wearing Birkenstocks even though it's snowing outside. We concluded that while Hillary Clinton may be a little too ensconced in the establishment to accurately represent our views, Sanders's ideas are too radical to 1) win him the Electoral College and 2) implement if he is elected president. While it would be nice to live in a world where Bernie is a viable candidate, we agreed that Hillary is the safer bet.

The other day, however, I remembered that I have an undergraduate degree in political science, and I completely changed my mind.

Don't get me wrong. If Hillary is the party's nominee, I will gladly cast my vote in her favor. Sanders himself has said as much. But choosing a nominee isn't necessarily the most important part of primary elections.

Stay with me here. Yes, the end result of the primaries are huge nominating conventions, at which each party designates its nominee for President based on which candidate has the most delegate support. In the meantime, the primaries provide an opportunity for different factions of each party to have their views heard. By supporting candidates and ideas that are less popular, voters force mainstream candidates and institutions to more carefully consider their positions. Throw out whatever cliché you'd like: Rome wasn't built in a day, slow and steady wins the race, etc. Sanders - and Ben Carson, John Kasich, et al. on the GOP side - might not gain enough support to secure the nomination. Nonetheless, the political process is not served by their supporters simply throwing in the towel at the start of the primary season. The farther a fringe candidate lasts in the primaries, the more voice his or her ideas are given.

For Democrats who feel that Bernie is too liberal and Hillary isn't progressive enough, it's easy for this primary to seem like a lose-lose. Instead, I've chosen to view it as a win-win. If I support Sanders now, and he wins the nomination, great. If he doesn't, I've still done my part by advancing his policies and keeping the conversation focused on issues I feel are important.

Like I said, this is not intended to be a substantive discussion or soapbox lecture. Feel free to despise the person who I've chosen to vote for. If your values align with Hillary's position, vote for her. If you're voting in the Republican primary, and you believe that Jeb Bush is the best candidate, please vote for him even if your fellow party members say he doesn't stand a chance. Progress will not be achieved if voters want to use their primary ballots safely, instead of meaningfully.

This situation reminds me of an episode of The West Wing. It's the Democratic National Convention, with no clear favorite having yet emerged amongst the party's presidential candidates. This means that a balloting procedure takes place, with 2,162 delegate votes needed to secure the nomination. Congressman Matt Santos, played by Jimmy Smits, is asked to withdraw from the race and support one of the other candidates. The party backroom feels that he's probably not going to win anyway, and he might as well move things along by dropping out. Instead, he says the following when addressing the arena full of delegates:

"It's been suggested to me that party unity is more important than your democratic rights as delegates. It's not. And you have a decision to make. Don't vote for us because you think we're perfect. Don't vote for us because of what you think we might be able to do for you only. Vote for the person who shares your ideals, your hopes, your dreams. Vote for the person who most embodies what you believe we need to keep our nation strong and free."

Sounds pretty good to me. What do you think? 

The Internet is for Xenophobia

Last weekend's tragic terrorist attacks in Paris have naturally garnered a great deal of attention and scrutiny from news outlets. More significantly, the connection between the heinous violence and emigration from Syria has created a particularly raucous debate on social media.

First off, a Constitutional issue: Upon reading that various governors do not want to allow Syrian refugees into their states, my first thought was "Okay, so?" Certainly they're aware that the federal government dictates the immigration policy for the entire country, right? Thankfully, New York's Governor Andrew Cuomo is aware of this and pointed out the same, whilst voicing his support for a continued tradition of immigration into this country.

His reference to the Statue of Liberty may seem cliche, but it's relevant. With the exception of Native Americans, everyone's ethnic lineage in the U.S. can be traced back to other countries, many within only a few generations. It's disappointing, then, to see such knee-jerk xenophobic reactions to the mere idea that we as a nation offer refuge to people from a country torn by civil war. The Paris attacks understandably strike a nerve with those living in U.S. cities, who fear similar violations on our soil. But the notion that the terrorism in France is inexorably connected to those seeking refuge from Syria has been rebuffed by the revelation that many of those responsible were actually radicalized Belgian and French nationals. Here in the U.S., more deaths have resulted from "homegrown" right-wing extremist attacks than from Jihadist terrorism.

That said, everyone should note that those in favor of accepting Syrian refugees are not necessarily suggesting that we simply let anyone waltz into the country without any investigatory screening. Gov. Cuomo himself expressed that immigration should only continue so long as authorities are able to thoroughly vet potential refugees. In fact, there already exist several layers of vetting for those seeking asylum, beginning first with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and then various U.S. federal agencies and departments. Nonetheless, it's disgustingly intolerant to suggest that religion or ethnicity serve as a screening criteria. While some acts of terrorism have been carried out in the name of Islam or by adherents to the same, dangerous radicals represent a tiny proportion of the world's Islamic population. Instead, counterterrorism experts use forensic interviewing techniques to gather background information, comparing refugees' answers to one another and to existing documentation. In addition, priority is given to vulnerable populations such as single mothers, orphaned children, and special-needs individuals.

