Recent orders
Poore Brothers
Poore Brothers
Brothers Don and Jay Poore had worked on potato chip packaging equipment and thought they would strike out on their own. While servicing packaging machines in Pennsylvania, Don and Jay had met a gentleman who knew a lot about making potato chips in small kettles “One Batch at a Time” and he helped them get started. By cutting their chips a little thicker and cooking them in kettles, their product had a serious crunch that no other chip had. In 1983, they started a small chip manufacturing operation outside of Houston with a brand called Groff’s of Texas. They sold their Texas business after a few years and decided to move to the Valley of the Sun. In 1986 the brothers founded Poore Brothers in Goodyear, Arizona. They started with one kettle, one delivery truck, and one store that sold their chips, Mayfair, across from the Wigwam. They didn’t have a marketing budget, so they relied on sampling and word of mouth advertisement. It wasn’t long before the large grocery stores in the valley began to authorize sale of their products. It was also right around this time they had a couple of bold flavors that were real winners, Salt & Vinegar and Jalapeño. Soon, all of Arizona could buy their products. In order to serve all their Arizona customers they started a distribution company. Today Poore Brothers Distributing is the premier snack food distributor in the State of Arizona.
It was only a matter of time until the products found their way across the Arizona border into California and other states. Eventually Don and Jay licensed the brand and manufacturing process to companies in Minnesota and Tennessee. In the early 1990’s, the snack food business began to change with the addition of low fat and baked snack products. So they changed too. They began cooking their product in Sunflower Oil. This oil is low in saturated fat and tastes just as good as their original product that was produced with peanut oil.
In the mid 1990s, the company was getting larger and harder to manage in the hands-on way Don and Jay liked to manage it, so in 1994, they decided to sell Poore Brothers. Since then the owners have taken the company public and opened a new state of the art manufacturing facility in Goodyear, Arizona. Jay still works at the Goodyear plant and takes great pride in making sure the manufacturing equipment runs smooth and that the new owners make the best products possible.
Poore Brothers has since stopped the manufacture of its product in Minnesota and Tennessee. The facility in Goodyear, Arizona, is currently the only Poore Brothers facility in the world. They do all manufacturing and shipping from there. Poore Brothers currently distributes to California, Colorado, Hawaii, Ohio, Illinois, and New Mexico, with the goal of eventually reaching every state. The company that started out with about 40 employees now has 80.
Product:
Mission-Win the hearts of their consumers, the trust of retailers and distributors, and the confidence of investors.
Poore Brothers products have four things in common:
Hand Crafted, Cooked One Batch at a Time-All their products are made in kettles. Potatoes are sliced only minutes before they are dropped into oil. The potatoes are then stirred and the temperature is varied to achieve the unique product texture. The product is done only when the temperature of the oil reaches a certain point. Kettle cooking is more costly and time consuming, but the result is worth the wait.
Bold Flavors-They are not afraid to create intense and unique flavors. They currently produce ten bold flavors to choose from.
Serious Crunch-Kettle cooking creates the crunch. Regular chips can’t match Poore Brothers crunch. Poore Brothers products are the crunchiest, compared to any national brands.
Low in Saturated Fat-They use the most expensive and highest quality oil to manufacture their product. Their chips have only one gram of saturated fat. They are able to achieve this small amount of fat by using a variety of sunflower oil that is low in saturated fat and high in monounsaturates (the good stuff).
Promotion:
Invest in brand equity building marketing programs-They support their brand with radio advertising, outdoor billboards, FSI couponing and are currently executing a consumer promotion with the Arizona Diamondbacks. Given key learnings from each of these vehicles they now believe they have a “recipe” for future brand development.
Headlines:
“Phoenix, AZ, March 17, 1999 – Poore Brothers, Inc. (Nasdaq: POOR) announced today that the Company is pleased to continue its sponsorship of the Arizona Diamondbacks during the 1999 baseball season. The sponsorship includes Poore Brothers launching a commemorative package of 6 oz. Original Potato Chips, honoring the Arizona Diamondbacks.”
“Sponsor of the 1999 Phoenix Open”
New Products-The Poore Brothers Brand has been an innovator of unique and different flavors. Constant attention to introducing new flavors has fueled growth and kept their brand fresh. In June of 1998 they introduced a line of dips and tortilla chips. In the future, the brand will be leveraged in other snack categories where they believe their product has something unique and different to add.
