Gun Runner is out today!

Gun Runner on Amazon! Order here!
Autographed copies available from Uncle Hugo’s here!
Podcast discussion with the authors here!

The is 100% Brown and Correia, which means it’s action-packed, full of fun characters, and none of that navel gazing business.

It’s about a guy named Jackson Rook who works on a crew that smuggles weapons. They’re active in a righteous cause, helping the oppressed peoples of various planets stand up for themselves against the whoresons with the money and power.

But then Jackson learns something about the current job that turns his gut. And he begins to think they might just be working for the wrong team.

Will he be able to set things right when just about everybody and everything on the godforsaken planet called Swindle wants to kill him or turn him back into the monster he once was?

Read to find out.

If you like action and science fiction, I think you’re going to love this book.

Share

Similar Posts

  • Obama, Romney, Rich People, Roasts, and A Good Cause

    Every year the Alfred E. Smith Foundation hosts a millionaires-only fundraising dinner for Catholic charities. It’s a custom to have the two main candidates speak in election years.  President Barack Obama and Governor Mitt Romney roasted themselves and each other this week, just two days after their brouhaha second debate.

    Not only are both talks funny, but the fact that these two men came together for this purpose says a lot about both of them. Go Obama and Romney! It’s the perfect antidote to bitter political rancor.

    Enjoy. 

    President Obama’s Speech

    Transcript: http://blogs.suntimes.com/politics/2012/10/transcript_president_obama_at_the_alfred_w_smith_dinner.html

    Mitt Romney’s Speech

    Transcript: http://blogs.suntimes.com/politics/2012/10/transcript_mitt_romney_at_the_alfred_w_smith_dinner.html

    Share
  • 1491, 1493, and Greek Gods

    New Revelations About America

    A common idea taught about the Indians (and, yes, it appears when you can’t simply refer to their tribe, most prefer that term to “American Indian,” especially those in South and Central America) is that they lived in such harmony with the land, that they trod so lightly upon it, that the landscape showed hardly any sign of their passing. This is, after all, what we were shown in Disney’s Pocahontas and James Cameron’s more recent Avatar, isn’t it?  

    Many of us were also brought up to believe that there really weren’t that many Indians around anyway.  They were subsistence societies. There certainly were no cities comparable to those in Europe at the time. And especially not in places like the Amazon or Boliva.

    We were taught that the Indians traveled here by walking to America across the Bering Strait land bridge that stretched from Russia to Alaska during the ice age around 10,000 BC. When they arrived, the proceeded to eat a tremendous amount of meat, killing off all the mega fauna like mammoths.

    We were taught other things. But it appears that many of these things have recently been shown to be false. Sometimes dramatically so.

    For example, the Indians transformed their landscapes, tens of thousands of square miles of it, very often through burning, but also through other ingenious ways.

    There were far more Indians in 1491 than most folks know. Recent research suggests that Central Mexico was the most densely populated place on earth at the time, “with more than twice as many people per square mile than China or India.” The total population of the Americas in 1491, by some estimates, was between 90-112 million people, meaning that MORE people lived in the Americas than in Europe.

    Finally, it appears that the Indians were here twenty to thirty thousand years ago. They were here when Europe north of Paris was still uninhabitable and mostly covered by glaciers!

    Charles Mann describes these and a number of other fascinating findings in his book 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus. He relays the information in such an engaging style that I found myself picking the book up at every chance. When I was finished, I wanted more.

    Luckily, in 1493: Uncovering The New World Columbus Created Mann continues his history lesson. Except instead of focusing on the surprising things we’ve learned about the Indians in the last two decades, he focuses on the surprising impacts, both biological and financial, of linking the Western and Eastern hemispheres together. It’s the biggest event in the world, Mann suggests, since the dinosaurs died. Mann suggests that Columbus didn’t discover a new world–his voyage created one.

    The first part of the book examines the effect of the exchanges across the Atlantic (microbes  and tobacco). The next part focuses on the effect of the exchanges across the Pacific (silk, corn, and pirates). The third part shows the role of the exchange in the Agricultural and Industrial revolutions (potatoes, guano, and rubber).  The final part examines the consequences of the huge shift in populations caused by the Atlantic slave trade (Maroons, mixed-marriages, and freedom). As with 1492, the insights are both surprising and fascinating.

