Month: June 2025

[Welcome to our annual Guest Writer Series, a time in which we are intentional in listening to other voices. Know that AR may/may not agree with the perspective expressed. Know, too, that agreement is secondary to learning from others. Meet Guest Writer #2!]

* * * * *

Performance measurement is ubiquitous in the business world.  Companies understand that if an objective is quantified, monitored, and made visible, the objective is more likely to be accomplished, especially if incentives are tied to the metric.  Obviously, it is vital that the metric being incentivized is aligned with the desired objective.

The current thinking of some of our nation’s leaders is to focus on our trade deficit as an indicator of how well our economy is doing.  The term sounds scary.  It suggests that bad activity outweighs the good, so it is urgent that we fix it!  In reality, the trade deficit is a meaningless metric.

If a country exports more than it imports (in terms of whatever currency it uses), it is said to have a trade surplus.  If imports exceed exports, it has a trade deficit.  This terminology implies that net exporting is always and everywhere a positive.  That is simply not the case.

The United States has a trade deficit because we import more than we export.  In fact, we have the largest trade deficit in the world by far.  Do you know why we can afford to buy so much more than we sell?  BECAUSE WE ARE THE RICHEST COUNTRY ON EARTH!!  That’s why!  We would not want to trade places with anyone else.

Companies in other countries give us their goods and we give them dollars, which they can use to buy other items.  American companies sell products to those in other counties and in return receive dollars or foreign currency.  It is because we are so wealthy that we can import so much more than we export.

China has the largest trade surplus in the world.  China also has a much higher percentage of its population who are peasants.  Would you rather live in China or the USA?  That’s what I thought.

Let me try another approach…imagine there are three neighboring countries:  Agritopia, Industriland, and Servicestan.  The GDP (gross domestic product) of each country is $3 million.  In other words, their economies are exactly the same size.

Agritopia grows corn, wheat, and other farm products.  They sell $1 million worth of food to Industriland, $1 million to Servicestan, and consume $1 million themselves.

Industriland produces all sorts of manufactured goods.  $2 million of it is sold to Servicestan and $1 million is used domestically.

Servicestan does not make any goods, but they do excel at personal services.  Their citizens cut each other’s hair, give manicures, and treat skin to constitute a $3 million economy.  (They are much better groomed than their neighbors.)  Servicestan has no exports.

So, let’s calculate the trade balance for each county:

• Agritopia – $2 million exports minus zero imports = $2 million trade surplus
• Industriland – $2 million exports minus $1 million imports = $1 million trade surplus
• Servicestan – zero exports minus $3 million imports = $3 million trade deficit

Oh my!  It looks like Servicestan is in trouble.  Maybe they should stop importing so much manufactured goods, but would that make them better off?  They could also reduce their trade deficit by discontinuing importing food, but then they would starve!

The fact is, there is nothing wrong with having a trade deficit.  In the example above, the economies of all three countries are equally strong.  I could even make the case that Servicestan is the best off, as they enjoy consuming the most and a greater variety of goods and services.  Regardless, the trade deficit figure is irrelevant.

Now, it is annoying when some countries place tariffs on goods we try to export.  That makes American producers worse off.  I would argue it’s best not to respond with reciprocal tariffs, thereby increasing the price of imports, because that makes American consumers worse off!  Ostensibly, our recent raising of tariffs was a bargaining tactic, so that we might make a deal to eliminate all tariffs.

However, that is not how the original “Liberation Day” tariff rates were calculated.  The individual rates were based on — you guessed it — our trade deficit with each country.  Allies like Israel who lowered their tariffs on imported goods from the U.S. to zero, were still assessed a 17% tariff.  Amongst the highest tariffs was Vietnam at 46%.  We enjoy inexpensive electronics, machinery, and clothing made in Vietnam.  Vietnam does not buy our goods at a commensurate level because, well, they’re relatively poor compared to us.

Perhaps calling the trade deficit meaningless goes too far.  The term does have some meaning.  It just doesn’t have the significance that some people associate with it.  Maybe we should just rename it to something like “net exports.”  Using the word ‘deficit’ makes “trade deficit” sound analogous to our federal “fiscal deficit,” which truly is unsustainable and will bankrupt us if it continues year after year.  To the contrary, our trade deficit could go on forever, and we would be just fine.  Meaningless or not, the trade deficit is harmless.

