Office coffee should be . . . well . . . office coffee. People shouldn’t be expecting Starbucks quality, or Starbucks flavor.
Office workers aren’t like the people in a coffee commercial, having deep, meaningful conversations over their steaming mug of cafe au lait. Instead, they just want to slug back a potable shot of caffeine at their desks to help them stay awake and alert during the work day.
So why is there this push on to foist flavored coffee on those of us who are used to the basic swill? At our office, they are always experimenting with new flavors that bring unwelcome smells to the coffee station. One day recently, for example, they were brewing some kind of cinnamon-scented blend. Cinnamon-flavored coffee? Hey, folks . . . this isn’t Morocco, nor is it the North Pole. I don’t need my cup of joe to smell like a Christmas cookie or pumpkin pie. The same goes for chocolate-flavored coffee, or any of the other spiced-up concoctions that the coffee sellers are peddling.
Office coffee is, by definition, an institutional beverage. It is, or should be, basic no-frills stuff. Can’t we just leave it that way?
I suppose the would-be secessionists recognize they can’t really secede — hundreds of thousands died in a bloody Civil War to establish that principle — and are merely hoping to make some kind of symbolic statement. But for what purpose? Saying that you want to secede because your candidate lost is as stupid and mindless as dim-witted celebrities like Cher threatening to leave the country if the Republican candidate wins. In both cases, the sentiment expressed just reflects negatively on the speakers as juvenile sore losers who want to take their ball and go home. What rational American is going to be persuaded by a petition that posits that overly aggressive TSA pat-downs justify secession from the United States?
Rather than submitting silly and counterproductive petitions, people who take their politics seriously would do well to consider the fact that voter turnout fell sharply from 2008 to 2012 and determine why that occurred. I think the answer is simple: Americans turned out to vote for change in 2008 and turned out again to vote for change in 2010 — and no change occurred. They watched an endless Republican primary season that blended into an endless campaign. They suffered through a barrage of negative ads and outright demonization and distortion of the opposing candidates, and they decided they had had enough and just weren’t going to waste their time any more in a process that seems to occupy huge amounts of time, attention, and money without achieving anything.
If our political leaders of both parties don’t figure out how to work together to address our looming problems, and we see only more years of pointless partisan bickering, don’t be surprised if the 2014 and 2016 turnouts continue the downward trend. Americans not only won’t vote, they won’t care.