The Canadian Identity: is there anything left of it?

(Actual Amazon reviews of Red Rose tea, which recently came out with a "new and improved" version. All of them gave it one star.)

Why every company feels the need to reinvent a perfectly good product defies me. This "Our best ever" is Red Rose's version of "New Coke". Basically this new "renewable plant material" bag is an excuse to use 10% less tea per bag, which is significant enough to mean that the cup of tea that you've come to love, now tastes like Weasel P!$... With any luck after the initial sales bump from people like me buying up all of the old stock that I can find, they will fix this blunder., and focus on advertising meaningful metrics such as no pesticides found in 3rd party testing, etc.

I have been drinking Red Rose tea for decades. I would occasionally purchase another brand, but always came back to Red Rose because it WAS superior. If I could give the new, supposedly improved tea a minus instead of one star I would. I purchased 3 boxes, my usual purchase at one time. I had to throw out more than half the bags. Not only is there less tea in the bag, which I was aware of, the bag material is terribly thin and flimsy. Most of the bags were broken and the ones that weren't broken opened when hot water was poured over them. If I wanted loose tea I would have purchased loose tea. One of the new tea bags does not make a decent cup of tea, two bags are required and hopefully they don't break. I have had to strain more cups of tea in the last months than I have in my entire life.

I have been a Red Rose tea drinker for years, and I have to say that the new bags from 100% renewable plant material are terrible, in my opinion. I used them for the first time this weekend at an event where we were making large pots of tea (4 bags/pot) and every pot we made had tea leaves in it because one of the bags would come apart at the edges. The previous gauze bags were sturdier.

I'm totally bummed by this new product. Having tried a few cups of the new tea -- adding additional straining for broken bags -- I just tossed my large box of unused tea bags into the compost. The taste is simply not right and who wants to strain tea bags??? I've been drinking tea for over 40 years and I am going to try another brand or maybe some coffee.

"Our best ever"??? I think not. This tea used to be a staple item every morning. Now, I've been forced to change to another brand. You tried to cut costs. You changed the taste. You failed.

Awful - I contacted Red Rose and they said not only did they change their bags but the actual tea leaves! Not the same. I tried Salada, while it's not bad, you have to leave it soaking for a long time to get any taste. Red Rose sent me a coupon for a free purchase which I have not yet used cause I don't know if I want to keep drinking either of their teas (Salada/Red Rose). If anyone from Red Rose reads this, change it back. If anyone here leaving a review has found an alternative that tastes good (Tetley is not an option) please write the name in your comments.

Absolutely TERRIBLE tea!!! I've been drinking this tea for 40 years, but their "new and improved" Orange Pekoe tea is weak and tasteless. Where is the flavour? This tea was good until recently, now I recommend you buy another brand, but not Tetley, it's even worse.

These new tea bags are as foul as the language they evoke. I suggest everyone buy Tetley and add your own rooibos (pronounced royboss) tea. See for yourself if it doesn't compare well with the late Red Rose itself.

A big fat FAIL to Red Rose and their "new and improved taste"!

OK, that's a lot of comments, but there IS a point to all this.

In the past year or so, I kept noticing there was something "off" about my tea, I couldn't taste anything any more, and there was no body to it. It never got any darker in colour even if you brewed it for 20 minutes. Using two tea bags made no difference at all, and there seemed to be far less tea in them. Even that heavenly smell was different.

This is no small matter.  I was weaned on Red Rose. My son wanted some in his milk when he was six. Now it tastes like dishwater, like nothing. 

You must understand that Red Rose tea is a huge part of Canadian identity, like the homey, grungy old Zellers stores which were also taken away from us (to be replaced by Target, which bombed miserably within a year).

Red Rose is not just a Canadian tradition but an institution, and well do I remember those dark-orange cups of fiercely strong brew that my Granny used to drink out of a saucer. The tannin got on your teeth and made them all gritchy, and your throat made that constricting noise when you swallowed. It was wonderful stuff, bracing, and the quality pretty much held until the last year or so, when - oh God - they came out with "our best ever!"

This is always a euphemism for "we're cutting corners and raising the price". I kept dismissing it or wanting it not to be true, then today I went on Amazon.ca and found all these one-star reviews, and I agree with all of them. This tea is now atrocious, and there is no excuse for such a steep decline in a product we used to count on. 

