Well do you.
I sure hope so.
I hope you're using a good liquid nutritional supplement to get all the minerals, vitamins, enzymes and essential fatty acids you don't get from our food supply.
If you're still in the four food groups camp, I hope you realize that the ship has left that dock at least 80 years ago.
US government documents and reports from world organizations will tell you that you our soils have been depleted of minerals over the years, and that most farmers don't put them back through fertilizers.
Dogs get 40 minerals in the average bag of dog food.
Rats get 28 minerals to sustain them.
Guess how many are in most baby formulas -usually 11-12.
Why do farmers fertilize the food they give to animals more that that which they grow for themselves?
I believe we have a problem. People are developing degenerative diseases at younger and younger ages. More woman than ever are taking pills for Osteoporosis but more woman than ever are getting Osteoporosis.
It's common sense to me. If you don't put minerals and vitamins into our food supply, then we will not get them into our system and we cripple our body and keep it from rebuilding itself. Let's give God some credit for designing our miraculous bodies. Let's give our bodies some good raw materials. It's hard to fix joint degeneration with Advil, Tylenol and cortisone. I'm not a doctor and nothing I'm discussing will treat or cure any diseases, but I do try a utilize my common sense. Mark Twain said "The thing about common sense is it's not too common these days."
I think everyone would agree that we don't have health care- we have sick care.
If you'd like a copy of Dr Joel Wallach's BS, DVM, ND "Dead Doctors Don't Lie" lecture series then bryce@simplifiedsolutionsllc.com and I'll mail you a copy.
Monday, March 24, 2008
My favorite thing to watch these days....
I have always loved mystery shows and books. It's what intrigued me as a child. I think the only two books I read in my first 8 years of school were two mystery novels. I would love to remember the names as I type, but they escape me. Now that I'm back from my short nostalgic pause, we'll discuss how my pechant for mystery has reemerged this past year.
When I was younger I loved to watch the Sunday night program Murder She Wrote. It seemed that I always watched it at my grandparents home, before my mom would pick me up. Angela Lansbury's deductive skills excited me. I liked the twists and turns in the plot, the suspense of the who done its. I am always looking for a challenge in life. Whether in be sports competition, board games, trivia or solving mysteries; I am and have always been attracted to the works of the great mystery writers.
I first learned of Agatha Christie in High School shortly after reading some works from Sir Aurthur Conan Doyle and his hero sleuth Sherlock Holmes. I believe the novel that jumps out is The Hound of Baskervilles. A few years back when our first child was born, I took advantage of Netflix service and ordered a number of Agatha Christie films. At the time I knew of her book and the accompanying movie- Death on the Orient Express. I had read the book and watched the movie with Peter Ustinov playing the esteemed role of Hercule Poirot. The famous Belgian detective in many of Christie's great books. At the time I rented the movies from Netflix (and a couple from Blockbuster) , I wasn't interested in any version of Poirot except the one played by Ustinov. I knew that the books had been remade with various actors through the years but I was not interested in trying them out. I watched Evil Under the Sun, and Death on the Nile and thoroughly enjoyed them both. One day shortly after Madison's birth, I was burping her after a feeding and I popped in one of my netflix videos. Much to my chagrin, the Poirot in this movie was David Suchet and not Peter Ustinov. I watched a couple minutes to give it a chance and then I quickly popped it out and put something else in. This particular Hercule Poirot was not funny, fat or stammering around. He was very proper, full of order, unemotional and all business.
Well 3 years later, I can no longer watch Peter Ustinov as Hercule Poirot, it must be David Suchet. I have purchased (about the only thing I've bought the last few years beside golf clubs) almost every movie, the entire A&E series and anything else I can find that captured Agatha Christie's great books via David Suchet's portrayel of Poirot. He is truly a pro. I've read that Suchet studied Christie's works for years to develop the particular mannerisms of the perfectionist sleuth Hercule Poirot. Suchet brings out the focus on order, method, and symetry that symbolized the famous Hercule Poirot. From his precise combination of French and English in his speech, to the way he organizes his flat and his processes. He must have his tea at 9:30 and 11:00. He must always be punctual. He thrives on the routine and schedule. This character is a man after my own heart. My wife Ashley laughs at me each time we sit and watch an episode. Its fun to see many of my own strengths and weaknesses in a character like Poirot. He grows very angry when things do not go as planned, or when he fails to achieve his goal. He stubbornly progresses by his order and routine and his keen abilities manifest from this approach.
