Oreo cookies are off my list

The wife took pity on my sweet-tooth addiction last week and bought some Oreo cookies.

I sensed their presence hidden in the cupboard the minute I entered the kitchen.
I have this gift.

OreosizedIt’s been a while since I looked at one closely.

The white stuff has shrunk.
A lot.

This is what the Oreo looked like before I ate it.

The filling is the reason I like Oreos in the first place.
There’s hardly any.

There’s certainly not enough left for me to want to buy them again.

If you can’t pull them apart and lick the stuff – why bother?

I’m not saying this is the case here, but making things smaller is the latest great idea from most companies.

Here’s the logic, as I have heard it:

It’s costing more to make stuff, like cookies.

So, what they do is make things a bit smaller, or put less in the package, so they don’t have to raise the price.

Supposedly the idea is we won’t want to pay a 50-cents increase for a dozen pieces of something, but we’re willing to pay the same old price for only ten pieces.

How messed up is that?

Sure, salaries and benefit costs go up.
Raw material is more expensive.

Things are going to go up.

My mother bought a new Chevy when I was a kid for $5,000.

I bought a new Jeep last year for $32,000.

No one was selling a $5,000 car with only 3 wheels, no seats and a rubber-band motor to keep the price the same.

If Oreo, or anyone, is going to make a product worse in order to keep its customers, they’re like a dog sniffing at the wrong hydrant.

When any product is no longer what we thought we were buying then we stop buying and go elsewhere.

That’s the logic they should be looking at.

This is nuts

I’ve seen a lot of changes over the years.
Some great and some that would leave a reasonable person baffled.

The wife and I always liked Seattle.

Clean, cool and she likes the shopping.
I like the fact it’s not quite as off-the-deep-end liberal as Portland.

Until this came along.
They have got to be kidding.

Buried in the newspaper is a story that government workers in Seattle are being told that the words “citizen” and “brown bag” are potentially offensive and may no longer be used in official documents and discussions.

The city’s Office of Civil Rights put out a memo saying workers must stop using the words because some may find them offensive.

Good grief.

The memo goes on, “Luckily, we’ve got options. For ‘citizens,’ how about ‘residents?'”

In a radio interview, Seattle’s Office of Civil Rights director said the term “brown bag” has been used historically as a way to judge skin color.

“For a lot of particularly African-American community members, the phrase brown bag does bring up associations with the past when a brown bag was actually used, I understand, to determine if people’s skin color was light enough to allow admission to an event or to come into a party that was being held in a private home.”

I really couldn’t believe this.

According to the memo, city employees should use the terms “lunch-and-learn” or “sack lunch” instead of “brown bag.”

And the reason “citizen” should be avoided because many people who live in Seattle are residents, not citizens.

“They are legal residents of the United States and they are residents of Seattle. They pay taxes and if we use a term like citizens in common use, then it doesn’t include a lot of folks.”

Or maybe they’re illegal immigrants that might feel left out.

There’s more…

Did you know the New York City Department of Education stays away from references to words like “dinosaurs,” “birthdays,” “Halloween” and dozens of other topics on city-issued tests because they could evoke “unpleasant emotions” among the students.

Dinosaurs, for example, brings up the topic of evolution, which could upset fundamentalists and birthdays are not celebrated by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

Halloween, meanwhile, suggests an affiliation to Paganism.

Officials said such exclusions are normal procedure, insisting it’s not censorship.

We agree – it’s not.

It’s just plain-ass stupidity.