As Gov. Cuomo sought to remind us, this country was founded by immigrants, and has accepted waves and waves of people fleeing various hardships in their home countries - the Irish potato famine of the mid-1800s, poor economic conditions in Japan in the late 1800s, persecution of Jews in Eastern Europe in the early-to-mid-1900s, and the Islamic fundamentalist revolution in Iran in the 1970s, to name just a few. Having not been alive during any of these prior eras, I have only secondhand accounts of the political and cultural climate of those times. I'm sure that those whose families had been in this country for more than a generation feared that new immigrants might encroach on their jobs or other economic opportunities, and that certain groups were inherently fearful of others. Human beings are naturally wary of the unfamiliar, which unfortunately includes people from other ethnic and cultural backgrounds.

This tenor is magnified now that we live in an age of constant information. Perpetual access to news media has the potential to make us more informed, but it also leads to the spread of misinformation and unfounded fear. For example, certain headlines, politicians' and pundits' quotes, and popular Facebook posts make it sound as though the United States offered to accept Syrian refugees in direct response to the Paris attacks. In fact, the aforementioned policy geared towards refugees has been in place for several years, and (as also mentioned above) prioritizes asylum for those who are most in need of help. Up-to-the-minute reporting has also created a climate in which news outlets rush to report stories as they break. Most regrettably, this often leads to sensationalist headlines which spread incorrect information before they can be corrected. In this particular instance, some reports initially declared that one of the Paris attackers was a Syrian refugee; later it was clarified that the individual was carrying a forged passport.

Finally, the news media tend to make anything a politician says into a short quote or sound bite that can be taken out of context and interpreted in a variety of ways by the lay public. The ongoing Presidential primary season has provided an unnecessary platform for overly simplified grandstanding by candidates who see an opportunity to look "tough on terror". Immigration is a serious and complex area of policy. The answers are not as simple as "build a wall to keep out the Mexicans" or "don't let in any Muslims"; nor does support of refugees equate with reckless and unfettered immigration. It's unfortunate that people are able to skim a few headlines or short blurbs and buy into such overly simplified rhetoric.

If I could ask anything of my fellow Americans right now, it would be that we react with compassion first. Xenophobia and isolationism will only breed more hatred and fear. Relatedly, I'd urge everyone to remain skeptical about what you hear on the news and read on Facebook. The loudest voices are not always right, nor as self-assured as they may seem. Investigate further and give both sides of an issue their due. Even if you're positively against a certain policy or issue stance, we'll be a better society if people are educated about their views, instead of merely parroting overly simplified quotes from talking heads.

Tip of the Xmas-berg

By now, worldwide news coverage has been devoted to backlash over Starbucks' unveiling of plain red cups for the winter holiday season. Here in New York, Roosevelt Field Mall rolled out a new winter-themed display featuring glaciers and snowmen, instead of Santa and reindeer, then bowed to consumer pressure that Christmas-themed elements be restored. 

These instances of public outcry seem gross overreactions, to say the least. Though they changed the design, Starbucks continued their annual custom of offering a different cup - not to mention specialty drinks! - come November. People's outrage would seem somewhat more justified had the company withdrawn any and all merchandise geared towards the upcoming holiday season. Similarly, the mall endeavored to evoke a seasonally themed display; its management could very well have decided to forgo any special decorations altogether. 

As a lawyer, it is amusing to hear people underscore these arguments in terms of their "right" to religious freedom. Equating the removal of quasi-religious symbols with an infringement of rights is absurd for several reasons. For one, privately held businesses have no legal obligation to offer religiously celebratory decor. The First Amendment reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Moreover, the amendment blatantly provides just as much protection of religion as it does from religion. That is to say that people are equally justified in being offended by the presence of religious symbols instead of their absence. 

Finally, it should go without saying that these pseudo-controversies involving holiday decor are not what the drafters of the Constitution had in mind when implementing the first amendment. In recent years, numerous issues involving religion have arisen which bear some actual import to functioning society, such as:

• the permissibility of religious headware for armed service and uniformed police force members (though this, too, delved into the ridiculous);
• closure of public schools for religious holidays; and 
• the tax-exempt status of religious organizations. 

Individual humans are certainly entitled to their reverence for a make-believe gift-giving fat guy in a red suit; the constitution does not require that every mall in America provide such a man for photo opportunities. People who are offended by the lack of overt Christmas displays don't need to shop at such establishments. OR they can simply use the mall to fulfill its intended function as a place of retail, and engage in festive/seasonal/religious practices in their homes and churches. And if people care that much about the cup their coffee is served in, Starbucks invites them to bring their own - to the tune of a ten-cent discount. Furthermore, the coffee chain continues to sell various Christmas-themed merchandise, including an Advent Calendar, stuffed Santa bears, candy cane mugs, ornament tumblers, and mug ornaments. If the company was really as "anti-Christian" as some critics have asserted, wouldn't these offerings have been pulled as well?

In the interest of full disclosure, this blogger is not of the Christian faith, and partakes in celebrations of Christmas only to the extent that she is invited to other people's homes to exchange gifts and drink egg nog. From this perspective, it is easy to roll one's eyes at the disappointment associated with the above events. True religious persecution still exists in numerous parts of the world, and in our own nation discrimination often inhibits the practice of certain faiths. In light of these circumstances, it's disheartening to see so much attention paid and energy devoted to superficial matters.

But if it means shorter lines at Starbucks (whose coffee this blogger would drink out of an old shoe, if necessary), maybe it's not such a bad thing.