    If you like history, if you liked Guns, Germs, & Steel, then I think you will love these two books.

    EDIT: I just ran across a fabulous Doug Fabrizio Radio West interview with Charles Mann about 1493 called  The World Columbus Created.  Listen and enjoy!

    Divine Yogurt

    For years eating a serving of sweetened yogurt was like eating a box of Milk Duds (20 grams of sugar) or a Milky Way candy bar (35 grams of sugar). Yes, the sweetened yogurts have that much sugar. The only way to avoid eating literally like a kid in a candy store was to purchase plain yogurt and add some fruit or a squirt of honey. And, no, I will not consider eating yogurt sweetened with Splenda or Nutrasweet.  Artificial sweeteners make me gag. As far as I’m concerned, they are abominations that ruin the taste of everything they touch.

    So for many years I enjoyed my mix of plain yogurt and various add-ins. However, to my joy, I recently discovered a sweetened yogurt with only 15 grams of sugar (about as much as you find in a large banana) that tastes divine. It’s sweetened with real sugar and honey. And the mouth feel is sooooooo smooth. I’m sure this is because, unlike all the other yogurt manufacturers, these guys realized that, duh, fat actually makes things taste good and isn’t the  evil thing we’ve made it out to be. In just two bites it became my favorite sweetened yogurt. It’s called The Greek Gods Traditional Greek Yogurt. I’ve found another version—the vanilla honey—that only has 5 grams of sugar.

    Be aware that despite its name, this yogurt does NOT have the high protein content of other Greek style yogurts such as Brown Cow Greek Yogurt with 23 grams. Furthermore, not all the flavors have the low sugar content. Their blueberry and strawberry flavors, for example, have 35 grams. So check the labels first, and then treat yourself to yogurt that will have you savoring every bite.

    When I eat yogurt, it will still mostly be the plain Greek style with mixers. But when I want a special treat, you know I’ll be getting some from The Greek Gods.

    EDIT: 9/6/12 I now feel like Jerry Seinfeld in the episode when they found out the fat free frozen yogurt really wasn’t fat free. All the other yogurts I was looking at had serving sizes of 1 cup. The Greek Gods folks thought 1/2 a cup was the right size. That means that this super amazing low sugar yogurt had 30 grams of sugar per serving! It’s like eating a Snickers! I’m so disillusioned. Alas.

    Share
  • A Response to John Scalzi

    The best way to change someone’s mind: use the skills you learned writing fiction.

    John Scalzi recently wrote a post about White Privilege.  You know: the idea that Straight White Males (SWMs) have all the cards stacked in their favor.  It’s called “Straight White Male: The Lowest Difficulty Setting There Is.” I assume he wrote it to help SWMs have more sympathy for those who aren’t SWM.

    It’s a noble cause.  Not as noble as true love, but that’s so rare–not one couple in a century has a chance at true love (at least when you live in Guilder).

    The problem is that Scalzi’s post is a great 101 on how To NOT Win Friends and Influence People.  Actually, that’s not right.  He will win new friends and increase his influence among those who are like-minded.  But if he was hoping to win over those who didn’t already see things his way, I don’t think he’s going to be very successful.

    His posts generated hundreds of comments. When you look at the comments, you’ll see that the vast majority of them are folks arguing Scalzi’s side with smug condescension and other folks arguing points against Scalzi with an equal lack of tact.

    In short, it’s a classic online bring-your-guns-to-the-party event.

    Alas.

    Except I must admit such events can be a lot of fun if you’re on the side with greater numbers.  Furthermore, there is sometimes a tremendous pleasure to be had in being provocative.  Sometimes we simply must publish something with teeth in it.  And maybe that’s what Scalzi was trying to do. 

    But if not, here’s where Scalzi’s post went admirably wrong.  And it has everything to do with principles that underlie influence as well as writing fiction.  You see, when you’re writing fiction and you want someone to root for your character, you do not turn to the reader and insult him. Insults don’t bring readers into your world.

    Equally as important, telling, or demanding someone feel a certain way towards someone else, will fail every time you try it. You cannot demand (or whine) that a reader must feel sympathy and admiration for the character.  Why?  Because emotions don’t respond to demands.  They just don’t.  It’s like trying to freeze water by seasoning it with pepper. 

    The advice “Show, don’t tell” works in real life as well as it works in fiction.