I have a theory about this. Red Rose  isn't making any money for whichever massive conglomerate owns it (I've lost track because big fish are constantly being swallowed up by bigger fish). They see their fan base as little old ladies who are dying off. This is largely true: their diehard fans ARE older and are used to the stout-hearted tea of old, the bags of which you could actually use more than once. And then there were those little ceramic figurines: oh God, how I wish I had kept at least one of them!

Maybe they think "new and improved"/"our best ever" will attract consumers of less than a hundred, but I doubt it. It's a traditional product for traditional people, meaning soon it will likely just be discontinued. The search is on for something drinkable, and I am going to start with bulk tea bags at Superstore or Save-on-Foods. No kidding, it might be better. The no-name coffee is actually quite good: we switched when Nabob "improved" their blend. 

Slowly and steadily, small pleasures are being withdrawn from my life. This reminds me of the duck park where we used to walk three or four times a week, our quiet little haven teeming with wildlife. It's now being ripped apart by steamshovels and paved over for an amphiteatre. My lifelong favorite tea, the ONLY tea I would drink, has been taken away from me, rendered washy and tasteless. It's not the same stuff! We're Canadians and you don't fuck with our Red Rose tea, do you hear me? Do you? . . . Is anybody listening?

POST-BLOG BREWINGS. This is a review of "new" Red Rose tea that I stumbled upon today. We had a nice Facebook conversation about it.

Steve Cormier reviewed Red Rose Tea — 1 star

I would rate the new Red Rose a minus 5 if it were possible. I find it rather humorous reading some of these replies and reviews regarding the quality of the tea as of late. I suppose it's fair to assume that some people have yet to experience the taste of the “New and Improved” tea bags so I'll give them the benefit of the doubt. Claiming that this new product you guys are trying to pass off as Red Rose still tastes the same is a load of rubbish. It's resembles nothing of the quality that once was Red Rose and anyone who claims that they've been drinking Red Rose for a long time and still likes the taste of the new tea has no business reviewing the product or has no knowledge of what a good cup of tea should taste like. Or they're simply paid to post positive comments and reviews on social networking sites in an attempt to elude customers. But the fact remains. The tea tastes different, it tastes awful. I now refer to it as dishwater tea. Growing up Red Rose was a household name. It's was almost just another way of saying tea. My parents, grandparents and other friends and family members consumed it daily. For me it was a coffee in the morning then on to Red Rose for the rest of the day. Drinking several pots throughout the day. So I would know thing or two about how it should taste after drinking it for 30 plus years. As far as my mother and father are concerned its more like 60 years.

Every time I'm in the tea/coffee isle in my local grocery store I talk to other customers about the changes to Red Rose and every single person I talk to has the same feelings about this once great product. “It's not the same... It's different!.. It doesn't taste as good!” In my mind it's fairly obvious what the masterminds at Unilever have done to destroy the taste of what used to be the best cup of tea in Canada, you've sacrificed quality for profits. This is no longer a Canadian brand as it is owned by Unilever and that lot has no loyalty to anything but profits. The teabags break apart in the tea pot and after it steeps. It no longer has the rich, robust flavor, nor color that it once had. So sadly after drinking the product for generations my family has switched and will not be coming back. I'm quite certain that there is a great many other tea drinkers who feel the same way as my family does. I can see it in the grocery store every time I'm there cause the price of Red Rose is going down and it's on sale more often now then it used to be. Obviously no one wants your tea anymore. Or at least not anyone who drinks a lot of tea and knows what a good cup of tea is supposed to taste like. Thank you Unilever for taking Canada's favorite tea and flushing it down the pot.

POST-POST. Today I took a look in my cupboard and saw a very large box of Red Rose tea bags. I decided to do a little investigative reporting, took a tea bag out and really looked at it for the first time.

I had noticed already that they were much lighter than before, and seemed to contain very little tea. The bag was strange-looking, felt slick,  and seemed impermeable, almost like plastic. It's made of some sort of politically-correct fibre now, but it looks like insulation of some kind.

When I cut it open, I jumped. Literally jumped. There's no TEA in there! Instead there is a fine, blackish powder. Not a tea leaf in sight. It was completely shocking.

This is no longer tea, but most people won't unseal a bag to find that out. I tried to pretend it was the same, though I wondered over and over again why I wasn't getting any TEA out of these things, kept adding bags and brewing it longer and longer, to no avail.