If you like the art deco period in London right before World War II you'll love these movies and the A&E series that followed. I keep hoping that they'll make more. Once you've watched a mystery you have to give it a good while before you can rewatch it. Over time you'll forget the plot, the suspects and the guilty party. I love the formality of sitting down for coffee or tea. The afternoon and evening post. The use of trains and boats and the small shops and cottage industries. Sometimes I think I was born a few generations too late- that would question God's sovereignty though, so I would say he just has a great sense of humor sometimes.
When I was younger I loved to watch the Sunday night program Murder She Wrote. It seemed that I always watched it at my grandparents home, before my mom would pick me up. Angela Lansbury's deductive skills excited me. I liked the twists and turns in the plot, the suspense of the who done its. I am always looking for a challenge in life. Whether in be sports competition, board games, trivia or solving mysteries; I am and have always been attracted to the works of the great mystery writers.
I first learned of Agatha Christie in High School shortly after reading some works from Sir Aurthur Conan Doyle and his hero sleuth Sherlock Holmes. I believe the novel that jumps out is The Hound of Baskervilles. A few years back when our first child was born, I took advantage of Netflix service and ordered a number of Agatha Christie films. At the time I knew of her book and the accompanying movie- Death on the Orient Express. I had read the book and watched the movie with Peter Ustinov playing the esteemed role of Hercule Poirot. The famous Belgian detective in many of Christie's great books. At the time I rented the movies from Netflix (and a couple from Blockbuster) , I wasn't interested in any version of Poirot except the one played by Ustinov. I knew that the books had been remade with various actors through the years but I was not interested in trying them out. I watched Evil Under the Sun, and Death on the Nile and thoroughly enjoyed them both. One day shortly after Madison's birth, I was burping her after a feeding and I popped in one of my netflix videos. Much to my chagrin, the Poirot in this movie was David Suchet and not Peter Ustinov. I watched a couple minutes to give it a chance and then I quickly popped it out and put something else in. This particular Hercule Poirot was not funny, fat or stammering around. He was very proper, full of order, unemotional and all business.
Well 3 years later, I can no longer watch Peter Ustinov as Hercule Poirot, it must be David Suchet. I have purchased (about the only thing I've bought the last few years beside golf clubs) almost every movie, the entire A&E series and anything else I can find that captured Agatha Christie's great books via David Suchet's portrayel of Poirot. He is truly a pro. I've read that Suchet studied Christie's works for years to develop the particular mannerisms of the perfectionist sleuth Hercule Poirot. Suchet brings out the focus on order, method, and symetry that symbolized the famous Hercule Poirot. From his precise combination of French and English in his speech, to the way he organizes his flat and his processes. He must have his tea at 9:30 and 11:00. He must always be punctual. He thrives on the routine and schedule. This character is a man after my own heart. My wife Ashley laughs at me each time we sit and watch an episode. Its fun to see many of my own strengths and weaknesses in a character like Poirot. He grows very angry when things do not go as planned, or when he fails to achieve his goal. He stubbornly progresses by his order and routine and his keen abilities manifest from this approach.
If you like the art deco period in London right before World War II you'll love these movies and the A&E series that followed. I keep hoping that they'll make more. Once you've watched a mystery you have to give it a good while before you can rewatch it. Over time you'll forget the plot, the suspects and the guilty party. I love the formality of sitting down for coffee or tea. The afternoon and evening post. The use of trains and boats and the small shops and cottage industries. Sometimes I think I was born a few generations too late- that would question God's sovereignty though, so I would say he just has a great sense of humor sometimes.
