Alzheimer's Society Helps Canadians Remember

According to the National Institute on Aging, Alzheimer’s disease is the most common cause of dementia among older people. As the disease progresses, it destroys memory and basic thinking skills, making it difficult to conduct even the simplest of tasks.

While just about everyone has heard of Alzheimer's, the understanding of this disease is somewhat limited. A recent study by the Alzheimer's Society of B.C. actually revealed a troubling lack of awareness about Alzheimer’s disease among Canadian Baby Boomers.  

So, they set out to make Canadian Boomers more aware of Alzheimer's by constructing a 30-foot wall - made up of 1,000 yellow sticky notes - that spelled REMEMBER in downtown Vancouver.

According to the group: "Each of the 1,000 removable sticky notes has its own reminder printed on it: Don’t forget the Investors Group Walk for Memories. The public will be encouraged to further aid their own memory by taking a removable sticky home with them. As the sticky notes are removed, the display will eventually fade like the memories held by a person living with dementia." (For more information, go here.)

What a great awareness-building idea. Now, if we can just find a cure... 

Ashley Martin: Banned or PR Stunt?

It's all over the news today - Fox has rejected Ashley Madison's Super Bowl spot.

Over the years, we've come to expect that a handful of ads will be censored by the networks. In Super Bowl 2010, PETA, KGB, and Go Daddy all had ads that never saw the light of day on Super Bowl Sunday. 

In many ways, we enjoy watching these ads just as much (or in some cases, even more) than those that are aired on Super Bowl Sunday. For instance, look at the number of YouTube views for three of last year's banned commercials:

PETA            160,783
KBG             332,713
Go Daddy     930,714         

While viewership may not be in the millions, remember that each of these views came at no cost to the company.

People wonder why or how these ads flew through the approval process in their companies without raising a few eye brows. Well, the plain and simple truth is this ... they didn't. Many, if not all of these companies, never expected the networks to approve their ads for the Super Bowl.

Think about it, does a company like Ashley Martin really want to spend $3 million for 30 seconds of fame? Or would they rather pay the production costs to create the ad and then wallow in all the free publicity?

My money is on the latter. 

P.S. By the way, I just helped them achieve their goal by writing this blog. 

Target's Big Baby Billboard

On New Year's Day, Target Baby launched a birth announcement campaign to welcome babies around the world.

From December 31 through January 6, proud moms and dads headed out to the Target Baby Facebook page to enter the name, weight, and birth details of their baby. Once created, they could share their customized digital baby announcement with family and friends via Facebook, twitter or email.

But, that was just the beginning...

Parents could also submit their baby's name for inclusion on the "Big Baby Billboard,"  a 40-foot high refrigerator magnet located in New York and Los Angeles.  For five days, workers continually changed the billboard to reflect the birth details of new baby after new baby, like:

Matthew J. Leonard

8 lbs 5 oz

December 10, 2010

12:46 am

Barnstable, MA

Or...

Kylie Lynn Vasquez

7 lbs 14 oz

November 28, 2010

12:47 am

Annaheim, CA

The purpose of this changing act?

To capture a smidgen of the joy that new parents feel when their baby enters the world and pass it on to others.

Birth announcements ... courtesy of Target.

German YaLook.com Begs You To Take A Look

 

The German fashion apparel website, Ya Look, serves up a positively charming print campaign that begs you to learn more about what they have to offer.

YaLook.com is a recent online start-up in the German market. Its portal showcases the fashions of more than 60 trendy brands, like Diesel, Lagerfeld, and Kookai. 

The challenge:

How do you entice people to visit your new website?

The answer:

 
Use some of the fashionable clothes you're selling to create "fashion faces." 

The critique:

 
Let's face it - This is fabulous!

Caribou Coffee Turns Up The Heat

Everyone knows that Minnesota can be darn cold during the long and dark winter months. I'm sure many a traveler stops at the drive-through of the local Caribou to get a steaming cup of coffee on their way to work ... not only for the much-needed jolt of caffeine, but also as a morning dose of toasty warmth.

But, how about travelers that are forced to brave the elements and ride the bus to work every day? Well, Caribou Coffee has found a clever way to comfort those unfortunate souls.

In order to promote their new line of hot breakfast sandwiches, Caribou has literally turned up the heat in Minnesota area bus shelters. Bus travelers can now warm up while waiting for their bus ... in the giant sized oven provided by Caribou.

A cozy, warm way for Caribou Coffee to serve up its marketing message, while simultaneously endearing the target to its brand.  Nicely done, Caribou!

AT&T Lets You In On The Joke

Have you ever felt left out of a joke?

Such is the case with the latest commercial from AT&T.

A carpool full of business people are driving along, when one man's phone dings. Ah, a message has arrived!  He opens the message and breaks into uproarious laughter ... all while his  business associates sit by numbly, wondering what is so hilarious.