    Emotions are automatic.  If someone presents the right stimulus, we WILL feel the desired emotion in response.  We don’t experience a sympathetic change of heart when someone gets in our face and demands we feel sympathy.  We do feel that change when we see the antecedents which prompt the emotional response in us.  Show me.  Make me believe.  And the response is automatic.  

    This is what happened with Uncle Tom’s Cabin and the movie Ghandi and the TV series Roots and the more recent movie Believe in Me and the novel Les Miserables and thousands of others.  It’s what happens every day when someone in one group meets someone in another group they feel some distrust for and begins to build a friendship. 

    Show the antecedents, help folks identify, and you’ll move millions.  Get up and rant at someone, and all you’ll get is the bird.  And applause from the true believers.

    Scalzi claims that if you feel offended by his post then you’re hypersensitive because all he was doing is pointing out the facts.  Um, no.  Jim Hines is trying to establish potential facts.  You could try to verify those.  You could try to separate out causation from correlation.  But Scalzi is not doing that. He’s telling all SWM that they are playing on the kiddy version of the life video game.  Your life is so easy.  Everything is rigged for you.  You’re playing the baby version.  And because of that everyone else’s life is so much harder.

    No, he didn’t say those words exactly. But there is this thing call connotation. There is this thing called tone.  And no matter how hard you try, you’re can’t separate the non-verbal communication from the message. 

    Everyone knows that some people have it harder in life and some have it easier. Like, duh.  I think we all learn that when we showed up to the first grade.  So what’s the point of telling all the SWM’s reading his blog that they are playing the dweeb version of life, the one with training wheels?

    Furthermore, instead of helping all of us pampered SWMs identify with our brothers and sisters, he tries to erect more boundaries that would push us apart by giving all of us another way to discriminate and another reason to be resentful.

    Lowly, pampered SWMs at the bottom.  Gays, people of color, and women farther up. 

    So now we’re going to go around with a My Life’s Harder Than Yours number?  The opinions of those with low numbers will have less weight.  How could they have anything as worthwhile to say when their life has been so easy?  Those with higher numbers will have more weight. 

    A whole new group calculus will have to be developed and standardized.  And it will have to go beyond which shade of brown your skin is (yes, White people really are just a lighter shade of brown), your gender, and sexual orientation.  Because those who are handicapped, by birth or by accident have it really rough too.  We’d have to figure out if they had it more or less rough that someone who was gay, and would that change if that gay person lived in San Francisco versus Laramie, Wyoming?  A geographical element!  And what about those with idiot parents who teach their kids to take meth and don’t get them to school or beat them in alcoholic rages or who are never around?  I wonder what score that would bring.  And what about the kids who grow up with grandpa molesting them?  And what about the short, the fat, the plain?  What about those with glasses?  Those who are runty bully targets?  Or those with a minority religion.  What about those born with AIDS? 

    Are we sure it’s a good idea to start ranking ourselves, using color, gender, and sexual preference to tag our status? 

    Wait, haven’t we already tried that?

    When someone comes up to you at a party and condescends, when they’re always one-upping you with a “you think you’ve got it hard you haven’t seen squat” line, what is your response?  Even if it is legit.  What about when they get in your face for someone else?  Does that change your default response?

    It’s the same at internet parties and gatherings.

    So.

    Lesson 1: If you want to influence someone, don’t start by insulting them and continue by talking down to them. If you want to have a good time with like-minded friends, then, by all means, skewer.

    Lesson 2: Remember “show, don’t tell” to win someone’s affection.  Present the person’s story, and the reader will feel respect, trust, sympathy, sorrow, regret, and admiration automatically (okay, you’re right, some of that depends on the reader).  Tell or demand, and none of that will occur.

    Lesson 3: Don’t raise barriers between two groups when you want members of one group to identify with members of another.

    Here’s a better way. 

    Tell me a story about a real gay black woman.  Make me love her.  Make me care.  Tell me a story about her I can sympathize with.  Just show me the woman.  Make it about her, not her group category.  Or tell me a story about a Mexican man who is just trying to provide for his children in America.  Or tell me about a sympathetic SWM who goes to Asia or Polynesia and finds the cards stacked against him.  Stories like this abound.  

