Skip to main content

Why does coffee always get the blame? - Seton

+
JMJ

My wife sent me a link to this article and I think it is too good to not share.  There is truth as well as humour in these lines.  I think I will add a 'humour' label even though Mr. Clark does seem to be in earnest!

P^3

Source: Seton Magazine - John Clark





Why Does Coffee Always Get the Blame?

Has anyone else noticed that coffee has become the financial “fall guy” lately? We live in an age of bailouts, zombie banks, troubled assets, and more troubled liabilities, yet coffee is often pointed to as the real financial problem. Here’s what I mean.


Have you been in a conversation expressing your frustration that you can’t afford something, and someone chimes in with a tidbit of advice like this:
Adopting a sarcastic tone:
“Well, if you’d just stop drinking your vanilla lattes every morning, then maybe you could afford that new house/used car/vacation to Mongolia.”
As if.
2014-05 Gospel Time  Trekkers
As if the only thing that stood between the good life and me were vanilla lattes. Did I miss something, or is a demitasse a little more expensive for others than it is for me? We’re talking about a few dollars a day, right?
Wouldn’t the college tuitions, orthodontics, violins, ballet classes, and homeschooling books overturn my financial applecart long before the espresso? Is frothy coffee really going to be the thing that makes or breaks me?
I can see it now…
Sometime in the future, a friend comes over to my house, looks around and says: “John, how did you and Lisa afford such a beautiful house?”
“Well, Scott, I didn’t think we could do it, but we gave up lattes for twelve-hundred-and-seventy-five-years, and we were able to make a down payment. Of course, there has been a downside: we’ve been dozing off the entire time because of the lack of caffeine.”
I understand that a few dollars here and a few dollars there helps you plan for the future. I believe in planning for the future too, but I also believe in planning for consciousness later in the day. Diminished states of cognizance seem somehow rude at times. For instance, people start to wonder if you are truly engaged in a dialogue if you begin snoring during it.
Especially if it’s in the middle of a speech.
Especially if you are the speaker.
(If you’ve been reading my column for a while now and you know my backstory, you might be asking why I don’t get enough sleep at night; after all, my youngest child is almost five years old. Fair question. Here’s the answer: when your children are little, their crying keeps you awake. When they become teenagers, your crying keeps you awake. And lest you think otherwise, for the record, I have nine of the greatest and most wonderful children in the world. But, however your children are doing in life, worrying about them—along with the concomitant daytime narcolepsy—is an understandable reaction. Hence, the need for coffee.)
Implicit in the anti-coffee comments like the one above is the idea that coffee is a needless luxury. Not only do I disagree with that as an economist (coffee clearly falls under “need” as opposed to “want”), I disagree from the perspective of theology. Some time ago, I remember Lisa telling me about discalced orders who start their day with a bowl of java. In other words, there are religious orders of people who don’t have shoes—but do have coffee.
There is a lot we can learn from our religious brothers and sisters: namely, to paraphrase St. Teresa of Avila, there is a time for fasting and a time for froth.
Or, to put it another way: live a little.
Drink the latte.

Read more at http://www.setonmagazine.com/dad/john-clark/coffee-always-get-blame#lOpvy72hKuM5a07C.99

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Rome,the SSPX and this time of Crisis - Updated

+ JMJ Obviously there's lots of events right now. First we have the April 1st - I almost thought it was April Fools - meeting between Pope Francis and Bishop Fellay.  Nothing really news worthy as this is a natural progression as Rome appears to be considering fulfilling Archbishop Lefebvre's wish to 'accept us as we are'. Second we have the April 8th publication of what will be a verbose exhortation of the Synod of the Family. I'm willing to bet that the Pope will give with one hand (unilateral regularization of SSPX) and take with the other (ambiguous document that opens the flood gates of sin further). Much to pray for. P^3

A Reply to Martin Blackshaw’s FLAWED Remnant article titled: FLAWED: SSPX Advice on Abortion-tainted Vaccines

 + JMJ    An article has appeared in the Remnant (link to article) and I am afraid that there are a number of flaws in it that need to be addressed. The author, Martin Blackshaw, believes that both the Church and the SSPX are misapplying the principle of Moral Theology called 'Cooperation In Evil'.  Unfortunately, Mr. Blackshaw rests most of his arguments on citing authors that support his position, without considering the possibility that they are wrong. This highlights a key factor in this crisis: ignorance of the faith and its application . I don't am not singling out Mr. Blackshaw for this criticism, I have observed that it applies to laity and religious, superior and subject a like.  No one seems immune in this enduring crisis, myself included.  I further believe that this ignorance is why so many Catholics, both traditional and non, rely on their gut feeling or "Catholic conscience" for charting their way through this crisis of the faith.  While...

The Vatican and SSPX – An Organizational Culture Perspective

Introduction The recent and continuing interactions between the Vatican and the SSPX have been a great opportunity for prayer and reflection.  The basis for the disagreement is theological and not liturgical. As noted by Dr. Lamont (2012), the SSPX theological position on the four key controversial aspects of the Second Vatican Council are base on prior theological work that resulted from relevant magisterial pronouncements.  So it is difficult to understand the apparent rejection of the theological position of the SSPX.

If Pope Francis is bad - what about Pope St. John Paul II et al?

+ JMJ So here we are on the apparent cusp of yet another post conciliar Papal canonization. This time we have Pope's John-Paul I and Paul VI canonizations to 'look forward' to. This follows, obviously, on the heels of Pope St. John Paul II's canonization? So the first question that I usually encounter is: How is it possible, keeping in mind the doctrine on infallibility of canonizations (note doctrine not dogma), that Pope St. John Paul II is a Saint? First, what does it mean???  According to the doctrine of dogmatic facts - it is the universal opinion of Theologians that canonizations are infallible.  It means that they enjoy the beatific vision.  ... that's it.  That is the doctrine and it is at the level of universal opinion of theologians.  It is called a 'dogmatic fact'. That they made mistakes is obvious.  That the miracles seem to not be very miraculous is also a bit of an issue. Here's something to consider: The rush that surrou...

Rome and the SSPX - the latest

+ JMJ Bishop Fellay gave a conference late last month and provided some more insight into the situation with Rome. There are comments on Deus Ex Machina Blog  and Hilary White has now entered the fray. What is one Catholic to think about all these opinions? What a Catholic is to think: With the Church! What does the Church think about obedience?  Virtue as it is? If there is no proximate occasion of sin and the other conditions are met, then one cannot resist the command.