Moments laughter - after their messages download on to their phones - they simultaneously break out into riotous laughter. 

Only then are we let in on the joke. The voiceover tells us, "Don't be left behind. AT&T - the nation's fastest mobile broadband network - is getting faster with 4G."

I love this commercial. It is a far more effective way to tell me that AT&T has a fast network than lulling me to sleep with maps and diatribes on the speed of their network. AT&T picked a great straight man for the part, a pseudo-nerdy looking guy with a booming laugh, who begs you to listen and watch ... waiting until we, too, can be let in on this great joke.

Bing Offers a Cure For Search Overload

Everywhere we go, we are assaulted by messages.  So many messages that sometimes we feel paralyzed. 

So, we go to Google and search for answers. And instead, we get pages and pages and pages of possible solutions, leaving us even more paralyzed than when we started.

How do you cull through all the data to make a decision? 

Just who should you trust?

In steps Bing ... with a cure for search overload.

With a series of truly funny ads, Bing illustrates how confusing information can be when we receive too much of it. Whether delivered through their supermarket, pregnant, cell phone, stock brokers, or traffic jam ad, Bing intrigues you just enough that you remain focused on the TV all the way to the end of the ad. 

Then the payout.

A super comes across the screen, laying out the problem: 

What has search overload done to us?

Then the solution:

Bing & Decide

I absolutely love this campaign.  A meaningful message poignantly delivered with a twist of humor. Bull's eye.

TheLadders.com Goes Down a Rung or Two

The Ladders promises to make you "irresistible" to $100K+ employers with their new 2011 TV campaign. The ad attempts to mimic high fashion ads, revealing slow-motion glamour shots of men and women moving seductively and posing in alluring positions.

As a planner, I get the idea behind the campaign: How can I make myself irresistible to employers who are willing to pay me what I deserve? I'm on board with this insight - it's a question most job seekers think about when making a career change.

But, that's where my fascination with this ad stops.

I find it contrived, over-the-top, and, frankly, insulting. As a female Baby-Boomer, I remember the days when women that rose to the top of the corporate ladder were often talked about with a wink and a nod and the question, "I wonder what she did to get to the top?"

This ad treads way too closely to those not-so-distant memories. As such, it has caused me to look at TheLadders.com in a whole new light ... most likely, a light that was not intended by their marketing team.

Super Bowl XLV: $3 Million - 30 Seconds

Adidas Has Inventory-Expanding Idea

How many times have you...
...fallen in love with a shoe style only to find they don't have it in your size?
...visited 2 or 3 or 4 shoe stores, not finding anything you really like?
...wished your small town shoe store had more variety?
...been frustrated because you just can't find a pair of shoes you like?

If Adidas has it their way, this will all be a part of your past.

This past Tuesday (1.11.11) at the 2011 National Retail Federation's convention in New York, Adidas unveiled a back-to-the-future spinning interactive Virtual Footwear Wall. This innovation makes it possible for shoppers to look through as many as 8,000 shoes portrayed in 3-D format.  Shoppers will be able to spin the shoe to look at it from different angles, zoom in on specific details, listen to a video, or learn fun facts about the shoe. 

All these shoes will be at your fingertips, through the use of a touch-screen display.

Interestingly, the shopper isn't the only one to benefit from this high-tech innovation. 

Retailers will now be able to offer a complete line of Adidas shoes regardless of the square footage of their store. As  Chris Aubrey, VP, Global Retail Marketing for Germany-based Adidas said, "We've leveled the playing field for small retailers. They can now act like a big flagship store in a town like New York."

This wall was made possible through a joint partnership between Adidas and Intel.  Unfortunately, it is still a visiion for the future. Current plans are to roll out the first prototype in the UK in 2012.

NYT's Bob Herbert: Examine Tucson Murders Within A Broader Context

New York Times columnist Bob Herbert has written an interesting essay regarding the recent murders in Tucson, Arizona. Herbert argues that Americans must view the killings within a larger societal context of violence and murder.

Herbert uses several statistics to portray violence in the United States:

According to the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, more than a million people have been killed with guns in the United States since 1968, when Robert Kennedy and the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. were killed. That figure includes suicides and accidental deaths. But homicides, deliberate killings, are a perennial scourge, and not just with guns.

Excluding the people killed in the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, more than 150,000 Americans have been murdered since the beginning of the 21st century. This endlessly proliferating parade of death, which does not spare women or children, ought to make our knees go weak. But we never even notice most of the killings. Homicide is white noise in this society.

Holding aside the unnecessary and chivalrous reference to "women and children," Herbert's analysis provides a sobering reality about the routinization of violence in the US.

Herbert's proposed solutions to this problem -- stricter gun controls and changing the glamorization of violence in the US -- probably fall short of the mark, however. While gun control could likely reduce some violent crimes, there are serious mental health and addiction issues that contribute to crime in the US.