Saturday, March 22, 2008
My NCAA FINAL FOUR and upset specials
You'll have to trust me on this one since its after the fact. You could always ask my neighbor who has my two brackets. He can vouch for me.
Bracket 1 Tennessee, Georgetown, Memphis, UCLA
Tennesse vs Memphis rematch with a Memphis win.
Bracket 2 Is the same until the sweet sixteen. Final Four is Louisville, Georgetown, Pittsburg, UCLA with a Georgetown vs UCLA final and a UCLA victory.
My upset specials:
I had Villanova versus Siena in both brackets. I actually have the midwest perfect in my first bracket.
Of course I went with the emotions and the Kentucky let me down.
Bracket 1 Tennessee, Georgetown, Memphis, UCLA
Tennesse vs Memphis rematch with a Memphis win.
Bracket 2 Is the same until the sweet sixteen. Final Four is Louisville, Georgetown, Pittsburg, UCLA with a Georgetown vs UCLA final and a UCLA victory.
My upset specials:
I had Villanova versus Siena in both brackets. I actually have the midwest perfect in my first bracket.
Of course I went with the emotions and the Kentucky let me down.
Who will be John McCains VP?
Two words:
Mike Huckabee.
I think the evangelicals have such a bad taste in their mouth for John McCain and they were not exactly favorable for Mitt Romney. Without the southern and midwestern evangelicals, kiss the GOP's chances goodbye. Huckabee carried Iowa and Kansas and did very well in Oklahoma and Missouri. Huckabee has a strong following in Texas and he carried Georgia, Tennessee, Alabama, Louisiana, Arkansas and West Viriginia. He has big support in Kentucky and had a great showing in South Carolina.
Mitt Romney could add a more fiscal conservative and a strong business leader to the McCain ticket, but he can only shore up the mountain states and that's about it. He wasn't a player anywhere in the south and doesn't strike a cord with the Christian right.
Ron Paul would be a very cool running mate aside from the little issue of the war.
The governor of Florida has a very good shot at the VEEP. He helped bring McCain Florida and he a young and very well liked.
I've heard the governor of Minnesota is a play because of his swing state and his popularity.
Barber, the governor of Mississippi may have a little too much risk for a VEEP selection.
I think McCains stern character would not even consider Condi or Colin. I'm not sure how conservative either is and how much they add to a war hawk.
Doug Wead has conjectured Kay Bailey Hutchinson will be the VEEP. I'm not going to argue with a guy who served as a white house senior staffer and has been involved in several political campaigns.
Mike Huckabee.
I think the evangelicals have such a bad taste in their mouth for John McCain and they were not exactly favorable for Mitt Romney. Without the southern and midwestern evangelicals, kiss the GOP's chances goodbye. Huckabee carried Iowa and Kansas and did very well in Oklahoma and Missouri. Huckabee has a strong following in Texas and he carried Georgia, Tennessee, Alabama, Louisiana, Arkansas and West Viriginia. He has big support in Kentucky and had a great showing in South Carolina.
Mitt Romney could add a more fiscal conservative and a strong business leader to the McCain ticket, but he can only shore up the mountain states and that's about it. He wasn't a player anywhere in the south and doesn't strike a cord with the Christian right.
Ron Paul would be a very cool running mate aside from the little issue of the war.
The governor of Florida has a very good shot at the VEEP. He helped bring McCain Florida and he a young and very well liked.
I've heard the governor of Minnesota is a play because of his swing state and his popularity.
Barber, the governor of Mississippi may have a little too much risk for a VEEP selection.
I think McCains stern character would not even consider Condi or Colin. I'm not sure how conservative either is and how much they add to a war hawk.
Doug Wead has conjectured Kay Bailey Hutchinson will be the VEEP. I'm not going to argue with a guy who served as a white house senior staffer and has been involved in several political campaigns.
