We have broken with tradition. We are now using soymilk in our coffee. The label states that it "is the right thing to do.", so how can we argue that logic? It must be a fact, because the sentence looks like a factual statement. After all, they "have taken great care to make (our) soymilk experience enjoyable." How can we NOT be grateful for this? It is, after all, "lusciously rich and satin smooth."
Of course, for me this is simply returning to my roots. I was raised on soymilk back in the 50's! That's right, I was far, far ahead of my time.
Our next step will be in Birkenstocks.
And our transition is just ahead of the legal mandates that may come our way. We are topical as always. Today's headlines include:
"Dems: No Fried Food at Convention"
and:
"Wisconsin City May Ban Drive Through Restaurants Over Global Warming Concerns..."
Gotta go, the food police are due at any minute.
7 comments:
I like the soy milk too! Now we'll never run out...
After reading your post and the linked articles I think you might have extrapolated a bit too much. . Though I am happy to think that this change will prolong your health.
It is unfortunate that your vision of the future is so dark, food police et al. There are less-dramatic ways to interpret your findings; I take the Dem convention's efforts as a positive. An organization is taking it upon themselves to curb their environmental impact. Understand I do not to defend the Democratic party as much as it is to maintain perspective (I don't trust Dems nor Reps with the future of the country).
The possibility of a ban in Madison seems unlikely, but I don't feel like a limit is all-together a bad thing. While a ban would ignore the forces of the market, a limit only looks to keep the market within boundaries. Also, if the demand for drive-thrus was strong enough, wouldn't the voters come out in opposition? Though the article didn't say whether the voters will actually get to voice their opinions on such a referendum. Nor was there any mention made of the fact that the already-existing traffic problem seems to be a symptom of poor city planning, but I suppose it wasn't an editorial.
After reading your post and the linked articles I think you might have extrapolated a bit too much. . Though I am happy to think that this change will prolong your health.
It is unfortunate that your vision of the future is so dark, food police et al. There are less-dramatic ways to interpret your findings; I take the Dem convention's efforts as a positive. An organization is taking it upon themselves to curb their environmental impact. Understand I do not to defend the Democratic party as much as it is to maintain perspective (I don't trust Dems nor Reps with the future of the country).
The possibility of a ban in Madison seems unlikely, but I don't feel like a limit is all-together a bad thing. While a ban would ignore the forces of the market, a limit only looks to keep the market within boundaries. Also, if the demand for drive-thrus was strong enough, wouldn't the voters come out in opposition? Though the article didn't say whether the voters will actually get to voice their opinions on such a referendum. Nor was there any mention made of the fact that the already-existing traffic problem seems to be a symptom of poor city planning, but I suppose it wasn't an editorial.
A very thoughtful comment by M Banbury. I have to disagree (or this would not be such an interesting blog, would it?). When an organization's leadership or city council, or any body makes a unilateral decision on what it's members can eat, that is tyranny!
I appreciate the compliment however...
When a corporation makes a decision regarding the menu at an event or the different types of food vendors that will be invited to a private gathering it is not tyranny. To say so is to commit hyperbole. The democratic party is not saying that their members can't eat fried foods only that they will not provide them at this one gathering.
City, state, and national governance all make unilateral decisions. We live in a large nation with a complex system of governance. Politicians and bureaucrats are theoretically held responsible for the mistakes they make. If people do not enforce their will it is not the failure of the decision-makers but rather the people whose action (or inaction) put them there.
Surely you can see this is incredibly, amazingly, fantastic hyperbolic super-humor? Birkenstocks for Christ's sake?!
Post a Comment