Some call it Sacrifice

I had arrived at work about 15 minutes early as usual hoping to to make a pot of coffee and get settled in before the work day ahead. Usually the bookkeeper, now owner, was there to unlock the door for us. Today however, she was late. Sometimes this happens because she had to do a deposit and it takes time. Though it was a miner annoyance, we thought nothing of it until she was about ten minutes late. Now we were getting a little annoyed, my kitchen manager and I. Not only was our caffeine intake being inhibited, but minutes were being sacrificed to her tardiness.

Finally we got a call. It was Ellen telling us that she was gonna be a bit late. Dean said she was late because our country was under attack and every one close to a T.V. was glued to it.

We finally got into the kitchen and started our routine, but Dean went someplace and found a T.V. for us to monitor the news cast. I remember watching the first tower going down and after a little while seeing the same thing from a different angle, only it was the second tower imploding.

Dobbins Air Base was within site of Doc's and we had gotten used to the thunder of jets flying over head, but today, and many days after, the sky was silent. Lunch that day of tragedy was subdued, though there were lots of people in the bar talking about what had happened.

Of course we made lunch for lots of people, but I think they needed to be around each other more than stuffing their faces with food and booze.

Every year we hear about this time, we talk about the sacrifice made by those who were murdered by insane terrorists.

I will argue this is not the correct term to use here. Sacrifice implies knowledge of the deed by the victim and their trusted  confidants. When a virgin was slaughtered, she may have been terrified, her family may have rebelled against it, but they knew, or thought they knew, that it was best for their community. In war, a general may offer up some troops to sacrifice for the greater good. Even when pagans sacrificed a lamb, offering it to the gods, the people knew why it was being done. In all cases those being killed were offered not taken.

On September 11th, 2001, no one offered to be killed for the greater good they were MURDERED for. Murdered by zealots. I understand how some need to feel that all of those deaths served a purpose. They want all those deaths to have a meaning; one which some how meant the deaths of those innocents  served a cause that was engineered  to make our country, our way of life---better, more meaningful. I wish it were true.

The truth, in my humble opinion; those plaines were sent out to end our society as we know it to create one that, in their delusional view, fit into an extremists vision.

We may be talking about perspective here, but remember---we did not start this war. So maybe we need to look at it from their point of view and attack their logic, their ideology, with ours---one with a more equal outlook, one which uses our  Constitution, not  ideology, as a guide post to a moral and fulfilling way of life.

Those unfortunate souls who were murdered on September  11th, 2001, were not a sacrifice. There was nothing noble in their death. They were victims of extremists trying to make a religious point.

(Do you see any parallel here? (election 2016))

So now we get down to  an interesting point. Should we allow religion to govern our lives? Maybe we need to understand basic human morals and fight for them using our Constitution as a guide post.

olc

A New Chapter Begins

To anyone out there who wants to know. 1-15-2014

I have been a loyal customer of Brueggers Bagels for a long time, something like 6 or 7 years. The bagels are great and variety of cream cheeses fine. Even the coffee is good and the new one to replace French Roast, which is Dark Roast, has a nice rich flavor that holds up even against cream and sugar. Yummy!

The idea of having the bottomless cup for a year, is great marketing ploy and has worked well for me.When I have a few moments of free time, I go there and use their wifi for various things. I fool myself into thinking that I am being productive, but mostly I surf or Facebook. This time during my free time has translated into more revenue for Brueggers, because I'll get something to eat, either a salad or sandwich, while I am there.

FREE CUP of COFFEE + SANDWICH = MONEY for the franchise. This is a great deal for every one, they get my money and I get a place to "work."

My issue now is the price of this bottomless cup: $159.95. C'mon guys! Even with the incentives, we are talking about a lot of money for a cup of coffee.

I understand that coffee costs money to produce and sell and a company needs to mitigate its expenses. You know what though, now that I do not have the tether of a free cup of coffee, I have discovered other places with wifi and good coffee. I still go to my local Bruegger's, but only once or twice a week, not the three or four times of last year. I still spend my hard earned money, but Bruegger's does not get as much as last year.

In a way, this is a good thing for me, because I go to other places and have a more varied experience during the day. Yet Bruegger's loses out on my business and money, while other local coffee shops gain it.

I'll miss going to Bruegger's as much as I used to, but now I can visit other places and try other fine foods. Having said all that, I will still go to Bruegger's Bagel when I need my Bagel fix. However, right now I am at a place called CityMug writing this letter.

Yours truly, Neil M. Turner

chefneil01@yahoo.com

olc

Lament

I have had delusions of grandeur for the last few years. Truth is I really don’t want to work for someone else, I want to write for a living. I think I have interesting ideas and I have deluded myself into thinking that others may be interested in them.

Seems I am wrong in that assumption.

When I post on any of my blogs; A Daddy Grows Up: A Chronicle of Our Journey, Rants and Brain Echoes, My Rantings (a journal of thoughts), or even just update my status on Facebook, I get a smattering of views and almost no comments. Much less any follows.