The Costco Connection
One of my favorite companies has a great small business magazine. Costco and its Costco Connection. This magazine has it all. They have small business tips, advice and trends. They have targeted ads for cool Costco products. They have 65-70 pages of great info. This is not a AAA magazine with a bunch of fluff. Costco will highlight a particular product in their magazine and explain why it is a great value- examples in the past are their apple pies and their pizzas. Most magazines like this go straight into my circular file- not Costco's.
Costco has a really neat company. If you ever get a chance to see the special that one of the major networks did a few years back, then take an hour and tune in. Their CEO limits his income to something like 9 times the lowest salaried employee at Costco. I believe the starting pay is around $17 per hour, and their employees customer service tells me that the starting rate is $17 per hour. If a line develops its like a team of firefighters slide down the polls and begin opening new lanes or scanning items for those waiting. The employees who sample products act as if each sale will make or break their paycheck.
We patronize this company even though their prices are higher than Sam's Club. It's much more organized, with better customer service and better quality products.
Costco has a really neat company. If you ever get a chance to see the special that one of the major networks did a few years back, then take an hour and tune in. Their CEO limits his income to something like 9 times the lowest salaried employee at Costco. I believe the starting pay is around $17 per hour, and their employees customer service tells me that the starting rate is $17 per hour. If a line develops its like a team of firefighters slide down the polls and begin opening new lanes or scanning items for those waiting. The employees who sample products act as if each sale will make or break their paycheck.
We patronize this company even though their prices are higher than Sam's Club. It's much more organized, with better customer service and better quality products.
Monday, March 17, 2008
Where do you get your coffee?
Business First had an article with the above title on Feb 29, 2008. Out of 733 local responses the breakdown is below:
Home led the way with 36%
Work was tied for second at 16% with those who didn't partake in the beverage (another 16%)
Starbucks had a 10% stake.
Heine brothers took 5%.
Java Brewing (my favorite) McDonald's (not bad these days) and Thornton's (livable) were all at 3%.
Other made up 8% which I'm guessing would cover a multitude of mom and pop options along with restaurants.
My personally I go back and forth on this issue. Sometimes I make it at home or work to save money. I'm reminded of Jay Leno's joke a few months back in regards to Starbucks heavily publicized price increase. Leno, said the thing that amazed him about the coffee dilemma was the that many people failed to realize that coffee could be easily made at home. Still something is special about going to a coffee shop. The atmosphere-the steaming hot coffee that even the best home machine struggles to reproduce- the buzzing chatter or the quiet peace- the networking and business contacts one can make- or just the escape from the grind for a moment; all these things keep me coming back to spend 2-3 dollars per day. It's just not the same when I make my own. Don't get me wrong I do several times per week, but I can't give up the trip to the coffee shop. I'm not a big Starbucks coffee fan although I go nowhere else for a latte. They are the masters of the latte. My only other thoughts on coffee are:
Yes McDonalds has improved their coffee must you can't replace the human error in not making a fresh pot when needed. The coffee may be better but the service is not always predictable.
Secondly, has Starbucks made a strategic mistake in not offering free wirless internet access. I'm not sure but I do think they made a mistake by allowing Kroger's, Barnes and Noble, Target and Meijers to compete with their own corporate stores. Not wise planning from a company that has always seemed to be on top of things. Starbucks is not a franchise system as many people think, most if not all of their stores I believe are corporately owned.
Where do you get your coffee?
Home led the way with 36%
Work was tied for second at 16% with those who didn't partake in the beverage (another 16%)
Starbucks had a 10% stake.
Heine brothers took 5%.
Java Brewing (my favorite) McDonald's (not bad these days) and Thornton's (livable) were all at 3%.
Other made up 8% which I'm guessing would cover a multitude of mom and pop options along with restaurants.
