Dear Chairman Schultz:
As a former "partner" of yours in the world's premier purveyor of legal liquid stimulants, I read with some chagrin the news that Starbucks is changing its default milk whole to 2%. See, there are only so many ways a Starbucks barista can retaliate against a certain breed of excruciatingly-thin, Venti-Skim Bitchelorette, and filling her 20-ounce cup with 350 calories and 22 fat grams of whole milk against her will was always my personal fave. (Of course, one could just add stealth mocha or caramel, which might escape unnoticed amidst the saccharine sweetness of the ten packages of Splenda she'll inevitably add to the drink — Ha ha, Splenda, I just called your flavor "saccharine"? Get it? Sue me! — since the Venti-Skim Bitchelorette likes to grab the wrong beverage anyway, so one can always cover for oneself if she notices.)
Sometimes I'd also score a small victory by peppering a Bitchelorette with questions — like, "Any pastries with that today?" (Ha! As if) or "Would you like to try our new maple scone?" or "Do you need a corrugated coffee carrier with that?" or "How would you like a copy of a poignant book about the Lost Boys of Sudan?" — but filling her cup with whole milk (preferably with a dash of skim milk foam at the top so as to disguise the rich, velvety, full-fat liquid below) was by far the most satisfying method. Now, Mr. Schultz, I know what you're thinking. You're thinking: "But you could produce the same result by pouring a few ounces of hot half-and-half to a 2% latte!" Yes, but! That, however, would seem less like a careless mistake (that, if uncovered, would only reinforce their stereotypes of people who employed in the food service industry) and more like those Taco Bell guys who got sued for blowing their noses into cops' chalupas. With whose deep-seated sociological frustrations baristas do not identify. Because we get health benefits.
Starbucks Switches To 2% Milk [Washington Post]