Respectfully…

FAH

Your worst fear as a parent has come true in a way you never imagined: Not only is your child dead, but his death is labeled a drug overdose. Few would blame you for trying to hide the truth, but Tom and Stephanie Quehl never considered it. Instead, they turned their son’s death into a call for action.

Jack was successful in high school and college, he’d traveled the world and had a large circle of friends. “He liked to gain knowledge, but he also loved sports,” Tom says. “He was funny. He started an Instagram called Number One Water Fan where he’d rate water. They were great…like he’d rate Skyline Chili’s water versus McDonald’s water.” 

At 23, Jack accepted his first job and moved from his hometown of Cincinnati to Baltimore. He had the world at his feet. How did he end up dead?

On September 18^th, 2021, Jack and his friends met at a bar to watch football, and Jack and his friend Chris continued the evening at Jack’s place. The next day, their friends texted, then called. When Jack and Chris didn’t respond, they went to Jack’s house. They found Chris dead, and Jack was unresponsive. One called Stephanie.

“The only thing I remember him saying is, ‘I’m so sorry, Mrs. Quehl. I’m so sorry.’ Then I said, ‘Does he have a heartbeat?’ I don’t even know if I asked what happened…I thought okay, we’re going to go get to him… I don’t even know how we knew it was cocaine,” Stephanie says. 

After a night where Jack coded multiple times, the doctors said there was nothing more they could do. There was no hope. Tom and Stephanie let Jack go.

They questioned Jack’s friends after learning he had cocaine and fentanyl in his system—had he been an addict? His friends said no…but admitted Jack and many of them were casual drug users. “The friend group said that recreational use was around all the time,” Stephanie recalls. 

In any other era, casual drug use likely wouldn’t have killed Jack. But this is the era of fentanyl.

Fentanyl is as a lab-made opioid used to treat people following surgery or who suffer chronic pain, and legal, pharmaceutical fentanyl continues to be used this way. However, because it’s synthetic, fentanyl is relatively easy to make. It’s also extremely powerful—50 times stronger than heroin and 100 times more potent than morphine—

and highly addictive. Its manufacturing ease, potency, and addictive properties make it attractive to drug dealers, especially since it’s undetectable to the naked eye.

Drug dealers add fentanyl to street drugs and in some cases pass it off as something else completely. Current DEA testing shows that five out of ten fake prescription pills contain fentanyl and not the Xanax, Percocet or other medications they’re purported to be.

Imagining what happened to Jack and Chris that night is easy enough. Two guys, feeling young and invincible, decide to cap off the evening with a little cocaine. It’s nothing they and their peer group haven’t done before. But this time, although they don’t know it, the cocaine has been mixed with fentanyl. They die because fentanyl is so powerful that it only takes two milligrams, the equivalent of five to seven grains of salt, to kill. “I talked to my kids about not driving drunk and about not having unsafe sex,” Stephanie says. “I had no idea I should warn them about fentanyl.”

Word of Jack’s death spread quickly through Tom and Stephanie’s community, and they were open about it from the start. “I never really thought to hide it,” Tom says. At Jack’s funeral Mass, Tom spontaneously decided to take it head on. He stood before the packed church and spoke of their love for Jack. Then he said, “We know how Jack died. We know you know how Jack died.” Turning to the young people, Tom asked them to make better choices than Jack and added, “If you can’t do it for yourself, if you can’t do it for your friends or your family, do it for Jack.”

That “Do It for Jack” moment of inspiration became a rallying cry. “Stephanie said we need to do something. We need to start something and talk to people so no one else loses their Jack,” Tom remembers. 

Neither of them had any experience running a non-profit—Tom worked in IT and Stephanie was an elementary school teacher—but they pulled together family, friends, and neighbors and got to work. Tom and Stephanie did their first fentanyl awareness presentation in 2022. Since then, the Jack Quehl Foundation has talked to 10,000 students and parents, delivered 4 million media impressions, and testified on behalf of an Ohio bill to combat the fentanyl crisis.

It’s not easy. They’re up against young people who believe it won’t happen to them and parents who think Not my kid. Telling Jack’s story means reliving his loss every time. They feel frustration that his death is labeled an overdose. “Jack didn’t go out to die that night. Jack didn’t know fentanyl was in the cocaine,” Tom explains.  The Quehls say Jack, and everyone like him who died from fentanyl they never intended to take, were poisoned.