My personally I go back and forth on this issue. Sometimes I make it at home or work to save money. I'm reminded of Jay Leno's joke a few months back in regards to Starbucks heavily publicized price increase. Leno, said the thing that amazed him about the coffee dilemma was the that many people failed to realize that coffee could be easily made at home. Still something is special about going to a coffee shop. The atmosphere-the steaming hot coffee that even the best home machine struggles to reproduce- the buzzing chatter or the quiet peace- the networking and business contacts one can make- or just the escape from the grind for a moment; all these things keep me coming back to spend 2-3 dollars per day. It's just not the same when I make my own. Don't get me wrong I do several times per week, but I can't give up the trip to the coffee shop. I'm not a big Starbucks coffee fan although I go nowhere else for a latte. They are the masters of the latte. My only other thoughts on coffee are:
Yes McDonalds has improved their coffee must you can't replace the human error in not making a fresh pot when needed. The coffee may be better but the service is not always predictable.
Secondly, has Starbucks made a strategic mistake in not offering free wirless internet access. I'm not sure but I do think they made a mistake by allowing Kroger's, Barnes and Noble, Target and Meijers to compete with their own corporate stores. Not wise planning from a company that has always seemed to be on top of things. Starbucks is not a franchise system as many people think, most if not all of their stores I believe are corporately owned.
Where do you get your coffee?
NCAA Conference Tournaments and Brackets
Well I didn't fare too well in the darkhorse picks.
I did avoid in most cases picking the top 3-4 teams in a league. In the larger conferences I avoided the top 5-6 teams.
So Temple was the only team that came through.
Minnesota had an impressive run.
Syracuse had no magic this year.
None from Texas Tech either.
Georgia Tech pulled off a couple victories before being knocked off by Duke.
Houston was a bust as was UAB.
I was close with Ole Miss (given that the winner of that game went on the win the tourney)
The only glory I had was a pre conference prediction for San Diego. I thought they were a solid team when they came into Rupp and beat Kentucky early in the season.
What to make of the 65 teams in and the few bubble teams who are out?
No Florida or Ohio State- think there is parity in college bball these days. The two teams from last years championship game are headed to the NIT. Ohio State had a pretty good case against Oregon and Arizona.
Ohio State beats Syracuse and Florida in the non conference and finishes with 10 wins in the Big Ten- sitting in 5th place. They lose to North Carolina, Butler, Texas A&M, and Tennesse in non-conference. That a pretty tough schedule.
Oregon loses to St Mary's, Nebraska, and Oakland and they beat Kansas St (11 seed) and Utah.
They have a 4 game losing streak and a 3 game losing streak and finish 18-13- 9-9 in Pac 10.
Quite the resume- wait a minute, it's a terrible resume.
Arizona finishes the year 4-10- on fire. They finish Pac 10 play at 9-11- 19-14 overall.
They lose to Virginia, Kansas and Memphis (very respectable) They beat Texas A&M, UNLV, Houston and Illinois. Two on the 4 were not in the bracket last time I checked. They get beat by Arizona St twice (even though St didn't deserve a berth either)
Let's look at another team that could have gotten the nod over the Pac 10 schools mentioned.
UMASS- goes on the road early to beat Boston College and Syracuse. They beat Houston at home. They lose at Vandy. Know anyone who has won at Vandy lately.
They finish third in their conference and end the year with a 6-1 streak. Not all too impressive but a better resume than Oregon and Arizona in my opinion.
Syracuse finished 9-9 in the best conference this year. (coming from an SEC fan) They played a very good schedule in non conference.
Siena (W against Tourney team)
Saint Josephs (W against Tourney team)
Ohio State
Washington
UMASS
Virginia
Cornell (W against Tourney team)
Rhode Island
Tulane
It's not power house city but it's not a bunch of cupcakes either. 10-3 non conference and 9-9 in the Big East with wins against Georgetown, Nova and Marquette.
To me it's not even close when comparing with the Pac 10 schools who got the nod.
Last but not least. Mississippi:
Did they deserve a berth- I don't think so with a losing record in the SEC west (during a down year) They have a much better case than Arizona with it's losing record in the Pac 10 and it's one less win and three more losses.