I spend a good amount of time writing these posts and most of the them are pertinent to something going on outside of this electronic box. I always want to have feed back from my readers and most of the time ask for it in the post. Yet I get very little. I want feed back on the content and style, yet all I get is encouragement with no editorial rebuttal.

I’ll keep on trudging along writing here and working on my fictional writing too, but it sure would be nice to get some followers and comments, so please read and let me know what you think. I even want to know if you, the reader, will never look at a posting of mine again. Just let me know and maybe an indication on better writing, or more interesting topics, anything that could help me in rise to journalistic sufficiency. 

Thanks, olc 

IMHO

So I have been giving this whole situation some thought lately. It is  a really frustrating and confusing one. The question is how can otherwise intelligent and well adjusted people be deluded into following, adhering to and even propagating the salacious lies that are being pumped out by the extreme right wing?

I listen to lots of talk radio, mostly left leaning, but I also dip my ear into more conservative talk shows. Most of my credible news comes from NPR. Though many conservatives may consider NPR to be left leaning, it does attempt to keep as neutral as possible; when a reporter/journalist expresses their own opinion, the listener knows. I also listen to the right a little. Rush Limbaugh is an entertaining entertainer who is a loud mouth piece for the right wing.

I feel that if I am to make well informed decisions on important topics, I need to be informed on BOTH sides of an issue.

There seem to be two formats coming out of talk radio, when listening to the extreme left or right media. The left, or more liberal will give information as they see it. Sometimes, a talking head will give his or her opinion, shoving it down the listeners’ throat, if you will. They Talk, talk and talk about the subject, giving suggestions on how to consider the subject, they will even explain the logic of their reasoning. Yet rarely will they tell their listeners WHAT to think. The listener is supposed to think and come to their own opinion.

On the other hand, the conservative spectrum has its own way of disseminating its opinion. The talking head will define the issue and explain it several times in as many different ways as possible and in doing so will explain why theirs is the only opinion that matters. Then he will use the most extreme consequence, sometimes the most outrageous outcome to make his point, usually a mere hypothisis. After he, or she, has pounded into the heads of their listeners the problem, telling every one how dire the situation is, the talking head will then TELL his listeners how to think and what to do about the issue.

Now I am not saying one party is more smarter than the other. Honestly, I think it has to do with ones outlook. One party presents the information and lets the consumer digest it and come to their own conclusions, while the other smashes info into their listeners heads and demands they think as they should.

So which is the smarter party, the liberals for letting its constituents think for themselves, yet allowing them to have varied opinions? Perhaps the conservatives for lording over their constituents telling them what and how to think?

Unfortunately, right the now the conservatives seem to be winning the race for popular opinion. It seems to me that the vast majority of people want to be told what to think and how to react to the many important issues assailing us.

What do you think about what I have said here? Please let me know.

olc

Seriously

I just don’t get it. How does what people do in the privacy of their own lives effect others? I just do not understand how the love of two homosexual men or lesbian women effect the lives of heterosexual people?

I know there are some who think that homosexuality is a choice, but there is proof stating otherwise. Even if same sex relationships were a choice, how does that choice make a difference to a heterosexual couple?

Let’s get a discussion going on this. Please leave a comment here and we can try to “flesh” this thing out.

olc 

Is Bugs Bunny a good dietetic planner?

She sits there watching TV after finishing her homework. The squeals and shouts of some show on Nick flashing across the screen, her eyes glazed over. Silence and then it starts again as a commercial for a sugary sweet breakfast food with a loud tiger yelling at us, “How GREAT!” his cereal is. Next is a cute baby giggling about something. Finally a fast-food chain comes up with a healthy alternative to their high sodium, fatty and sugary kid’s meal. Then back to loud frenetic hijinks of the show.


So what are we talking about here: TV causing short attention spans, or marketing and advertising poor quality foods to our kids? Both are relevant to parents. The government, led by our First Mamma Obama (hmm kinda like that) is trying to set up guide-lines for the packaging and marketing of food for our kids. Some say our government is trying to intrude its’ way into our kitchens and on our dining tables. They are concerned this is a gateway into controlling what we eat. Rep Fred Upton, republican from Michigan, said, "This appears to be a first step toward Uncle Sam planning our family meals." They forget however, that these recommendations are VOLUNTARY guide lines. Maybe a totally authoritarian government would try to do control our meal time---thus showing where his mind may be.


The commission, a Congressional panel consisting marketing experts from the CDC and FDA, US Department of Agriculture and the Federal Trade Commission personnel, made some fairly easy labeling standard recommendations for advertising to children. Among other things, the commission wanted to tone down on the use of iconic cartoon figures to attract youthful consumers. Of course this is assumes that parents let their children force them into buying what the kids want, and we all know that never happens. Right?


I propose something a little different (I am not the first, but it was hard to easily find available information supporting my idea). Instead of telling marketers they cannot use Tony the Tiger, or Toucan Sam or even Capt’n Crunch, let’s try using the fantastic strength of marketing and cartoon figures to educate and market to kids and parents healthy and sustainable eating habits? Some of the reluctance of major food producers to suspend the use of their animated idols is recognizability. We grew up watching and learning our eating habits from these icons. They might have done a better job---there seems like an epidemic of obesity and type II diabetes over taking our bodies. 