Furthermore, there is a direct correlation between economic deprivation and criminal activities, including violent crimes. While this pattern does not mean that most poor people commit crimes, poor persons, who likely have untreated mental health problems, constitute a large percentage of violent offenders.

Herbert correctly argues that the media frenzy and outrage surrounding the Tucson murders will soon fade away into inaction: "The two most common responses to violence in the U.S. are to ignore it or be entertained by it." The next high profile killing will likely spark the same predictable response.

Library of Congress Receives Unprecedented "Donation" of Classics From Universal Music Group

Fans of the history of recorded sound will appreciate this news item. The Universal Music Group has given the Library of Congress a large collection of master recordings of early American music. The recordings date from the 1930s to the 1950s. They include classics such as a metal recording of Louis Armstrong's Ain't Misbehavin'. Although it is unclear how many items are in the catalog, individuals associated with the transaction estimate that it includes over 200,000 recordings of American music.

While some news media -- such as NPR -- describe the transaction between UMG and LOC as a "donation," this description is somewhat complicated. UMG has been paying to store and maintain the collection for over 50 years. UMG, however, believes that the collection of music is not commercially viable. The cost of maintaining the collection apparently outweighs any commercial benefit that the company could receive from marketing this musical treasure.

Under the deal, LOC will get the music and will catalog and digitize it. LOC will then make the music available on a website for the public to access for noncommercial purposes.

UMG, however, will retain any copyrights that it has with respect to the collection. UMG will also have the right to exploit the music commercially once LOC has digitized it. This "donation" seems to benefit UMG greatly.

On the other hand, this project will preserve a legacy of American artistry and make it available to the public. LOC estimates that only 14% of music recorded between the late 1800s and 1960s is commercially available to the public. This project will ensure that a large share of music from this era remains available for future generations to enjoy. And given the contemporary state of contemporary popular music, this is great news.

Sheriff Clarence Dupnik on Democracy Now

Amy Goodman recently interviewed Sheriff Clarence Dupnik of Pima County, Arizona, on the radio program Democracy Now! Dupnik rails against Arizona's extremely liberal gun laws and the inflamed political rhetoric that he believes could have contributed to the shooting that killed several people in Tuscon. Although the link between political discourse and the shooting remains unsubstantiated (many psychotic killers rant about politics), the interview is still an interesting listen.

Dupnik also discusses the mental health issues the crime raises and the lack of public support for psychiatric facilities. This part of the interview supplies the best quotation from Dupnik (who is known for his colorful rhetoric): "The finest psychiatric facility in our county is the Pima County jail."

Campbell's Goes To The Sea For Its Salt

Admittedly, this ad has me a little confused...

"Adding sea salt has helped us reduce sodium in over 40 soups."

But, isn't sea salt, salt?

Okay, I have to admit, I hated science in both high school and college. So, I'm thinking I may not be remembering my science lessons very well. Maybe it's time to do a little investigation on this topic.

Common table salt is sodium chloride. NaCl. It is natural; in other words, it is found in nature; in salt mines to be specific. It is refined to remove any impurities and sometimes additives - like iodine - are added back into the salt.

Sea salt, on the other hand, is formed from the natural evaporation of ocean water. It, too, is natural NaCl. But, it is sold in a more pure or raw form than table salt. As such, it contains trace elements of magnesium, sulfur, calcium, and potassium.

But, bottom line, both table salt and sea salt are over 98% sodium chloride. That doesn't leave a lot of room for sea salt to be vastly different than table salt.

Okay, do you understand this ad better now?

No, I didn't think so.

Next stop, WebMD. Do they think that sea salt is healthier than table salt? (Thus, validating Campbell's decision to replace one for the other?)

"Table salt is getting a lot of competition from the new guy on the block - sea salt. The hype about sea salt is that they claim it contains trace minerals that table salt doesn't have. Truth is, those minerals are in such a low quantity that they don't make a difference to your health. The interesting news is that because sea salt has a much more intense flavor, you end up using less of it."

Interesting. So, in a roundabout way, Campbell's may have done us all a favor by replacing the table salt in their soups with sea salt.

But, at the end of the day, I don't want to have to work this hard to figure out your advertising, Campbell's. And, truthfully, I'm still not convinced that your soups are all that much healthier.

Florida's Natural. From Florida. Naturally.

I was flipping through my Real Simple magazine tonight when I turned the page and saw this ad. My jaw, quite literally, dropped. Florida's Natural proudly proclaims:

"The only major brand that's never imported."

I have been a market researcher for over 20 years and during that two-decade span, I have tested "Made in the USA" at least 30 or 40 times. For most of that time, consumers resoundingly said that this claim was, at best, a support point ... clearly not a hook to hang the essence of your brand on. Often, it represented a tie-breaker. If all other things were equal, then the home town favorite would likely win.