“Keeping going is a challenge,” Stephanie admits. But the positive reaction from students and adults at their talks bolsters them. Other parents reach out with stories of their children lost to fentanyl poisoning. Sharing knowledge in hopes of making a difference feels good. 

Tom and Stephanie want people to know that illegal fentanyl is an issue that impacts everyone. “Fentanyl’s not a red problem or a blue problem. You can be a Democrat, or a Republican, or a Libertarian and die,” Tom says. Stephanie adds, “There are no boundaries.”

The Jack Quehl Foundation’s message is simple: Any drug bought on the street or online could be contaminated with enough fentanyl to kill, no matter how authentic it looks. Talk to your kids, your co-workers, your friends, and spread the word. And if you’re faced with a choice to use a recreational drug or take an illegally sold “prescription” pill, stop. Make the lifesaving choice. Do it for Jack.

Respectfully…

Tracy Vonder Brink

Jack Quehl Foundation board member

For more information, please visit the Jack Quehl Foundation website at https://www.doitforjack.org/

Sincere admission #1: there are issues where my opinion is wrong.

Sincere admission #2: there are places in which my perspective is way off.

And sincere admission #3: there are issues and places where my opinion and perspective are wrong, way off, too narrow, misguided, missing info and more — and I don’t know it. I’m blissfully convinced I’m right even when I may unknowingly not be.

That reality necessitates that we ever employ humility, compassion and curiosity. Let me always be aware that there is so much I don’t know… and dare I say, don’t know that I don’t know.

Such is what makes it vital to listen to others. Let me say that differently. It’s vital to listen to a variety of others — people hailing from a wide range of varied social, ethnic, faith, political, educational, etc. backgrounds… people from different demographics… people with sundry stories. We often learn most when we lean into and listen to the story of one different than our own. Thank God for that beautifully insightful opportunity.

Hence, as delightfully said above, here we are.

It is time for one of the Intramuralist’s favorite practices, our annual Guest Writers Series! Over the course of the next few weeks, you will hear from an articulate group of communicators from all sorts of backgrounds. They are ages 20-something to 80-something. They represent various ethnicities, genders and political leanings. They have advanced degrees and no degrees. And they are passionate about a plethora of manifold matters. You will hear about volunteerism, accepting others, and lies we commonly believe. You’ll hear about tariffs, birds and a little bit of baseball. You’ll also hear the journey of one set of parents, for whom the tragic death of their son is leading to so much more. So many stories… as author/researcher Brené Brown likes to say, “Maybe stories are data with soul.” You will get a glimpse into the soul of another.

But let me again share what each of these gifted communicators most have in common…

They desire to share with you in a way — whether in agreement or not — that is respectful… that encourages you… that makes you think. They do not believe in insult. And they are wise enough to know that agreement is secondary to how you treat other people. Only one is a manifestation of wisdom.

In the meantime, as is my annual practice, I will take a bit of a respite. I believe in intentional rest, and I’m grateful that while I have come a little late to that understanding in life, I find the routine practice to be physically, emotionally and spiritually necessary and refreshing. 

I will thus utilize this time of rest to engage in a season of gratitude, travel and personal reflection. I’m eager to think and dream and pray and reflect… What should we talk about this fall? … What perspectives am I not all that humble about? … Where are my perspectives incomplete or inaccurate — and I’ve been unwilling to see them? … Good stuff, friends… indeed, good stuff.

For the record, please know that the opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the Intramuralist. I may agree. I may not. But again, agreement is always secondary to listening well… loving my neighbor well, too.

We learn from one another. We learn from diverse voices. We learn from the stories of others.

Time for this year’s Guest Writers Series. I can’t wait…

Respectfully…

AR

One of the challenges with events that are prime to provoke ample emotion is that it’s easy to rank aspects of what is/is not occurring; it’s instinctive to prioritize one angle over another, diminishing or dismissing what doesn’t fit with any predisposed belief or past experience.

That’s why where we get our news from matters. If there’s anything we’ve learned from the two most recent presidencies, news sources cover/don’t cover events in a way that fits with what they want us to believe. They don’t cover all things equally nor accurately.

What’s also relevant is both the media and the masses (i.e. us) often see all or nothing — a black/white approach suggesting all is clear in regard to what is right and what is wrong. We forget how two competing circumstances, narratives or emotions in need of attention and solution can exist at the exact same time. Current events are not so nice and neat.

Many are watching what’s taking place in California, in the current friction between law-enforcement and protestors — and resulting friction between state and federal authorities. The bottom line issue is with illegal/undocumented immigration. Allow us to objectively elaborate.

