Being able to delay gratification apparently provides an indication that those people will do well in life. They are prepared to obtain more education and do more market research before leaping into the fray based on gut instinct.
Well while working at the cottage, I started dinner prep a bit late. I started the stove top and preheated the pan. I already planned to have the ice cream after dinner. Since dinner was another 20 mins, why not have the ice cream first. Life is short right? Right?!
At age 62, I finally succumbed and had my desert first. The benefits of this is that you can always have dessert again. After.
But watch the gut instinct aspect. It is always watching.
Ok. I had to look into this further as to why Tim Hortons dropped beyond beef.
I can understand the need to make a Pea Protein Isolate look like beef in order to entice the non-belivers to give it a try. The beet juice extract for that rich blood like color had me sold.
When eating beet salads, just be wary of the next morning constitutional when it might look like you have a bleeding ulcer when you are actually trying to do the right thing.
Their website has a nice breakdown of what they do to make it look like meat. So good on them to entice people over to the kinder side of life.
Water, Pea Protein Isolate*, Expeller-Pressed Canola Oil, Refined Coconut Oil, Rice Protein, Natural Flavors, Cocoa Butter, Mung Bean Protein, Methylcellulose, Potato Starch, Apple Extract, Salt, Potassium Chloride, Vinegar, Lemon Juice Concentrate, Sunflower Lecithin, Pomegranate Fruit Powder, Beet Juice Extract (for color).
A little laid back research did not tell me why they dropped it. Just didn’t attact a sufficent market perhaps. Perhaps Vegan people don’t like mass produced coffee.
I did have one thought of the product name, Beyond Meat. Usually the peas and other plants go into the animals before they are slaughtered. So a more appropriate name would ‘Before Meats’.
Just a thought.
#life #personalbranding #vegan
Tim Hortons debrided Beyond Meat from its menu.
Debridement is the medical removal of dead, damaged, or infected tissue to improve the healing potential of the remaining healthy tissue. Removal may be surgical, mechanical, chemical, autolytic, and by maggot therapy. Wikipedia
I am not completely sure why when I saw this headline, the concept of debridement immmediately leapt to mind.
Perhaps its the slightly ironic comparison of debridement, the removal of damaged meat tissue, and the Beyond Meat headline, which is the removal of a damaged non-meat product from the menu.
When I go to Tims, the last thing that comes to mind is a meat product, or a non-meat product.
Apple fritters or death. Actually, a box of apple fritters sort of guarantees the latter, later.
Although normally associated with the creative thinking process, lightning essentially deactivated our entire building. The generator kicked in, but ran out its useful life.
Manitoba received an incredible amount of rain and lightning. Still going on 12 hours later.
Perhaps a bit more enjoyable now here at the cottage after work. Rain outside, fire inside, just seems like a nice complement. Even the dogs ignore the commotion outside.
# #life #business #motivation #mindfulness #personaldevelopment #leadership #saturdaymotivation #personalbranding
Why? We started a new business planning session starting with why. Starting with why opens up the creative thinking process. If you start with the most basic of questions as to why, then all forms of solutions present themselves.
If the only answer that comes to your mind is “because”, then you have truly become your parent.
Ontarians need a stop-stickers-on-gasoline campaign. Let’s call it StopSOG.
I had also considered stop stickers on pumps – but that acronym appears heavily used in Ontario at the moment.
Ontario Premier Doug Ford’s government saw the potential political wisdom of mandating that gasoline station owners adorn their pumps with stickers blasting warnings about the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act. That Act stipulates that provinces without similar legislation must then use the federal act and regulations as a backstop. This backstop ensures a price for carbon. This translates to over four-cents-per-litre on gasoline, in 2019.
Ford and the Progressive Conservatives railed against any carbon-reduction plan and did away with the previous government’s climate change initiatives that complied with the federal legislation requirements. Ontario’s provincial government essentially invited the application of the federal government’s legislation across the province.
The Ford government wanted to ensure that Ontarians became aware of this carbon pricing. The government cheekily entitled their legislation the Federal Carbon Tax Transparency Act, or the Sticker Act. Licensed operators of retail gas must affix the prescribed notice to gasoline pumps. Of course, the legislation mandates that the sticker must face the vehicle. The regulations go further in that the sticker must be within the top two-thirds of the pump. The sticker contains an ominous, aggressive arrow pointing upwards and suggest projected increases in levies past 2022. However, the legislation does allow the Minister to estimate certain numbers.
Using a combination of a bar chart and an arrow on the sticker, the potential for future exponential tax increases appears frightening. Since the carbon price only increases arithmetically by $10 a ton per year, the tax should instead take a more boring flat arrow approach. The provincial government can only make it look exponential by hollowing out the tops of the individual bars on the chart. This gives the arrow a deceiving, sharp, upward curve, when the arrow should be straight and flattened out. Any mutual fund company attempting the same ‘estimating’ trick would be hauled in front of the appropriate regulatory authority.
The stickers themselves seem quite large and far out of proportion to the message. Some of the stickers do not adhere properly and appear to be peeling. I define a peeled sticker as litter.
This does not bother Ford, who at last report is the sole owner of a label-and-tags company. We could almost expect a Trump-like statement by Ford in the nature of “no one knows more about sticky labels than I do.”
Non-adherence (just a few more play on words here) in applying the stickers results in substantial penalties. The fines seem onerous for a non-safety violation of $5,000 for a first offence and $10,000 for a second offence
Energy Minister Greg Rickford made the reasons for such a Kafkaesque requirement transparent by saying, “We’re going to stick it to the Liberals and remind the people of Ontario how much this job-killing, regressive carbon tax costs.”
The Ontario Chamber of Commerce labeled the stickers as “unnecessary red tape” and said their gas-station members decried the “punitive and outsized fines for non-compliance” and “the political nature of the stickers… a violation of their rights and freedoms.”
The Canadian Civil Liberties Association filed a lawsuit, which states: ”The Sticker Act requirements do not relate to any technical standards or any concerns about safety,” and further that “Comments Ontario has made about the Sticker Act in the Ontario Legislature and to the public demonstrate that the contents of the stickers are political in nature.”
The suit claims that the Sticker Act violates s. 2(b) of the Charter, which ensures freedom of conscience and religion and freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication.
Here, a government body appears to compelling political speech, since the threat of substantial fines compels station owners to express the provincial government’s position on the carbon tax.
This situation appears evermore egregious since you can agree with the carbon price or not, but the provincial government uses taxpayer dollars to make their political argument. The retail owners have no say in the matter.
Well, they do have a say in that they must say how the tax increases over the next few years.
The stickers do not even represent the realty of the situation. The Ontario Court of Appeal confirmed that the charges under the Greenhouse Gas Act do not constitute taxes. The court deemed them levies.
The sticker does not include any of the rebates payable to the public to offset the levies. Average rebates exceed the average cost of the gasoline levy.
Certain other entities supply complimentary additional stickers discussing the carbon levy rebate. These stickers use a similar aggressive arrow but this time the bar graphs refer to the amount of rebates.
We can foresee a real sticker war occurring sometime in the near future. This may not have the gravitas of other divisive political discussions. In the U.S., certain factions are committing acts of violence.
Here in Canada, we apply stickers.
#ontario #gas #climate #law #carbontax