But, things have changed since 9-11. It's hard to believe, but this year marks the ten-year anniversary of the attacks on the World Trade Center. Not surprisingly, consumers became far more patriotic after that disastrous day. But, as with all other things, that patriotism seemed to wane with each passing year. The number of U.S. flags flown from homes began to dwindle. The lives of the surviving families were no longer splashed across newspapers. The memorial services held each year on September 11 became less sensationalized.

But, desire for U.S. made products has slowly built since that time. 9-11 may have been the catalyst,  but other factors have fueled this trend. Citizens have watched much of our manufacturing be shipped overseas. They have wrestled with the benefits that are bestowed upon illegal immigrants that flood over our borders, to the tune of about one-half million per year. They have found that most products Americans buy rarely have a "Made in the USA" tag on it.

So, it's not terribly surprising that, over the years, market research has increasingly shown a growing desire for all things American.

So, why did I find Florida's Natural print ad to be so surprising?

Maybe because I thought that other orange juices were sourced from sunny states in the U.S., like Florida and California (which of course is the point of this ad).

But, I think my reaction was more visceral than that. I've always associated oranges with Florida. Like every other college kid that spent their spring break in Daytona Beach or Fort Lauderdale or St. Petersburg, I brought a bag of fresh oranges home with me. An orange is iconic of Florida.

So, I ask myself, why would all the competitors leave Florida to buy their oranges? Of course, one doesn't need to think too hard to come up with the answer ... money. Buy oranges cheaper in countries where labor is less expensive and then sell them in the U.S. with the illusion that they were grown here.

Bully for you Florida's Natural. Thanks for staying true to your brand and your consumers.

Starbucks Energizes ... Without Caffeine

This past week, Starbucks announced that they are changing their logo.  Maybe the move shouldn't have surprised me, but it did.

Starbucks thought about this change long and hard. Ultimately, they decided it was the perfect way to celebrate their company's 40th anniversary and to position themselves for growth into new products and countries.

Starbucks new logo is absent of words, heralding the fact that they believe they have reached iconic status ... not unlike that of the Nike swoosh, McDonald's arches, or Mickey's ears. While there is definitely a modicum of truth here, I find myself wondering what advantage dropping the Starbucks name from their logo actually provides to the company and whether dropping the iconic green/black color combination is the wisest move.

In all my years of conducting brand research, I have learned one important thing about logos: consumers not only use them as a product identifier, but often they also form strong emotional bonds with the logos. Take, for example, the Gap logo debacle in 2010. Consumer and media reactions to the new logo were so resoundingly negative that Gap actually abandoned their logo plans. 

That got me to thinking. Just what are consumers saying about the Starbucks logo change? So, I wandered over to their Facebook page and did a sentiment analysis of the comments made during the last 24 hours. The results were irrefutable - consumers do not like the new Starbucks logo.

Negative comments:  162 (82%)

Positive comments:     26  (13%)
Neutral comments:      10  (5%) 

Here is a sampling of some of the comments I read.

"To me, the new logo does not have the inviting bravado and "elegant chic" of the very popular old logo." 

"I think that changing the logo is not a good idea, why change a good thing?" 

"The new Starbucks logo is severely stupid, and looks extremely cheap." 

"Dropping "Starbucks Coffee" from your logo is like taking off the "LV" from the Louis Vuitton handbags...a big mistake Starbucks!" 

"No, no, no, no! Don't change the logotype!" 

"I HATE YOUR NEW LOGO! - DON'T CHANGE IT - THE NEW ONE LOOKS CHEAP!" 

"The new logo is so ugly." 

"Why oh why are you walking away from the Starbucks brand?" 

"They can remove the "coffee" word but they ABSOLUTELY NEED to keep the circular STARBUCKS around the Siren; and add some BLACK cos green and white is so boring and bland." 

"Taking away the name "Starbucks" from the cup is like taking the name "Gucci" off of one of their bags. The prestige is gone in buying your $4.00 coffee...." 

"The new logo is awful. I hate it. I know that won't stop you from selling coffee, but it makes the people buying your coffee feel even more ridiculous about spending $5 per latte...it looks ridiculously cheap."

"Ok, don't even think about bringing that sucky logo to France."

"New logo is a joke. I'm waiting for the punchline . . ." 

"The new Logo actually disturbs me. It has been simplified and dumbed down that it just looks generic. Is this what is going to happen to the product as well?" 

"Am SHOCKED your marketing department would let you get away with this move. Starbucks is green PLUS BLACK. Removing the classy circular brand is another mistake." 

"Greetings from good old Germany .... KEEP your OLD Logo, we didn't need the new one!!!!" 

"Please don't change the logo. The old one is perfect .. why mess with success???" 

"Dear Starbucks, take a cue from GAP, read the majority of comments here. Your new logo is terrible and your loyal customers don't like it!"