Frustrated at the number of tea bags I had left, I decided to try a bold experiment. I cut open three bags of black powder and emptied them into my small (one-mug) teapot. I filled it 2/3 full with boiling water, and let it sit for FIFTEEN minutes. Would this be a drinkable-enough brew to use up the 85 or so Red Rose tea bags I had left?

I had to strain it through a sieve, as I didn't have a tea strainer. But it didn't matter. The "tea leaves" in the hot water poured out bizarrely, like very wet sand, and heaped up in a brown pile that looked like - I have to say this - dog shit. It had a little point on the top and everything.

I am sorry to say that there is still no taste to this stuff. It brewed darker, but there is still no tea aroma, and no discernible flavour.

Red Rose tea. . . is bad tea.

  Visit Margaret's Amazon Author Page!
http://www.amazon.com/-/e/B001K7NGDA

A. J. Clemente: the f-bomb and the death of coherence

This has to be a hoax.

Right?

Beside the fact that the guy immediately fires off the f-bomb (along with a quite charming, accompanying s-bomb), he is absolutely bloody awful, worse than some high school student shooting a YouTube video during spring break.

His partner (whom he seems to address as "man") not only stumbles over her copy (perhaps understandably, since the co-anchor has just bleeped his career all to fxxk) but has a noticeable lisp.

Anchoring is usually considered to be the prestige job in any newsroom. Who knows why, because I think reporters out in the field work much harder and put themselves at far more personal risk. Usually this means careful screening of candidates, not scooping some foul-mouthed idiot off the street.

We won't get into the ludicrous errors passed off as truth,  clownish stumbles in grammar and useage that nobody even notices even more (such as: shouldn't the verb match the subject? Didn't we learn that in kindergarten?)

Here's a very simple example: "Having dug a hole under the fence, Ricky went to look for his missing dog." The worst of it is, people aren't reacting to this kind of verbal soul-murder any more because, like a lot of excruciatingly bad grammar and useage, it is worming its way into passive acceptance and will soon be considered "correct", even cited in modern dictionaries. Do you know why that happens? Because it is done over, and over, and over again until people don't hear it any more. 

A particularly excruciating example pops up in my memory: an anchor introduced a story by talking about "chickadees". "Parents should not be giving chickadees to their children for Easter." Well, THAT seemed right enough.

The clip was, of course, about baby chicks. As in: baby chickens. As in: those little yellow fluffy things that come out of eggs at Easter time (for the express purpose of being mauled to death by children).

Not one person complained or even noticed that chickadees are small, sparrowlike birds that don't migrate but stay here in the winter. They make a sound similar to: chickadee-dee-dee-dee-dee. . . (I know, because I have seen/heard them.)

When I wrote in to complain to the station, their response was, "Well, no one else has complained about it." This is a defense I particularly loathe. Why? It's similar to that repugnant question, "Are you sure?" This question denigrates your feelings and in fact negates them completely. If you're not "sure", you're either lying or vacillating so much that nobody should be taking you seriously anyway. And why ask? It means your credibility (not to mention your mental competence) is seriously in question.

"No one else has complained" means that valid, proper complaints require one thing: NUMBERS. The higher the number of complaints, the more seriously they are taken. One person complaining about something is completely irrelevant, making the protestor look like a foaming crackpot who won't have the least effect on the ratings. 

Your complaint will only be considered valid if it's clumped in with hundreds or even thousands of others (but even there, it's in danger of being buried by the lemming stampede of public conformity). If no one else has complained, you might as well keep your mouth shut and go away.

Then again: your comment may have a tiny grain of credibility. But only if you're sure.

http://margaretgunnng.blogspot.ca/2013/04/the-glass-character-synopsis.html

http://members.shaw.ca/margaret_gunning/betterthanlife.htm

I am an apple. An APPLE!

There are certain "issues" - and why anyone calls them that is beyond me, because they're usually much more painful and aggravating than that mild word suggests - that keep popping up again and again in my life.

Though I know I'm not the only one who experiences these things, I often FEEL like the only one.

And do you want to know why?

OK then. . .

I'll just grab a mundane example, though there are thousands of these incidents. I go into the grocery store to buy nuts, pecans specifically, for some kind of baking project. Anyone who has baked knows how much they cost.