    In fact, why don’t you drop the whole “SWM” business.  If you want me to identify, to experience-take (yes, that official jargon), it’s probably best not to slap SWM on me and set me in one corner and slap GBM on someone else and set them in another.  Help me identify.  Focus on how we are alike. When you do discuss the differences, magnify those things that are wonderful and unique, or eccentric and unique, or goofy and unique, or weird and unique, or whatever, but make it positive.  And when you must talk about old or continuing grievances between two groups, do so with respect, with a desire to calm, not enflame.

    Lest you think I don’t know what I’m talking about, I grew up working in a family business where employees were White, Black, Hispanic, Tongan, and Japanese.  Male, female, homosexual, heterosexual.  And we were a big family.  My father and mother held out big welcoming arms.  I have Whites and Blacks in my biological family.  I hope my daughters find great men to be their husbands.  And if they happen to also be Indian or Puerto Rican or Black or Asian or Maori or Scottish or Southern or whatever, I would think it was grand.  It’s possible I might experience some of that mild “other group” anxiety that sometimes comes when you meet someone that’s not just like you.  But I know it’s possible to get beyond that by seeing what’s common, building friendships, and celebrating and laughing at and with the differences.

    My father, God rest his soul, liked to quote Edwin Markam.  I thought it fitting.

    He drew a circle to keep me out,

    A thing of scorn, and a thing to flout.

    But love and I had the wit to win:

    We drew a circle that took him in.

    You want to laugh with the like-minded?  Draw the first kind of circle.  You want to win hearts and minds?  Draw the bigger one.

    Share
  • The secret of Mormonism

    If you want to understand the secret to Mormonism, something 99.9% of the world does not know, even though many think they do, read on.

    This last Tuesday I was at dinner with a number of wonderful coworkers. We were talking about religion and listening to the guy who helps set up our training environments talk about the interesting hunting ministry he’s involved with (it’s very cool—12,000 acres of woodland in Alabama all dedicated to hunting, outdoor survival, and God).

    At one point in the conversation, a delightful fellow trainer, who shared with us the night before the definition of diplomacy as being able to tell someone to go to hell and have them look forward to the trip, asked me, “Does your church believe in Christ. Or, no, is it some other fellow?”

    It’s a great question, and I realized that many people are confused. And so I wanted to take time to clear it up.

    So what the heck is a Mormon?

    It’s not what you think.

    And for those of you who think you know, nope, it’s not about that book.

    Let me explain. You’ll come away knowing more about us than anyone in any of your circles, and you can lord your superior knowledge over them at dinner parties, when playing games that require vast stores of smarts, or at random moments, just because you can.

    Here’s the deal. The first part of the name of the church is “The Church of Jesus Christ.” So, yes, we believe in Christ, that he died for us, was resurrected, is our Lord and god, etc.

    The last part of the name is “of latter-day saints.” We don’t use “saint” to mean super-holy people like the Catholic church does, but more as followers or disciples. So you could translate the last part of the name of our church as “of latter-day followers.”

    So the whole name would be The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day People who Follow Him.

    Okay, then what’s the deal with the name “Mormon”?

    Well, here’s where we get to the nub of it and the thing that 99.9% of the world doesn’t know. The key difference between the Mormon church and other Christian churches is that we believe that Jesus has called apostles again in our day, just like he did back in the good old days. And when I say apostles, I mean guys like Peter, James, John, Paul, etc.

    You might be wondering what an apostle is. What made those guys special?

    It wasn’t that they had great faith in Jesus. Lots of people had great faith. It was that they were called to bear special witness of him. And that special witness was not merely that they believed, but that they knew Jesus was the Messiah because they had seen and heard him after his resurrection.

    Peter himself said it best when he wrote in his letter, “For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.”

    When the apostles had to choose someone to replace Judas, Peter said, “Wherefore of these men which have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John unto that same day that he was taken up from us, one must be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.”

    These guys didn’t simply believe. They knew. They were eyewitnesses to the fact that Jesus wasn’t just some preacher—he was the son of God and was resurrected.

    So Mormons believe that Jesus has called apostles again today who bear witness of an absolute certain knowledge of the reality of Jesus the Christ. We believe their purpose is also to be the Lord’s spokesmen when He wants to make general announcements or give general instructions. Finally, we also believe they’ve received the authority to offer the covenants the Lord wants to make with all of us.

    We believe the first apostle called in these latter days was a fellow by the name of Joseph Smith. We don’t worship Smith. He was just an apostle. Just like Matthew or John of old were. But we do believe the Lord called him to be an apostle and restore some truths that had gotten lost or confused over the years.