In their book Consumer Behavior, Wayne D. Hoyer and Deborah J. Macinnis say the following:

"Surprisingly, the majority of dissatisfied consumers do not complain ... even a few consumer complaints can indicate marketing related problems that need attention."

If Hoyer and Macinnis are indeed accurate, consumers are even more negative about the Starbucks logo change than indicated here. As a market researcher, I am perplexed by it all. I have no doubt that both Gap and Starbucks committed a large amount of dollars and time to thoroughly researching this change. So, how is it that the enormity of the negative public opinion was missed? Or, is it that they understood consumer sentiment but knew that it wouldn't affect their buying habits?

 

As a marketer, I understand that Starbucks needed to refresh their image. I also am sympathetic to their need to remove any connotations to coffee from the label if they plan to extend the equity of their brand. However, I am questioning why they are telling  consumers that the logo change is "insignificant."

 

Consumers apparently do not agree.

Trader Joe’s: 360° Kitschy

While I am not a Trader Joe's loyalist, my daughter is. So, nearly every time I visit her at college, a trip to TJ's figures into the deal. Over time, I have become a fan of their kitschy atmosphere,  aim-to-please clerks, and healthy-oriented store branded products.

Undoubtedly, I am often cajoled into buying some three-buck-Chuck. On our last trip, I caved and purchased a few bottles for a holiday dinner party Kate was hosting. 

As we checked out, the wine was slipped into its own individual bag. I must admit that I may have embarrassed my daughter a bit at this point in our mother-daughter shopping experience. I just love this wine bag and made sure the clerk knew ... to the point where he actually handed me my very own bag. (I am such a Marketing nerd.)

To my way of thinking, Trader Joe's gets high marks for extending the shopping experience beyond the four walls of their store. The shopper is rewarded with a giftable bag and TJ's is rewarded with heightened brand awareness.

A win-win, no-lose situation. Music to a marketer's ears.

AirTran Fuzes a Partnership

Recently, on an AirTran flight to Phoenix, the flight attendant handed me my drink; not surprisingly, she handed me a napkin at the same time. But when I looked at the napkin, I was surprised ... it was a product advertisement for Fuze beverages.

In all my years of flying, the only brand advertisements I ever remember seeing (other than for the airline) have been related to cause marketing. You know the drill, buy brand x and we'll donate $x to charity x.

But, this was something different. It definitely caught my attention. And what was even cooler, was that if the advertising whet my appetite, the napkin told me, "Ask your Flight Attendant for Fuze Peach Mango or Strawberry Melon." Advertising linked to the potential for immediate product sampling.

Oh - and by the way - the headline of the ad didn't escape my attention either. "High and dry?" Nice pun Fuze.

Only one question. Were the business travelers sitting all around me on the plane the right target for Fuze? Just a guess, but it seems that Fuze may skew a bit younger.

Ireland & Innovation: Unnatural Partners

The other day I was flipping through my Bloomberg Businessweek, when my eyes landed on the above ad. Since I'm not typically accustomed to seeing little smiley faces on ads, I stopped and took a look and found that it was an ad for Ireland. Actually, to be precise, a new innovative Ireland.

I must admit that I have never really associated Ireland with being terribly innovative. Instead, images of rolling green hills, Shepherd's pie, leprechauns, pubs, and Celtic music come to mind. Since Ireland is #1 on my "places I'd like to visit" list, these are assuredly positive images.

But, my curiosity was piqued. What had Ireland done to become innovative? Why does "innovation come naturally" in Ireland?

To learn more, I visited their website and their Facebook page and here's what I learned. Their Facebook page stated: "The IDA is responsible for the development and promotion of foreign industry and enterprise in Ireland. The IDA is focusing on attracting high value investment into Ireland such as Research & Development activities, European Headquarters, Advanced manufacturing and supply chain management activities."

And their website offered up the following: "Continuous innovation plays a central role in Ireland’s future as a knowledge-based economy. Recognising this, the Irish Government put in place a national Strategy for Science, Technology and Innovation (SSTI) in the 1990s. Following from this significant funding and support are available to fuel innovation across industry, research and education."

Okay, I think I get it. IDA is trying to convince American businesses that Ireland is a good place to bring your business.

But, I still don't truly understand why I should bring my business to Ireland ... or why Ireland is terribly innovative ... or why Facebook is a space for people who think in a certain way is relevant to either Ireland or innovation.

I'm just confused.

(And maybe wishing I hadn't written this blog, after all.)

Justice Scalia Finally Admits That He Believes Sex Discrimination Is Constitutional

During a recent interview with California Lawyer, Justice Antonin Scalia stated that he believes that the Constitution does not prohibit sex discrimination. The journalist who conducted the interview asked Justice Scalia the following question:

In 1868, when the 39th Congress was debating and ultimately proposing the 14th Amendment, I don't think anybody would have thought that equal protection applied to sex discrimination, or certainly not to sexual orientation. So does that mean that we've gone off in error by applying the 14th Amendment to both?