Headlines:
“Goodyear, AZ, May 14, 1998 – Poore Brothers, Inc. (NASDAQ: POOR) is pleased to announce the introduction of two “intensely different” product lines: Poore Brothers Tortilla Chips and Poore Brothers Premium Dips. Poore Brothers new tortilla chips were developed to extend Poore Brothers “intensely different taste” brand equity into the $3.4 billion tortilla chip category. To ensure that the Company’s new tortilla chips offer consumers the same superior taste, texture and flavor variety as Poore Brothers Potato Chips, the Company utilized an innovative process to bake real ingredients like roasted red peppers into the tortilla chips. The process creates a unique tortilla chip with a robust, south-of-the-border flavor and texture. The Company will introduce four new flavors, including Roasted Red Pepper, Jalapeno, Sun-Dried Tomato, and Original. To ensure that the tortilla chips offer consumers a unique texture, Poore Brothers Tortilla Chips are made with only 100% stone ground corn and are produced one batch at a time. In addition to adding real ingredients, Poore Brothers Tortilla Chips are seasoned on the outside to ensure an “intensely different taste.” Like Poore Brothers Potato Chips, the Company’s new tortilla chips are low in saturated fat because they are cooked in premium sunflower oil. The Company is also introducing Poore Brothers Premium Dips to complement its new line of tortilla chips. The dips will be offered in three flavors, including Roasted Red Pepper Salsa, Santa Fe Black Bean Dip, and Sour Cream & Jalapeno Dip.”
Pricing:
Continue to improve margins and reduce cost of goods-Their new facility has allowed them to become more efficient and reduce costs. However, many other programs and adjustments can be made to drive even more costs out of their system. Furthermore, they must make sure that their prices reflect premium positioning and make adjustments when applicable.
Modernize Business Practices-Although the facility is modern, the systems are not. They must improve and invest time and money in their systems and people.
Distribution:
Grow Distribution Revenue in Arizona-As the premier distributor in the state of Arizona they have the opportunity to add complementary product lines to their distribution company.
Pursue Strategic Acquisitions-While the Company expects to deliver improved earnings from its current businesses in 1999, management will be exploring opportunities to grow revenue and profits through acquisition. As such, the company will search for strategic acquisitions that leverage the company’s efficient new manufacturing operation and modern infrastructure.
Headlines:
“Goodyear, AZ, November 5, 1998 – Poore Brothers, Inc. (NASDAQ: POOR) is pleased to announce it has signed a definitive purchase agreement to acquire the Bob’s Texas Style Potato Chips.”
Further Develop Their Private Label Potato Chip Business-Poore Brothers provides private label potato chips to key retailers in Arizona and California. Continued growth will come from those retailers who demand good product quality at a reasonable price. The Company’s private label revenues grew 18% in 1997 and we expect this positive growth trend to continue.
Headlines:
“Goodyear, AZ, June 9, 1998 – Poore Brothers, Inc. (NASDAQ: POOR) announced today the introduction of the Company’s new interactive web-site and electronic company store located at www.poorebrothers.com.”
Other Facts:
The Company reported that its net sales for the quarter ended December 31, 1998 increased 20% to $3,692,036, versus net sales in the fourth quarter of 1997 of $3,072,894. As expected, this growth was primarily attributable to the November 1998 acquisition of Bob’s Texas Style Potato Chips. Poore Brothers’ fourth quarter 1998 gross profit increased 74% to a record $876,756, versus fourth quarter 1997 gross profit of $502,497.
The death penalty Is it still constitutionally legal
Name
Professor
Course
Date
The death penalty: Is it still constitutionally legal?
A few things have enjoyed the ability to stir debate with equal extents of passionate support and passionate opposition. Death penalty rates high among this thing having stirred debate in political, legal, religious and public circles. Indeed, as many people as those who support death penalty oppose it using various justifications ranging from religious, moral to legal. In legal circles, death penalty has quite a number of people debating on its legality with those supporting it citing its deterrence ability as their main reason why they feel the practice I legal and should remain as such. On the other hand, opponents feel that death penalty undermines the constitutional right to life. With such battle within the legal circles, it would be interesting to find out whether there is any legal justification for the practice and everything goes back to the constitution. What is the constitutions take on death penalty? Is death penalty still constitutionally legal? The answer to this is subject to debate, but it seems the constitution supports death penalty.