Mississippi beats some good teams in non conference:
Mississippi Valley State (NCAA bound)
South Alabama (NCAA bound)
New Mexico (on the bubble or considered in the tourney by Joe Lunardi until this weekend)
Winthrop (NCAA bound)
Depaul
Clemson (NCAA bound)
Wins against Miss St, Vandy, Arkansas and Florida in SEC play.
The highest RPI of the teams left out of the tourney I believe.
So why the credence to the pack 10 this year? Is Stanford really that great. Was USC deserving on their top 20 ranking with 10 losses? I believe UCLA is the real deal but is Washington State going to make it past their first round game?
I did avoid in most cases picking the top 3-4 teams in a league. In the larger conferences I avoided the top 5-6 teams.
So Temple was the only team that came through.
Minnesota had an impressive run.
Syracuse had no magic this year.
None from Texas Tech either.
Georgia Tech pulled off a couple victories before being knocked off by Duke.
Houston was a bust as was UAB.
I was close with Ole Miss (given that the winner of that game went on the win the tourney)
The only glory I had was a pre conference prediction for San Diego. I thought they were a solid team when they came into Rupp and beat Kentucky early in the season.
What to make of the 65 teams in and the few bubble teams who are out?
No Florida or Ohio State- think there is parity in college bball these days. The two teams from last years championship game are headed to the NIT. Ohio State had a pretty good case against Oregon and Arizona.
Ohio State beats Syracuse and Florida in the non conference and finishes with 10 wins in the Big Ten- sitting in 5th place. They lose to North Carolina, Butler, Texas A&M, and Tennesse in non-conference. That a pretty tough schedule.
Oregon loses to St Mary's, Nebraska, and Oakland and they beat Kansas St (11 seed) and Utah.
They have a 4 game losing streak and a 3 game losing streak and finish 18-13- 9-9 in Pac 10.
Quite the resume- wait a minute, it's a terrible resume.
Arizona finishes the year 4-10- on fire. They finish Pac 10 play at 9-11- 19-14 overall.
They lose to Virginia, Kansas and Memphis (very respectable) They beat Texas A&M, UNLV, Houston and Illinois. Two on the 4 were not in the bracket last time I checked. They get beat by Arizona St twice (even though St didn't deserve a berth either)
Let's look at another team that could have gotten the nod over the Pac 10 schools mentioned.
UMASS- goes on the road early to beat Boston College and Syracuse. They beat Houston at home. They lose at Vandy. Know anyone who has won at Vandy lately.
They finish third in their conference and end the year with a 6-1 streak. Not all too impressive but a better resume than Oregon and Arizona in my opinion.
Syracuse finished 9-9 in the best conference this year. (coming from an SEC fan) They played a very good schedule in non conference.
Siena (W against Tourney team)
Saint Josephs (W against Tourney team)
Ohio State
Washington
UMASS
Virginia
Cornell (W against Tourney team)
Rhode Island
Tulane
It's not power house city but it's not a bunch of cupcakes either. 10-3 non conference and 9-9 in the Big East with wins against Georgetown, Nova and Marquette.
To me it's not even close when comparing with the Pac 10 schools who got the nod.
Last but not least. Mississippi:
Did they deserve a berth- I don't think so with a losing record in the SEC west (during a down year) They have a much better case than Arizona with it's losing record in the Pac 10 and it's one less win and three more losses.
Mississippi beats some good teams in non conference:
Mississippi Valley State (NCAA bound)
South Alabama (NCAA bound)
New Mexico (on the bubble or considered in the tourney by Joe Lunardi until this weekend)
Winthrop (NCAA bound)
Depaul
Clemson (NCAA bound)
Wins against Miss St, Vandy, Arkansas and Florida in SEC play.
The highest RPI of the teams left out of the tourney I believe.
So why the credence to the pack 10 this year? Is Stanford really that great. Was USC deserving on their top 20 ranking with 10 losses? I believe UCLA is the real deal but is Washington State going to make it past their first round game?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