Justice Scalia said the following in response:

Yes, yes. Sorry, to tell you that. . . .But, you know, if indeed the current society has come to different views, that's fine. You do not need the Constitution to reflect the wishes of the current society. Certainly the Constitution does not require discrimination on the basis of sex. The only issue is whether it prohibits it. It doesn't. Nobody ever thought that that's what it meant. Nobody ever voted for that. If the current society wants to outlaw discrimination by sex, hey we have things called legislatures, and they enact things called laws. You don't need a constitution to keep things up-to-date. All you need is a legislature and a ballot box. You don't like the death penalty anymore, that's fine. You want a right to abortion? There's nothing in the Constitution about that. But that doesn't mean you cannot prohibit it. Persuade your fellow citizens it's a good idea and pass a law. That's what democracy is all about. It's not about nine superannuated judges who have been there too long, imposing these demands on society (italics added).

Scalia and Original Intent



Justice Scalia's statements in this interview will not surprise individuals who are familiar with his body of jurisprudence. Scalia adheres to a narrow version of originalism. He believes that any interpretation of the Constitution that strays from the "original intent" of the Framers is invalid. Accordingly, he is very critical of interpretive approaches that read the Constitution in light of legal changes that have occurred since the document was written.



While originalism sounds appealing, people who praise this form of constitutional interpretation incorrectly assume that the Framers' intent on any particular issue is readily discoverable or that the Framers always spoke with one accord. There are many other critiques of originalism that exceed the scope of the topic of this blog post. Needless to say, originalism is a controversial and problematic theory of Constitutional interpretation.



Scalia and Sex Discrimination



In terms of sex discrimination and the Constitution, it is generally the case that most of the members of the 39th Congress (that voted on the 14th Amendment) did not believe that they were voting to ban sex discrimination generally. Some more radical elements of the Republican Party probably envisioned the Constitution providing some protection to women, but their views reflected the minority position. Accordingly, a strict originalist view would lead to the conclusion that the Constitution does not generally prohibit sex discrimination.

Although Scalia explicitly embraces this view in the California Lawyer article, he alluded to it earlier in his dissenting opinion in the 1996 case United States v. Virginia. In United States v. Virginia, the Supreme Court held that the Virginia Military Institute violated the Equal Protection Clause by excluding women. Justice Scalia dissented and criticized the majority for applying what he viewed as a tougher standard than prior caselaw required.



In a passage that many scholars overlook, Justice Scalia argued that if the Court wanted to reevaluate the test used in sex discrimination cases, the better argument would lead to the lowering of the standard, not the toughening of it. Scalia implied that the Court should apply only rational basis review -- the Court's most deferential standard of review -- to sex discrimination cases.



When the Court applies rational basis review, it treats the type of discrimination at issue as presumptively constitutional. Most policies survive rational basis review. This is indeed the level of review the Court historically applied in sex discrimination cases and which led the Court to rule against all sex discrimination plaintiffs until the 1970s. Scalia would advocate a return to this earlier view of the Constitution.



Scalia and Hypocrisy



Although Scalia prides himself on being an originalist, his rulings on questions of equal protection do not always strictly follow the intent of the Framers. Consider the question of affirmative action. Justice Scalia is one of the most passionate judicial critics of affirmative action. Scalia argues that the Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment wanted generally to ban race-based discrimination. In one opinion, Scalia said that the only scenario that he could imagine a legitimate use of race was by prison officials trying to quell a race riot among inmates.



But as many legal historians have demonstrated, members of the 39th Congress did not see all forms of race discrimination as inconsistent with equal protection. For example, the 39th Congress passed laws the helped blacks and former slaves explicitly (by providing protection, essential services, etc.). Furthermore, this same Congress left in place a statute that mandated racial segregation in public schools in the District of Columbia. This history conflicts with Scalia's sweeping description of the Constitution as a bar to race-based public policy.



Scalia's opposition to affirmative action is even more complicated with respect to policies implemented by Congress. The Equal Protection Clause only applies literally to state governments. By drafting the 14th Amendment, Congress was trying to protect blacks in the South from further oppression by southern states. Nothing in the Constitution explicitly prohibits Congress from denying Equal Protection.



The Supreme Court, however, has held that the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment -- which applies to the federal government -- operates as a guarantee of equal protection. Although this analysis seems justifiable, it is not something that is implicit in the text of the Constitution or in the intent of the members of the 39th Congress. Also, the liberal Warren Court most famously applied this standard in the 1954 decision in Bolling v. Sharpe, a companion case to Brown v. Board of Education, that invalidated racial segregation in Washington, DC public schools. That Scalia applies nonoriginalist standards from the Warren Court might shock readers who view him as the exemplar of judicial restraint.