The constitutionality of death penalty has been an issue of contentious debate for quite some time. In the United States of America, death penalty was considered constitutionally legal up to 1960s. Prior to the passing of the fifth, eighth, and fourteenth amendments to the US constitution, everybody considered death penalty legal and backed by the constitution (Herrmann 4). Arguments against the practice started emerging in the 1960s. Most arguments suggest that death penalty was inhumane. The felt that death penalty was a cruel and strange form of punishment, and this made it unconstitutional due to the provisions of the eight amendments . Abolitionists capitalised on the ruling of the Supreme Court in Trop v. Dulles in 1958 to challenge death penalty (Kommers 497). The Supreme Court in Top v. Dulles interpreted the eighth amendment to constitution stating that the amendment had an “evolving standard of decency that marked the progress of an evolving society.” (Kommers 497) Despite the fact that Trop v. Dulles case did not involve death penalty, and in fact was far from death penalty, the abolitionists capitalised on the interpretations of the eight amendment, and while applying the same logic used by the supreme court, went ahead to state the “in fact, the nation had progressed to a state of decency the could not tolerate the act of death penalty” (Kommers 497).
The abolitionist move was just the beginning of events that would cause heated debates on the legality of death penalty. As the 60s came to a closure, the Supreme Court started redesigning the administration of death penalty. These changes coincided with the Supreme Court presiding over to death penalty case in 1968. In the first case of US v. Jackson, the Supreme Court changed the handling of death penalty on kidnaping statute snapping the authority to pass death penalty from the jury. In the second case Witherspoon v. Illinois, the court’s decision set a precedence stating that jurors’ reservations were not grounds enough to deter death penalty (Foley 44). In fact, the Supreme Court made it possible for disqualification of juror based on a prosecutor’s irrevocable evidence that a juror had attitudes that would make them hesitant to give impartial verdicts on death penalty. The Supreme Court’s actions in these two cases were contrary to what the abolitionist desired. The Supreme Court not only upheld the legality of death penalty, it also ensured that criminals in death penalty cases would find it difficult to trick their way out.
The interpretation of the eight amendments to the constitution seemed a sure way to persuade legal institution from enforcing death penalty. The abolition brought issues of arbitrariness to the attention of the Supreme Court in the early 1970s, through the case of Furman v. Georgia (Del 28). The cases used the eight amendments to challenge the possibility of death penalty stating the capital cases frequently cause capricious and arbitrary sentencing.
Through a vote, the court held that Georgia capital punishment statutes had provisions that would lead to arbitrary sentencing of suspects. The court, therefore, found Georgia’s capital punishment cruel and strange, under the eighth amendments. Subsequently, the court neutralised 40 other capital punishment statutes in 40 other states which resulted in sparing of 629 death row convicts. This effectively made capital punishment illegal.
However, this did not end death penalty or the debate surrounding it. New legislation and statutes have been created and adopted as constitutional only to be thwarted later as unconstitutional. These events have also been confusing concerning the legality and constitutionality of death penalty. Despite the confusion, death penalty did not go away. While the abolitionists use the constitution to demonise it, proponents use the same constitution and always creatively come with new legislation to sustain the practice.
For over 200 year since the creation of the Americana constitution, the Supreme Court has always upheld and supported death penalty as constitutional. Death penalty was only considered unconstitutional between 1972 and 1976. Other than these years, the constitutional legality of death penalty has always been upheld. It surprising that the perceived constitutionality of death penalty continue to reign despite outright objection be part of the constitution, specifically the eight, fifth and fourteenth amendments (Herrmann 4). The 5th amendment states that “No person shall be deprived of life without a due process of the law. The 14th Amendment holds that “no state shall deprive any person of life without a due process of law”. On the other hand, the eighth amendment tackles issues of brutal and unusual punishment as well as capital punishment which are frequently practiced in several states across the country.
Clearly, the constitution still supports death penalty. It has supported death penalty since its inception, and the Supreme Court interpretations at different time have clearly expressed this constitutionality. Other the Supreme Court’s decision of 1972 which was changed in 1976 no decision has ever discouraged or stated that it is illegal. Most of the rulings were merely directions regarding capital punishments. They sought to ensure that capital punishments were conducted properly in line with the values and practices of the time.
In conclusion, death penalty is still constitutionally legal. The Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld it. Since the supreme is the highest organ in the nation that interprets the constitution, it arguable that its continuous clamour for death penalty is an indication that death penalty is constitutionally legal. Clearly the 5th amendment and 14th amendment that are considered to oppose death penalty do not entirely do so (Herrmann 4). The two amendments simply state how death penalty should be attained. Capital offense suspects must be given a fair trial before they are punished or released. If a suspect is found guilty there is no provision in the two amendments that protect them from execution. In fact, when suspects are sentenced to death through a due process, the provisions of the 5th and 14th amendments are satisfied (Herrmann, 4). This leaves the 8th amendment as the only provision within the constitution that discourages capital punishment. However, the amendment does not out rightly discourage capital punishment. In fact, the notion that the 8th amendment makes capital punishment unconstitutional is only inferred to the interpretation of the constitution by the Supreme Court. Therefore, death penalty is constitutionally legal, and all other provisions are merely guideline to the execution of the sentence.