    We also believe the Lord asked him to bring forth other scriptures in addition to those in the Bible. One of these new scriptures was a translation of an ancient record called The Book of Mormon. It’s called that because Mormon is the name of the guy who wrote it. And Mormon was another apostle—one called by Jesus in ancient America.

    And guess what the purpose of The Book of Mormon is? It’s to testify of Jesus Christ and explain his gospel.

    So the name of the Mormon church is really The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Mormons believe that Jesus has called and commissioned apostles in our times, right up to today, to bear special witness of him. And in addition to that, those apostles have brought forth additional scriptures that witness of the divinity and mission of Jesus Christ.

    For Mormons, it’s all about Jesus Christ.

    So when someone asks, what’s a Mormon? You can say, let me tell you the real answer. It’s not about an additional book of scripture. Yes, folks gave them the nickname of Mormons because of that book, but the key difference is that Mormons believe that Jesus has called apostles like Peter and Paul again in our day to be his spokesmen, and bear a certain witness of him and his good news, and help folks receive all the blessings the Lord wants to pour out on them.

    And, O, what a wonderful message we Mormons believe that is.

    If you liked those videos, you can see more here.

    Please feel free now to randomly lord your superior knowledge over your family and friends.

    Share
  • Good Stuff! Two fun family and party games

    There’s nothing quite like the laughter and fun a good family or party game creates. And we discovered two games this summer that have brought hours of pleasure.

    The first is Just One. It’s for 3 to 7 players and takes about 20 minutes to finish.

    Now, I was skeptical of this game at first because it’s a cooperative party game.

    I mean, come on. Cooperation?

    No teams?

    No competition?

    What were we going to do—hold hands and sing Kumbaya?

    I was fully expecting to be bored out of my mind. Boy, was I wrong. There was suspense, laughter, and loads of fun.

    There are 13 rounds in each game. In each round, one player blindly selects the number of a word on one of the game cards. The other players each write a one word clue to help that player guess the word. However, if two or more players write down the same word, they have to remove that clue.

    So you’re trying to come up with one-word clues the others won’t that still help the guessing player. Some clues lead the guessing player off onto funny tangents. Others are just funny. And then there’s the suspense of whether someone else wrote your word and whether the player will be able to guess it from the clues that are left.

    Your goal is to guess all 13 words selected. And there’s a little score card that ranks what it means if you get 13, 12, 11, etc.

    As an aside, it’s crazy to me that the score card provided motivation. But it did. It was a delightful little brain hack.

    One Word is a quick, fun game. We’ve played it with a few as 3 and as many 8 players and had a ball each time. We are so happy to have it in the family game closet.

    The next is Fish Bowl. It’s for 4+ players. What this game does is take favorites like Taboo, One Word, and charades and mixes them together in a competitive game between two teams.

    Here’s how you play it. Each person writes up 5 to 7 different words or phrases on separate slips of paper, folds the papers, and puts them in a bowl. Then you do 3 rounds.

    Round 1 is like Taboo, where you can describe, but can’t say or act out the word or phrase on the paper. You select a team to go first. One person on the team selects the papers from the bowl and then tries to describe the word or phrase. The team has 30-45 seconds (you decide) to guess as many of the words as possible. When the time is up, it’s the other team’s turn. Back and forth you go, selecting a new team member each turn to give the clues, until there are no more slips of paper in the bowl. Then you count the number of slips each team got and move to round 2.

    In round two, you put all of the slips of paper back into the bowl. The team that went second in the first round starts this one. This time the person giving clues gets to share one word. That’s it. And the team has to guess it. Again, the team has 30-45 seconds to guess as many as they can.  Then it goes to the next team. And you switch back and forth just like you did in round 1, and when the slips of paper are gone, each team counts up their score.

    In round 3, you put all of the slips of paper back into the bowl. The time the person giving the clues has to act them out. No words allowed. You run this round just like you did the first two with  30-45  second turns, switching back and forth between the teams until all the papers are gone. At that point, the teams  total their scores for this round and then for all 3 rounds together to see which team won.

    If you don’t want to use paper, you can play a version online.