Analyzing Scalia's jurisprudence comprehensively, it becomes clear that he embraces a narrow originalism to justify sex discrimination. On the other hand, he departs from origianlsim in order to vote against policies designed to ameliorate the conditions of racial discrimination. This hypocritical approach is more shocking and troubling than his general embrace of originalism.



This article has been cross-published on Huffington Post.

Every Murder Victim Has A Story: Homicides Continue Despite Improvement In Crime Statistics (UPDATED)

Several jurisdictions in the Washington, DC metropolitan area have reported a reduction in homicides. In Washington, DC, for example, the 2010 homicide rate fell 9% below the previous year.

Despite the improving crime statistics, homicides continue to affect persons across the region. The anguish of families and friends of the victims exists despite the improving statistics. The details of these homicides are worth telling, because every murder victim has a story.

Bryant Morillo



On January 1, 2011, 16-year-old Bryant Morillo's life was extinguished. His death has left his family in turmoil.

The details of Bryant's death are still emerging, but according to early reports, he was the victim of a botched robbery attempt. A local ABC News station reports (via TBD.com) that shortly before he was killed, Morillo and a friend were waiting at a bus stop in a neighborhood in the Northwest section of Washington.

Two males approached the teens and demanded that they turn over their coats and an iPod. Bryant and his friend refused to comply with the robbers' demands. Apparently angered by the teens' defiance, the robbers shot both boys. Bryant died, but his friend survived the attack.

A man who witnessed the event administered CPR on Bryant until medical assistance arrived. Bryant died later in the hospital. The man, who has not identified himself to media, said that he did not want Bryant to die alone on the street.

Aaron Woodfork (No picture available)

On December 19, 29-year old Aaron Woodfork was gunned down in the Northeast section of Washington, DC. Aaron was with a friend at the time, and both individuals were shot. Aaron died, while his friend survived.

Aaron's death has received only scant attention in the media. Most media articles simply reprint the brief police news release concerning his death. Aaron's friends however, have utilized social media and blogs to honor his memory.

Several of Aaron's friends, for example, have posted tributes on Homicide Watch D.C., a blog that analyzes homicides and homicide investigations and legal proceedings in Washington, DC. One friend left a message that reflects many of the positive statements that other individuals posted on the blog:

My heart is truly filled with sadness. To the parents, brothers and family of Aaron, you have my deepest sympathy. Aaron was a kind young man. I was so proud of him. Not only did I know him from living in the same neighborhood but he was actually one of the few persons I trusted to care for my daughter when she was only 5yrs old. Its hard leaving your children but knowing he worked at the community center made it a little easier for me to do so. He assured me she would be fine. My daughter(13) is taking this extremely hard, as we all are. The way he died was horrible, but the way he lived was wonderful. Just knowing him was a pleasure. I know the community center will never be the same without him. He was so caring and understanding with the children and teenagers. He was perfect for the job. He knew how important the community center was to the children because as a young child he practically lived at the community center. It will be very difficult for many of us to walk in the doors of the community center and not see him at the front desk, but I know his spirit will be present. He will be truly missed.

Aaron mentored children at the College Park Community Center. Many people who discussed his memory mentioned his work with children at the Center. The Center houses the College Park Judo Club, which provides an athletic outlet for children in the area. The Club's website recognizes Woodfork's contributions to community service:

College Park Judo extends our sympathy to the family and friends of Aaron Woodfork. He was a valued member of the College Park Community Center Family and a good friend to College Park Judo Club.

Roosevelt Brockington



On January 1, 40-year-old Roosevelt Brockington was stabbed to death inside Suburban Hospital in Bethesda, Maryland. Roosevelt was killed in the hospital boiler room. Roosevelt worked as an engineer at the hospital, and he was responsible for maintaining the building's heating, ventilation and air conditioning systems.

Robbery was the apparent motive in Roosevelt's death. And, eerily, a friend overheard his killing. According to several news reports, Roosevelt was on the phone with a friend during his murder. His friend overheard an individual demand money. After Roosevelt turned over his money, the robber asked whether he had more. Roosevelt said that he did not, and then he begged the robber to spare his life. Shortly after this, the friend heard Roosevelt yell three times in succession. According to his mother, Roosevelt was stabbed three times in the chest.

Roosevelt's death has stunned his numerous friends and family members. They have expressed their grief on Facebook and in media interviews. Most people who knew Roosevelt describe him as a kind, caring and very religious individual. He was a Deacon at St. John's Church of God in Washington. His grieving family does not understand his death because he had avoided trouble all of his life.

Police are currently reviewing surveillance footage in search of a suspect. Police believe that the suspect is likely another employee of the hospital and that the individual probably targed Roosevelt.