There are persons in this country who are not here legally. Different descriptions are used by different people. Some call them “illegal immigrants.” Some people call them “undocumented persons,” and there are various, creative combinations. The reality is that both “illegal” and “undocumented” are accurate, as the terms describe persons who entered this country by means other than what’s consistent with stated law. 

For years, legal immigration has been a challenge for our legislators to solve; it’s not so nice and neat. The reality is that embedded within the illegal/undocumented are so-called good people trying to come here for a better way of life; there are also people coming with evil intent, trying to destroy our way of life. Additionally, in this group, there are people earnestly wanting to work hard, earn a solid wage, and improve their family’s future; there are also people coming who indeed want to improve their family’s future but instead via a publicly assisted welfare state. True, too, is that there are parents and children — parents who entered illegally with children who were born here, making them U.S. citizens. All of the above are in the same boat. So who and what do we prioritize? Who and what do we ignore? And why?

Both our legislative and executive branches have struggled with this issue for decades, evident by the number of politicians who have contradicted their previous prioritizations. But I will give them some credit; it’s difficult to solve an issue when one size so clearly doesn’t fit all. So many angles must be considered in order to solve this issue wisely.

What’s happening in Los Angeles is thus hard to react to. The protests began as a reaction to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) conducting a series of immigration sweeps last Friday. While there has been significant violence, it is by no means a war zone, has been limited in scope and size, but now extends past downtown. Note once more the problem with where we get our news, as stated by Austyn Jeffs of the more trusted The Free Press: “Thousands of protesters gathered in Los Angeles on Sunday to protest immigration raids, and news coverage of the protests painted two different pictures. On the right, media said the protesters were organized far-left antifa members and Mexican nationalists. On the left, the protesters were supposedly peaceful.” Friends, neither is an accurate representation. The media makes things worse.

When I try to find a wise angle to a complicated problem, I often go to what is one of the most poignant interactions I’ve ever known to be true. Even if you are not a Christ follower, let me suggest we each consider, as I think this makes so much sense, and I believe it describes the tension now.

Over the course of the life of Jesus, there was an incident where a woman is caught in adultery; adultery violated both legal and religious law. The woman is brought before a public crowd, with a venomous public adamant in stoning her; it’s a just consequence for an illegal act. First, though, comes Jesus… initially quiet — maybe making some observations, taking all things in. Then he speaks. He starts by questioning the crowd — maybe even chastising them. He rebukes them for their lack of compassion and humility. Losing all self-grandeur, the crowd slowly, one-by-one, walks away. Jesus then moves toward the woman, speaking gently but firmly, mincing no words. She did something wrong; he adjures her to stop. And he and she both acknowledge and agree. They call the kettle “black,” the spade a “spade” or whatever idiom we wish to insert. Jesus acknowledges the wrongdoing and has compassion at the exact same time.

So much of the problem with current society is that we struggle with holding those two things. Sometimes our compassion blinds us to what’s right and wrong. And sometimes our understanding of right and wrong obscures our compassion.

Respectfully…

AR

I try not to be one who refuses to learn and grow and “get with the program” with new technology, so-to-speak. Hence, I’m trying to be a wise and witty user of ChatGPT. 

Consistent with the values of our blog, I asked AI to write a creative poem about disagreement — how it’s ok and can be used to our benefit if we do it well. Granted, if we do it poorly, it can be damaging. Even the intelligent fall prey to such. 

The reality is that respect is not dependent on agreement. In fact, I often respect most those who sit beside us, ask good questions, and actively, sincerely seek to understand as opposed to simply share where another is wrong.

We have so much to learn. We also have places where we can all be more respectful. Here’s to the fine art of not agreeing…

Oh blessed clash of minds and wills,
Where coffee cools and tempers spill,
Where “I see it differently” begins
The noble sport where no one wins.

For must we always nod and grin,
Pretend that every view’s a twin?
That every take is just as grand,
As if we all were clones on hand?

Disagreement’s not some plague—
It’s jazz! A dance! A rich mosaic!
If done with grace (and not with spite),
It sharpens thought and sheds new light.

But do it poorly—my, oh my—
The air grows thick, the sparks can fly.
One snide remark, one mocking tone,
And now you’re fighting on your own.

You stomp, you scoff, you roll your eyes,
(How dare they not idealize
Your every word, your perfect view!)
But hey—perhaps the flaw’s with you.