Work Cited
Del, Carmen R. V, et al. The Death Penalty: Constitutional Issues, Commentaries and Case Briefs. Burlington: Elsevier Science, 2008. Print.
Foley, Michael A. Arbitrary and Capricious: The Supreme Court, the Constitution, and the Death Penalty. Westport, Conn. [u.a.: Praeger, 2003. Print.
Kommers, Donald P, et al. American Constitutional Law: Essays, Cases, and Comparative Notes. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2004. Print.
Herrmann, Jacqueline. The History of the Death Penalty in the United States: Presented and analyzed on the basis of selected U.S. Supreme Court Cases. GRIN Verlag, 2008. Print
The death of Osama bin Laden Effect on Al-Qaeda
Death of Osama Bin Laden: Effect on Al-Qaeda
Student’s Name
University Affiliation
Death of Osama Bin Laden: Effect on Al-Qaeda
The death of Osama bin Laden by American forces on May 2nd, 2011 represents symbolic victory on the war on terror campaign (Bowden, 2012). Bin Laden is the first leader and founder of Al Qaeda terrorist movement that is based on extreme Islamic beliefs to execute political and religious objectives. Bin Laden had issued threats and declared war on the US and its allies in the 1990s and was responsible for many attacks on America and its citizens around the world. Bin Laden and his organization orchestrated organized attacks on the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, The World Trade Center, Pentagon, as well as other operations in London, Madrid and beyond (Bowden, 2012). The US government made it its mission to bring Osama to justice after the 9/11 attacks in the widely popularized global war on terror that led to attacks in Afghanistan and Iraq. After the attacks, USA’s President Bush promised to find Osama and bring him to justice. His death, orchestrated by Bush’s successor, President Barack Obama, was expected to have a significant boost on the war on terror.
Osama’s death has little impact on the terrorist network (Colonel, 2011). The killing of Osama may only have a symbolic effect on Al Qaeda and may not affect the group’s current operations. Osama bin Laden had risen from an operational leader to a symbolic leader (Jim, 2011). His involvement in terrorist operations, in the later years, was minimal, but he still maintained a huge influence in the system. Bin Laden still had the final command of Al Qaeda and its affiliates, albeit having other trusted jihad loyalists such as Ayman al-Zawahri whole can organize attacks on his behalf.
According to Bale (2006), Osama bin Laden represented an ideology for which he was prepared to die. His desire was to spread his ideologies to as many Muslims as possible around the world. By the time he was killed, there were many terrorist groups scattered around the world in Africa and Asia, all founded on Bin Laden’s jihad ideology. Most of these groups owed allegiance to bin Laden despite having been revolutionized and acting independently. Such groups include the Al Shabaab terrorist group based in Somalia (Bale, 2006). Bin Laden’s death has had little effect on operations of these groups.
Another key point to note is that Bin Laden’s death was inevitable in the long run, and the group may have possibly prepared for his eventual death by preparing another leader to take charge of the group (Atwan, 2012). Bin Laden was the most sought after person in the world and the terrorist network must have prepared for his demise by having someone next in line to take over. His successor, presumably his chief operations officer Al-Zawahri, would ensure that the movement remained strong.
Finally, while Osama’s death represents a major move on the war on terror in western nations, it had little effect on Al Qaeda and terrorist activities. Al Qaeda may have reduced in numbers after Osama’s death, but its influence remains the same. The group is still influential across the Middle East and some parts of Africa. Success of the group depends on how the next leader will manage to hold the whole network together.For America and its allies, the war on terror is still an ongoing process and Osama’s death helps to shift the focus from the symbolic person to the entire group and its activities.
References
Atwan, A. B. (2012). After bin Laden: Al-qaeda, the next generation. London, England: Saqi Books.
Bale, J. M. (2006).”Deciphering Islamism and terrorism”. Middle East Journal, 60(4), 777–788.
Bowden, M. (2012).The finish: The killing of Osama bin Laden. New York, NY: Atlantic Monthly Press.
Maraia C. J. (2011). The impact of Osama bin Laden’s death on al-qaeda. Retrieved from http://www.usip.org/publications/the-impact-osama-bin-ladens-death-al-qaida.
Muir, J. (2011). Bin Laden death: Effect on al-qaeda in Middle East. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-13260545.