I go to the bulk section to try to catch a price break, but they're still over $5.00, highway robbery! Then I get them home and notice something.

They smell bad.

They taste even worse.

The nuts are rancid and should never have been for sale.

So I trundle back to the store and stand in line and finally get to the front and the clerk says, "You'll have to go to the Customer Service Desk."

So I go and stand in another line of people returning ghastly Christmas presents, and wait some more.

When I finally get to the Customer Service Desk and point out that the nuts aren't fresh, the clerk says, "The stock is rotated regularly so that they're always fresh."

"But they're not fresh, they smell rancid."

"They have to be fresh, they came in yesterday to rotate the bins."

"But - "

(And here it comes, the home plate of frustration):

"Nobody has ever complained about this before."

Just what exactly does this little statement mean?

Take it apart. Look at it.

"Nobody has ever complained about this before." This implies that there can't be anything wrong with the product because you're the only one who has ever complained (and note the use of "complain", a sort of whiny, hypochondriac word).

Because nobody else has complained about it, you must be wrong. You must be a chronic nuisance who goes around trying to get refunds for NO REASON.

You have no credibility because there's no one else to back you up.

Your  lone complaint simply doesn't matter to us. So we're dismissing you by trying to make you feel alone and ashamed to have said anything.

It's as if there's a quota or something: 27 people have to "complain" about rancid pecans before anything is done about it. THEN the store management might begin to pay attention.

Nuts to you!

Oh, I run into this all over the place. It's the kind of cockeyed logic that passes for truth/fact in our culture. People begin to fall into the trench of believing it without even questioning it or knowing they're doing it.

But there's a much more sinister application to this thing: have you ever noticed when a major sexual abuse scandal hits the headlines, it always comes out that the abuse went on for decades before anything was done about it?

And you can't tell me "they didn't know". "They" did, and "they" covered it up. Usually the perpetrator is an authority figure like a priest, teacher or coach, or even a Big Brother (with all the awful implications that term implies).

When something is finally done about it, probably because someone in a position of power blew the whistle, there is at first a trickle, then a flood of victims coming forward with their own accusations.

At this point the "alleged" perpetrator is well lawyered-up, and there will be all sorts of claims that these so-called victims are only trying to extort money from the poor innocent client and ruin his good name.

But what's really happening is a particularly awful form of that ingrained dynamic of "nobody has ever complained about this before".

One case will just be dismissed. Maybe two. Or the second one won't come forward at all, because he will have committed suicide.

The rest hide out and cripple along with their lives and are treated, basically, like fuckups for not being able to hold it together. Seeing the example of one victim being dismissed, they keep their mouths shut, perhaps not wanting to be dragged through the court system telling everyone exactly what this man did to them.

Twenty or thirty years later, people are starting to realize that the "nobody has ever complained" law is finally falling apart. Somebody HAS complained, and this time it stuck. The dam has been breached.

There is a quota, however. The more people step forward, the more credible the case becomes. But why shouldn't ONE accusation be credible? Why is it okay for someone to demolish "only" one life?

It isn't. But that's the way things seem to work.

People are herd animals, though few will admit it. They're conventional and prefer to run with the pack, even if the pack is going in an insane direction.  Let's not upset the applecart, especially not that well-nailed-down applecart of patriarchy. In the deep past women and children were property to be bought, sold and traded, and no doubt abused with no thought for the consequences (because there were none).

But what amazes and appalls me is how that dynamic lives on, the rotten core of a society that pretends everything is equal and the vulnerable are always protected.

The reversals that go on make my head spin: suddenly the accuser is the perpetrator, spreading poisonous lies about a man who is obviously above reproach. He was a wonderful priest! He did such good works! His coaching was legendary! How could a man who lived such a benevolent life be anything but a blessing to the young people he worked with?

This is where another bizarre idea comes in: "would never". Such a fine man would never do that to a little boy. Daddy would never touch you like that, so shut the hell up.

I want to say to them: OK, if he really "would never" do such a thing, why all the fuss about it? Why so much energy and so many dollars required to dig him out of the hole he's in? If "would never" is really true, it ought to be easy for him to prove his innocence.


And in some cases (did somebody say Michael Jackson?), this actually happens.

But "would never" is one of the more irrational underpinnings of  nobody has ever complained about this before. What does it mean, anyway? That we can't even entertain the possibility that Daddy has no moral sense at all, that he can dissociate the abuse from the rest of his life and carry on as a pillar of society?


