It is the question of the reporter on Channel 5 Memphis. However, I get the idea that the question is echoing throughout the mass media the past few days in response to the change in COVID shot suggestions.

While I appreciate the inquiry, the proposed idea seems to be driven more by political considerations than substantive merit.

My question is, was the COVID suggestion or even requirements of the past financial?

Two things I know without any speculation: The vaccine did not work for me, in spite of all the promises, and there is not one doubt in my mind that it made a ton of money for those making and distributing it.

Despite the lack of comprehensive, peer-reviewed large-scale double-blind studies, concerns persist about the rigorous scientific validation of certain medical interventions. The potential financial implications for pharmaceutical companies could influence the transparency and reporting of research outcomes, raising questions about the objectivity of clinical trials.

While influential leaders may currently evade accountability, ultimate justice transcends human systems and operates on a higher moral plane.

I ask the question of Cracker Barrel. Coca-Cola managed a return of sorts by calling their product Coca-Cola Classic. I’d guess they suffered some and likely didn’t fully recover. But then, when the second in colas is so far behind, you can afford a stumble.

Bud Light’s recent marketing missteps have significantly eroded its market dominance, with competitors eagerly capitalizing on the brand’s vulnerability. The once-unassailable beer brand now finds itself struggling to maintain its traditional consumer base, with recovery appearing increasingly unlikely. Even the nostalgic appeal of their iconic Clydesdale horses seems barely sufficient to stem the tide of declining consumer confidence and market share.

The distinction between these brands is clear: Coca-Cola’s challenges stem from product refinement efforts, while Bud Light continues to grapple with the fallout from a marketing misstep that alienated its core consumer base.

Cracker Barrel’s future remains uncertain, but its potential challenges could offer valuable insights for other corporations. Wise business leaders understand the importance of learning from others’ missteps, potentially avoiding similar pitfalls through careful observation and strategic adaptation.

Despite their advanced degrees, corporate board members may soon find themselves repeating the missteps of brands like Bud Light and Cracker Barrel. Overconfidence in their strategic decisions could lead to unintended consequences, as they mistakenly believe they can navigate complex market dynamics through sheer conviction.

Could their actions be a calculated strategy to dismantle the organization from within? The possibility seems plausible, though the full truth remains uncertain. If one were intent on undermining a large corporate entity, this approach could potentially prove effective.

So the question remains, can they return? Do they even want to?

I was executing a routine right turn when suddenly, cross traffic prompted me to halt. In that moment of stillness, an unexpected rear-end collision shattered my calm. The driver behind me, seemingly oblivious to the need for caution, continued forward, effectively “customizing” my vehicle with an unwelcome impact..

In the bustling mid-south traffic, my Nissan electric vehicle finally fell victim to an unfortunate collision after more than two years of careful navigation. The incident was compounded by the at-fault driver’s lack of insurance, forcing my company to cover the bumper replacement. As a result, I’m left bearing the $300 deductible, a frustrating consequence of another driver’s negligence. People who drive without insurance should really be more careful, don’t you think. It could have been far worse.

My decades of driving experience underscore the arguments of no fault auto insurance. Throughout 45 years behind the wheel, I’ve been involved in three separate incidents, all occurring while my vehicle was stationary. In each case, I was struck by uninsured or unlicensed drivers, including one instance involving an underage driver in a vehicle who did not own the car he hit my car with. Remarkably, my insurance policy covered the damages in every situation. Kind of similar to no fault insurance, right?

Navigating mid south roads feels like running a gauntlet, with drivers who seem to treat traffic rules as mere suggestions. Since purchasing my car, I’ve experienced a constant sense of vulnerability—reckless lane changes, erratic weaving through congested streets, and unpredictable braking have become my daily travels even as short as they are.

Thankfully, the airbag remained inactive, potentially averting a more catastrophic outcome.

I really appreciate President Trump’s attempt at stopping crime. To me, it is certainly one of my highest priorities for governments at every level.