For those who dodge dissent like plague,
Who only nod, or mutter vague
Approvals just to keep things smooth,
Might lose the edge that helps us move.

Disagreement isn’t doom or war—
It’s just two minds with something more
To learn, to test, to push, to prove,
A kind of dance to help us move.

So speak your mind, but don’t be cruel,
And listen too—it’s half the rule.
If we can clash and still be kind,
We might just grow a wiser mind.

So disagree! But do it well.
Don’t turn a room into a hell.
It’s not a sin to not align—
Just don’t be a jerk when you opine.

Here’s to disagreement. May it be an unexpected, insightful strength to a continuous more…

Respectfully…

AR

None need a Ph.D to discern the division planted in present-day culture. While there’s temptation to hold specific individuals responsible for the current contempt, many suggest the onset of the heightened discord can be traced to the late 70’s, when local D.C. establishments became more exclusively Democratic or Republican. Our leaders stopped socializing with one another. It’s amazing what happens when people stop hanging out with diverse others; they stop seeing the beauty and potential wisdom in the one who thinks differently than they. Such creates an environment for the polarizing individuals to become more prominent.

This environment then creates an allure of the binary choice — that somehow one person or party is all good and the other is all evil — or — because one is all evil, the other is at least good enough. And just like that we fall into this trap that creates a sort of blind conformity or collective tunnel vision. It’s where people fall in line and echo the voices of the herd around them, as opposed to saying what needs to be said or doing what needs to be done.

I wonder how this happens within Pres. Trump’s administration. To suggest Trump can be erratic in either speech or behavior is not an understatement. There is valid question, as recently discussed here, as to whether his desired end always justifies the means. If there was a constitutional issue or law broken, would those most adjacent to his decision-making, who can see it best, speak up? Or would they simply fall in line? If not, would those in closer proximity to the President be threatened with loss of access, influence or future opportunity?

I wonder: where is the courage?

No doubt that’s what happened with Pres. Biden. As we hear more of the cringe-worthy reporting from Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson on the interview circuit after the release of “Original Sin,” sharing numerous reports of how Biden’s inner circle intentionally covered up his cognitive decline, they speak of the numerous people who fell in line, choosing to either say nothing, see nothing, or gaslight instead. It wasn’t a question of whether the President should be President again but rather, whether he should have been President now.

Again we ask: where was the courage?

The division hurts us in that way. People fall in line, staying loyal to their so-called team, but oft adhering to questionable ethics along the way. As we ponder how to solve, my strong sense is we need to collectively incentivize courage.

We have challenges in current culture that we need people to be able to say out loud and soon solve. But when leaders currently attempt to do so, the other party pounces. In my opinion, this isn’t simply unfortunate; it is foolish. They are killing courage.

Let us acknowledge one of the biggest places we need courageous problem-solvers…

Allow me to introduce Jim Millstein, a former senior U.S. Treasury official who led the restructuring of major financial institutions like AIG after the 2008 financial crisis, one who was on the frontlines of combating the worst economic calamity since the Great Depression. Hence, his take on America’s national debt is significant. It’s also sobering. Millstein believes America could face a massive crisis in the next few years if Washington does not act.  

As he shared last week, “The United States is running a $2 trillion deficit this year. Over $1 trillion of that will go just to interest payments, now the second-largest category of federal spending after Social Security.

That interest burden is not going away. It is getting worse. Over the next twelve months, the Treasury will have to refinance $10 trillion in debt. If interest rates keep rising, we are headed into what Millstein calls a debt spiral, a vicious cycle of higher borrowing and higher interest payments with no end in sight.

This is not a theoretical problem. If we fail to act, Americans will see the consequences everywhere: higher mortgage rates, rising costs on car loans, and an economy hobbled by political paralysis.”

That’s the problem our division has created. This is not a Trump problem or a Biden problem or a Republican problem or a Democrat problem. This is an American problem, created by a lack of courage.

We need courageous leaders from both the left and the right to engage in far more respectful, kind conversations on this and multiple other topics… How do we fix? How do we move forward?… Note that neither party has made any significant progress on decreasing our debt since 2001. That means that absolutely neither party is guiltless nor “more wrong.”

That’s the problem with division; it encourages those nearest the decision-makers to fall in line and not speak up. Thus, for the good of our country, we ask: how can we incentivize courage?

Respectfully…

AR