Update: Montgomery County police have made an arrest in this case.

Hezekiah Wilson



Around 7:30pm on January 2, Hezekiah Wilson, a 38-year-old autistic Baltimore resident, was in his yard playing with his dog. Minutes later he was dead. An unknown assailant shot Hezekiah and left him to die. Police have not identified a motive in this case.

Hezekiah's death baffles his friends and family. Hezekiah's older brother, Frankie Wilson, describes him as a peaceful individual, who had no enemies. His favorite activity was watching the Baltimore Ravens play football.

According to the elder Wilson, Hezekiah mainly kept to himself and spent a lot of time caring for his sick mother, with whom he lived. Wilson says that his brother's killer must be "callous, with an evil heart, evil intent, no respect for human life. . . ."

Baltimore police officer Donny Moses spoke about Hezekiah's death during a media interview, and he could not contain his emotions. Moses said that this case is "heartfelt," because Hezekiah was a vulnerable individual who did not harm others.

The case is even more baffling because police do not suspect robbery as a motive. At the time he was shot, Hezekiah was wearing a robe and slippers and thus had no personal items to steal. While police search for a motive and suspect, Hezekiah's family and friends are struggling to adjust to their painful loss.

Marquise Hall, Brian Scott and Lillie Capers

There are three other recent homicides in the Washington, DC metropolitan area that warrant discussion. These crimes, however, have not garnered much media attention at all.

Marquise Hall



The first victim is 16-year-old Marquise Hall of Baltimore. Marquise was shot several times around 5pm on January 1. Police do not have a motive or suspect in Marquise's death.

Brian C. Scott



The second victim is 21-year-old Brian C. Scott. Brian was a victim in a triple shooting in the Southeast section of Washington, DC on January 2. Brian died, while the other two victims survived. Police are still investigating the case, and there are only few details available.

Lillie Capers

The third victim is 84-year-old Lillie Capers (no picture available). Lillie was murdered in her home on Christmas day. A younger person in the home was injured during the attack. Police have identified and released a photo of a suspect who remains at large. Police describe the motive in the case as "domestic."

Update: There are a few more details in the murder of Lillie Capers. Apparently, a male suspect was attacking Lillie's granddaughter. When she intervened to protect her granddaughter, the suspect killed Lillie. Lillie's granddaughter was injured in the attack, which police describe as an incident of domestic violence.

Update II: Prince George's County police have made an arrest in this case.

Final Thoughts

The news that homicides have fallen is undoubtedly positive. These statistics, however, do not erase the reality of violence and the pain that it causes.

These statistics also cannot undo the underlying factors -- including, poverty, lack of economic opportunity, racism, mental health issues, and patriarchy -- that contribute to violence in US cities. Homicides are not solely a problem of policing. Instead, these crimes are caused by numerous social factors. Accordingly, only a comprehensive approach can lead to a permanent reduction in homicides.

Despite the depth of this problem, many homicide victims, especially persons of color, are ignored by the media and politicians. Ignoring these cases allows society to turn away from the problem. In order to fill the void, I have dedicated space on Dissenting Justice to portray the victims' stories.

[Note: This article is part of an ongoing series on Dissenting Justice called "Every Murder Victim Has A Story." Because our society tends to dehumanize and ignore murder victims who are persons of color, I tell their stories in order to humanize them.

As a way of doing this, I consistently use their "first names," rather than simply referring to them by their surnames. I find this approach particularly useful with younger victims, because it helps me emphasize that they are children.

Although this is not the accepted method of reporting, I believe that it brings a more personal touch to the stories, and, at least for the near future, I will continue to report the stories in this manner. I welcome your feedback on this issue. Thanks for reading.]

AirTran Allows You To Leave The Babies

This AirTran commercial is certainly not new; but, what is so surprising is that I laugh every single time I see it ... and that's probably been about 20 times!

As the yellow taxi cab pulls up to their house, mom gazes into the eyes of her twin babies and excitedly proclaims, "Grandma and Grandpa are here!"  She runs to the door to welcome her elderly parents and gushes, "We are SO glad you could make the trip," handing one of the twins off to grandma. She, too, is excited thanking her daughter for sending her and grandpa airline tickets so they could visit the new babies.

You are left with a happy family feeling ... grandma and grandpa have come to visit and the three generation family is going to have a wonderful time together.

Well, not exactly.

The husband drops the second twin in the hands of grandpa and hurriedly moves their luggage into the vacated cab.  "We'll call you when we land," they yell as the cab squeals off en route to the airport.

As the enormity of what is going on dawns on grandpa, he shuffles down the street after the cab yelling, "Don't leave us with the babies! Don't leave us with the babies!"

I guess those free tickets don't look so good after all, huh gramps?!?

AirTran's messsage? Our tickets are so cheap, you can afford airline tickets for you ... and your babysitter.

Now if only that were true...