However, as with most, I think he is overlooking the drug elements. Just ask any street-wise cop, as I have done at every opportunity. Just ask the experienced district attorneys and prosecutors. They will almost totally agree with me that half of all crime is drug-related. It just is, as near as I can tell, no one has collected the stats to back up what I am saying. A shame.

It begs the questions, how many robbery oriented crimes start with the desire for drugs, including alcohol. How many killings start with something drug oriented, including the above mentioned robberies mentioned above. How much of the cartel activity is drug related, perhaps 90%, at least 80%. Do away with drug abuse, and the cartels would have to declare ‘bankruptcy.’

How-some-ever, drug abuse does not only directly or indirectly only the crime levels. You might want to ask emergency room and ambulance personal how many they see because of drug abuse. You might want to ask those who deal people in rehab centers. To be sure, without drug abuse, they would be out of a job.

A significant decline in drug-related offenses could lead to a substantial reduction in the workload for law enforcement, legal professionals, and judicial systems. When I shared this perspective with an assistant district attorney, his response was a wistful, “Wouldn’t it be wonderful?”

My insatiable curiosity often leads me down rabbit holes of seemingly trivial information, much to my wife’s exasperation. I readily admit that I have a tendency to invest considerable time exploring obscure details and inconsequential facts that most would dismiss without a second thought.

Well, maybe she’s right this time. I don’t know how many times I have watched CSI: NY and noticed in the credits “Baba O’Riley.” Silly me, I thought it was the name of a crew member. I was never quick enough to see more than the name. I didn’t really have enough time for that, but I saw it many times.

So, finally, my curiosity drove me to search the Internet. Then, to my surprise, I found out it wasn’t a credit at all, at least not in the regular sense. It was the name of a song, you know, the series theme song.

“Do you recognize, ‘Out here in the fields, I fight for my meals’…”

My research revealed three fascinating insights. I finally understood the meaning behind “Baba O’Riley,” dispelled my misconception about it being an obscure crew member’s name, and learned the complete lyrics to this iconic song.

And, incidentally, if you look it up, you can know the words too. In fact, if you have a mind, you can hear the song.

Isn’t it fascinating how curiosity leads us to discover intriguing tidbits of knowledge, even if they might be trivial?

The Dems gerrymander.

If the Republicans were to gerrymander, the Dems threaten to gerrymander.

So please tell me, what would the dems do differently, either way? I don’t understand where the threat is.

I frequented Cracker Barrel often, appreciating their delicious meals and attentive staff. However, recent visits have been less satisfactory, leading to conversations with management that I’d prefer not to elaborate on. The details are inconsequential.

The last time my wife and I ate there, we decided not to ever go back. It wasn’t so much that we didn’t like them as it was that they didn’t seem to want us.

It is a mistake that many businesses make. If they do not respect and appreciate their customers, it will not be long before they have none.

I possess the discernment to recognize when a service establishment lacks genuine commitment to customer satisfaction. When dining experiences are marred by prolonged wait times and fundamental service oversights like missing utensils, the message becomes unmistakably clear.

I believe my audience will readily grasp these subtle implications.

However, the best thing is to withhold your complaint. If they do not like you, you can tell your friends and relatives. You can even tell your worst enemies. The best way to get back at a business is just to go somewhere else.

Envision a scenario where Cracker Barrel experiences a sudden 10-15% drop in business within a mere fortnight. Would management not immediately seek to understand the underlying cause? Such a significant decline would likely trigger a comprehensive review of operations, customer service, and strategic approach. While some corporate leadership might remain detached, truly successful organizations would swiftly analyze and address the root issues to prevent further revenue erosion and potential financial instability. In the long run, if those in the corporate ivory tower might need to instruct their lawyers to start filing bankruptcy papers. It would not be the first time nor would it be the last.

Make sure we stop sending payments to any illegal aliens. Stop sending payments to the dead; they don’t need it. Stop sending payments to people who are receiving them illegally or fraudulently.

By the way, I suspect that there could also be some trimming of personnel, particularly at the higher ranks.

I admit that it would still fall short of fixing it. After all, it is an inherently flawed system. However, it just might help it last through the rest of my life.