    Either way, it’s another fast, fun game. In fact, we played it last night. And laughed and laughed when one daughter was trying to get the other to guess “sling” and nailed her teammate in the head trying to act out a rock hitting Goliath.   Movies are great. But sometimes what you need is some delightful game fun. And I’m betting you’ll love these.

    Share
  • The Profiler, Almond Milk, and Uncle Sam

    Real crime 

    It’s 1990. You’re a housewife, homeschooling your children, and renting a room upstairs to a young man to make ends meet. There are a few odd things about the young man, but you overlook them. Then one day a woman is strangled on a jogging path near your home, and your first thought is that the young man living in your house has something to do with it.

    What do you do?

    Pat Brown found herself in this exact situation. She voiced her suspicions to her husband, but it was all too farfetched. However, the nagging thought wouldn’t let her go, and she soon uncovered evidence that made the young man a strong suspect.

    She took the evidence to the police, but they dismissed her as a bored housewife with an overactive imagination. She evicted the young man, but it would be six years before the authorities would finally bring him in for questioning.

    Dismayed and frustrated, Brown started down a path that would lead to her become a professional criminal profiler, assisting police departments and victims’ families by analyzing both physical and behavioral evidence to make the most scientific determination possible about who committed a crime.

    In The Profiler: My Life Hunting Serial Killers and Psychopaths Brown tells about what happened with that young man and her journey to becoming a profiler, then she opens a number of other cases she’s worked on, giving the reader a behind-the-scenes look at how profilers work, and how their methods bring new investigative avenues to light. She also brings home very clearly just how many murders go unsolved. It’s an absolutely fascinating read.

    Milk that doesn’t moo

    I used to think soy milk was either for the lactose intolerant or hippies. And so I always avoided that milk section of the grocery store. But, having embarked on a new way of eating that I’ll explain in another column, I was induced to approach the alternative milk shelves. I purchased a carton of soy milk, but then I saw cartons of something even more strange: almond milk.

    Puzzling. I knew, of course, that almonds did not have udders. So nobody was out there hooking them up to tiny milking machines. And they were nuts, so it’s not like you can squeeze them to make them release their tasty juices. Instead, I learned that almond milk is made by finely grinding almonds together with water. I thought this was something new, invented perhaps by a Californian who’d had too much weed, but it appears many Medieval European recipes called for almond milk, and it has always been a popular beverage in the Middle East. So almond milk has been around for some time.

    But I didn’t know any of this. I just knew I loved almonds and that they provide all sorts of goodies for the human body. Besides, I have a hard time resisting adventures. So along with the soy, I picked up a carton of Silk’s PureAlmond regular, vanilla, and chocolate milk.

    The soy was okay, but it left a weird zingy taste in my mouth. Furthermore, soy contains estrogen. I’m sure it’s a fine product, but I live with four daughters and don’t need any more estrogen. And I certainly don’t need it mutating me in any, um, feminine ways. So I put the soy aside and gave the almond milk a go.

    It was delicious. I love the vanilla and regular flavors the best. In fact, I like it so much I only drink cow’s milk when the last drop of almond milk is gone, and I try to make sure that never happens. Some might worry that I’ll deplete my calcium stores, but not so. Almond milk actually has MORE calcium than cow’s milk along with vitamin D that allows the body to absorb the mineral. It also has 50% of the RDA of vitamin E, of which cow’s milk has none. But that’s all technical vitaminy stuff. It wouldn’t matter if the milk itself didn’t taste so dang good.

    The American breakfast

    I love cereal. We have our standard favorites as a family, but I also like to get a box of something new when we shop. I recently saw, perched up on the top shelf at Wal-Mart, boxes of  Uncle Sam.

    What the heck? Was this a Tea Party product? I know Utah is conservative, but come on. And what kind of nut sings “The Stars and Stripes” for breakfast?

    Well, I might.

    So I promptly snagged a box and read that it’s been around since 1908, thus making it politically neutral. Then I read the ingredients. It’s a simple cereal made of wheat berries that are steamed, rolled, and toasted to provide killer whole grain nutrition. Those wheat flakes are then mixed with flax seeds (omega 3’s anyone?). That’s it.

    I purchased a box, felt patriotic, and then gave it a try when we got home. I’ve been buying it regularly ever since. It’s slammed with 10 grams of fiber and 7 grams of protein, and goes great with Silk’s vanilla almond milk and a piece of fruit.

    Share

2 Comments

Comments are closed.