Yet we have an opportunity that should not be wasted. There seems to be a favorable environment for change, or maybe refinement is a better word. Instead of using all the market research and techniques gathered during the past years to sell not-so-healthy foods, why not use it to sell products that will feed us in a more nutritious and sustainable way? We have seen that advertising works and that using kid identifiable cartoons influence the desires of kids, thus forming habits used later in life. This way of advertising has worked to sell food items that are unhealthy, why not use the same method to influence our buying energy toward healthy foods? A governmental agency called Interagency Working Group asks the same question (www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=141258532) 
Further, Herb Weisbaum, (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44878241/ns/business-consumer_news/#.TpX3hHPN5l1 ) from MCNBC, asked, “Why is the food industry so afraid of a little advise?” I wonder if there may be a profit motiv involved. Is it easier(read less expensive) to make foods with salt, sugar and high fat content?


This is the way I see it. Over the past 50 years, maybe longer, marketers and advertisers have developed data and strategies for marketing to kids crappy food. Now we can use the same force of data and information to start educating younger consumers and their parents healthy foods. Find cartoon icons that exhibit positive models of eating. Use the same screeching and excitement to get kids enthusiastic about apples. Make it look like a treat to have a pomegranate. Sour cream with that baked white potato, how about a pink cuddly character talking about the tastiness of a sweat potato with cheese on it, or a squirrel with its nose twitching having fun chasing green peas around plate and popping them into its mouth? 


I suggest we influence marketers and food purveyors to sell healthy foods with the same methods they used to sell sugary and unhealthy food. Instead of saying they cannot sell “bad” food to kids, encourage them to market more wholesome food. When we show a positive way of doing something, instead of saying, “NO!”, we make it easier, I hope, to change the paradigm and maybe influence the next generation to eat healthier foods.


What do you think? Am I making a sound point here? Let’s talk about it!


On another matter, I did some research on this post, but had difficulty finding information that supported my idea; positive advertising could be used in conjunction with the strategies used with a healthier diet. I used search terms like, “Food marketing for kids,” “packaging for kids” and other variants. All that come up were articles decrying the negatives involved with sugary foods. I was looking for information that supported my idea of using methods for pushing healthier food. Until I found this one article from webmd.com: http://www.webmd.com/parenting/news/20110307/cartoon-characters-influence-kids-food-choices, I came up with nothing. Any one out there have any tips for internet searches that can help pinpoint specific data? Let me know!!!


OLC

Simple Solutions to Difficult Problems

I keep hearing about theses one step solutions to very difficult situations both politic and economic. I am not versed in economics, I have no formal education in it, about the best I can say is I love to spend money---when I have it. Though I do not have any real formal background in Political Science, I do try to keep up with issues that are current. As an American Citizen, I feel I have a responsibility to keep informed. So why is it that I can understand the need to look at a very difficult problem from more than one point of view. There are so many examples of this limited point of view:

• The leader of Afghanistan saying that he needs to talk with Pakistan to make peace though out the region
• The republicans saying top down economic will solve all of our problems
• The democrats say bottom up will do it
• Israelis saying they don’t care what the Palestinians want
• Palestinians saying they need complete autonomy to have peace and freedom

Need I go on? There is the issue of climate change verses man made environmental manipulation. Does Greece have the ability to take down the world economy? Nukes in the former Soviet Union. Pollution in China---well let’s just make sure they stop driving! While we are talking about China, how about software piracy. I heard the other day that there are millions of unlicensed copies of Windows running around causing an epidemic of botnets.

After the politicians or media talking-heads have defined the problem, we the masses, are given a simple one step solution that is the magic panacea that cures all of our woes. Would that all, or even some, of the issues that complicate the easy flow of living, be solved so easily!

This brings a few of questions to mind. The first being can our issues be solved so easily? Well, Albert Einstein said, “It's not that I'm so smart, it's just that I stay with problems longer.” The modesty of the man is well known, however once again we see the profound wisdom he gave us. What can we take form his simple statement? One simple thing (sic): we need to consider more than one way to solve a problem. In other words, simply put :-0, look for more than a simple way of dealing with a challenge. In other words, elegant solutions to complicated dilemmas do not come in simple sound bites that make us feel better.

Another question that comes to mind goes something like this: Do the talking heads that control the flow of information really think that the info consumer is so simple as to really think that a one step solution to something like global warming is really feasible? This brings to mind two more questions. Is the solution really so simple? Or, do they think the populace is so simple? Both of those questions bother the hell out of me.

All issues, from seemingly simple things like what will the kids have for lunch at school, to issues of global importance like what will we be eating in fifty years and where will it come from, can be looked at from many different angles. Having said that, we need to understand that we live in an age where the average person wants to have everything made simple and easily digestible in 30 second sound bites. We want to understand a complicated problem while read doing one’s business in the restroom.

Simply put, we need to take more time to digest issues, understand them and finally realize that complicated issues cannot be unraveled in simple one step solutions. But more important than that, our information brokers need to stop dumbing down issues of the day and twisting them to their own agenda.