"Would never" has a nasty little sister that I like to call "minimizing", and it seems completely benevolent, even positive. People say, "oh, but the huge majority of priests don't behave that way and have exemplary records." This may well be true, but why do people say it?


They say it because they are uncomfortable with the notion that a crack has formed in that "exemplary" vessel. They say it to whittle down the abuse to something minor and even insignificant. They say it because one little case out of thousands really doesn't mean very much once it's "put in perspective". Throw out that rotten apple, and forget about it.

For every case that finally emerges into the light like some foul cellar jacked open, there must be dozens or hundreds more that never surface at all.  And though someone has to be first, I suspect that it's usually someone who has similarly lawyered-up and built a pretty solid case. See, if you have legal protection behind you, you're not the only one any more.

So someone might actually listen to you, instead of sending you home with a bag of spoiled goods.

http://margaretgunnng.blogspot.com/2012/01/synopsis-glass-character-novel-by.html

http://members.shaw.ca/margaret_gunning/betterthanlife.htm

Nattering Nabobs

Life is hard enough. Isn't it? But when something you really liked, even loved, suddenly turns bad. . .

This happens with marriages, and jobs, and friendships, and even (incontinent, age-ing, vet-requiring, slobbering, stinky old) dogs.

But when it's something inconsequential, yet still significant, it really gets you. It's a small pleasure withdrawn, perhaps forever.

I've bought the same coffee for at least ten years. A nice, middle-of-the-road roast and grind, nothing fancy, but at its best, oh boy is it good, and dependable. It has that richness and complexity of flavor that any decent coffee should have. It's the same with the decaff. You zip open the can and hear that little rush of air, and the aroma jumps out at you. You shovel the grinds into the basket, pour in the water, and wait.

Just a small thing, of course. Until it turns bad.

It's been several cans now. Hell, maybe six! My coffee has turned bad. Turned watery and bland, with a bitter, even sour undertaste and a nasty whiff of tar.

It's the same brand. Same brand I've used for years, for so many years now it's like a goddamn marriage. Of course I won't name it here, but it starts with an N, and ends with a B, and has an ABO in the middle.

What has happened to my Nabob coffee? I'm buying exactly the same kind, same roast, same grind. Brewing it exactly the same way. Storing it in a cool, dry, dark place.

It's just crap, all of a sudden, and I can't fix it.

The only difference I can see is all the very loud and public ballyhoo about "sustainability", printed on the can and all over the web site. I'm not sure what this means because it goes on for about 500 pages, and we're supposed to read it and go, "Oh, I guess it's worth drinking a sour, lifeless cup of coffee, so long as we have SUSTAINABILITY."

I had to complain. Not because I hate the product, but because I love it! Because I want it back with every fibre of my being. But, of course, there was nowhere to complain, just literally hundreds of FAQs like, "Can I make coffee cake out of my coffee?" and "Can I store turkey giblets in the can?" I had to scrabble around web sites all morning to find a "legal stuff" page with a mailing address that turned out to be wrong, in that the postal code said MJB (ironically, the name of a kind of coffee!) instead of M3B. Had I sent them my (snailmailed) complaint with the wrong postal code on it, it never would've reached them.

The page also assured us we could always "just send them an e-mail". Oh, sure: mjb@badjava.ca?

Hmmmmmmmmm.

So what is going on here? Where is quality control? I think we're just supposed to go on drinking it, and pretending there's no difference, or that it's us, somehow, that we're doing it wrong, or that our tastebuds have collapsed with age.

I've sent customer complaint letters before, and I usually get a form letter back (if anything), and coupons for more of the same product I hate. More, more, more bad coffee! It's almost like the hundreds of writing rejections I've received, though they don't send you coupons. (And no, I don't paper walls with them. I throw them away.)

If they had a taste panel, well? If they had any quality control at all, WELL?? I wonder now, since I wrote to the "legal stuff" address, if they will sue me just for wanting a good cup of coffee.

Or for wanting it back. For wanting that dependable jolt, that aromatic reverse sigh, that roasty-toasty, almost wheaten taste, not just in the morning when I really need it, but any time in the day when I want a lift.

Get with it, guys. Sustainability should apply to taste, too.

(And there's nothing living inside my coffee maker. I do clean it, stinky vinegar fumes and all.)