intramuralist ™

[Note: this is part of our annual Guest Writer Series. Meet guest writer #11.]

When we think of our favorite super heroes, names like Batman, Robin, Batgirl, Spider-Man, and Deadpool usually come to mind. Those super heroes were regular folks that lived amongst us mere mortals and needed a mask to hide their identities in their “super” roles. Surely if we knew Bruce Wayne was Batman, Wayne Enterprises couldn’t have him on the board as Chairman. So how do we explain the remnant in our society that is still wearing masks in public after the height of Covid is seemingly passed?

Based on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), there have been 1,134,170 deaths in the U.S. at the time of this writing. The United Nation’s World Health Organization (WHO) estimates approximately 15 million worldwide died from this past pandemic; clearly, therefore, those are reasons to still fear the virus that took out so many and made countless others sick.

I continue to travel extensively for my job primarily by air. I like the recent message that I have been hearing on the airports and airlines announcement systems. They are saying something like, “If a person decides to wear a mask or not on or off board the aircraft, let us respect either option chosen.” Most flight are mask free, but there are still some passengers as well as crew members who don their masks proudly. So it is with the premise of respecting everyone that I go forward in my thoughts on this subject. 

Historically speaking, the COVID-19 virus and its various mutations were not the first time mask wearing reached critical mass. The Spanish Flu or the Influenza Pandemic of 1918 was the first time mask wearing was used as a method to curb a virus in our society. The people used crude masks with as little protection as a handkerchief to protect themselves. They didn’t have the sophistication of our recent KN95 mask that was the preferred item for our past pandemic. Medical or others who needed extra protection needed the N95 type in order to work. Some professionals even used double masking in order to feel secure.

Not widely published or heard about is the fact that the US Department of Health and Human Services officially ended the Public Health Emergency (PHE) on May 11, 2023. Unlike the major announcement to start the PHE in March of 2020, which caused a major rippling effect in our entire society, this announcement was very quiet. I remember very vividly packing up the contents of my office desk to work from home at a time where none of us knew how this would end. Among the most significant steps to combat the virus in that directive was limiting how many people could meet in person as well as the wearing of masks in public places. Transportation methods such as airplanes, trains and buses made mask wearing mandatory. Any place where there was a medical facility was of course mandatory as well. I remember walking into the local bank with my mask and thinking how different the reaction to me would have been if I was to have done that in the fall of 2019. I’m sure security or the police would have been called if the time was different. 

Also not widely published is the fact that WHO has declared “an end to COVID-19 as a public health emergency.” So it seems the rest of the world has followed the same path on ending emergency measures for COVID as we have in the US. So why am I still seeing people with masks on in public places and in some cases outside as well? Well, the only way I can logically explain it is residual fear. The pandemic was horrible, and governments and other entities including the media stoked additional fears that scared us so that we are still concerned about this virus. The entire debate about whether masks actually helped or prolonged the epidemic will forever be argued without resolve. Some believe a herd immunity to be effective, which means society naturally develops immunity over a period of time to any and all viruses. I am not here to argue those points whether right or wrong. I am using this solely as an observation on society. 

The overwhelming answer from those who are still wearing a mask from my own, independent, non-scientific survey is that they fear having underlining conditions and wouldn’t fare well should they get the virus. Most are elderly, but some are seemingly young, vibrant people who appear to be just risk-adverse. There are some elderly people in my church I see weekly but have thus forgotten what they look like. I do miss seeing their smiles. To me one of the best parts of going to church is the fellowship. Not seeing faces diminishes the fellowship part. 

Also, I admit… Getting on a plane where some are still in masks makes me a little nervous. Ever since the events of 9/11, I have boarded every plane with the notion that I would not be a victim should there be a threat from any passenger on the plane. I do a sweep of faces to see if I think that anyone could be a possible threat. I don’t consider it to be profiling, but instead intelligent survival skills. Not seeing all faces on a plane makes me continually more vigil to watch my fellow passengers, especially those who are still masked. 

During the height of the pandemic, we were equal in our masks, but in the summer of 2023, those who are still wearing them stick out like a bit of a proverbial sore thumb. I live in the US Southwest, where temperatures currently range from 105-117. To compound the heat with a mask seems rather like self inflicted torture. 

I remember, no less, the summers of 2020 and 2021 when those masks added to my own personal heat index. I was glad when they were relaxed in 2022. I look forward to the day when we can all look each other in the face (the whole face) and greet each other. I also hope we have all learned more about hygiene and healthcare over the past 3 years. Most of all I hope we have learned how each of us is valuable and how we should continue to respect everyone.

To mask or not to mask? That is the question.

Respectfully…

DG

[Note: this is part of our annual Guest Writer Series. Meet guest writer #10.]

I don’t happen to be in the business of telling people how to feel about politics; that tends to be a convoluted mess. What about politicians? 

Some of us are enamored with one, some, or maybe even an entire political party. Better yet, these are people that largely influence how we think about some of the most controversial, polarizing, start-an-argument-at-Christmas-with-your-in-laws topics that are present in today’s world. What we think about politicians also happens to be reflected in how they speak about these issues. I know I personally have fallen into the trap of liking politicians that agree with me and disliking the others. I mean, have you ever heard anyone say, “Well I disagree with everything our president says about abortion, gun control, and taxes, but I really just think he’s a great guy.” While I know this is rare, I want to spend the next few minutes emphasizing the value behind a statement like this.

If you were a lawyer, and I told you that to be the best lawyer you should practice law as little as possible, I probably would not come off as the smartest person. Other professions, doctor, mechanic, or just a general businessman, are no different: experience pays off. Yet, it seems like politicians might be the one anomaly.

Politicians on both sides seem to be quick to offer their opinions on every issue. They may not be the one to introduce the bill, but when was the last time a politician admitted an issue was something the government should not have a hand in managing? Politicians tend to want a part in every issue. Some might even argue these are not issues until a politician makes it one. I would not go as far to say that, but I will say that objectively, most politicians seem very power-hungry. It seems like they take up arms in issues to gain the support of Americans. Once they have been a part of a major bill passing, they leverage that for reelection or they pursue a higher position, qualified or not. It makes me wonder, do politicians really support the issues they claim to care so much about? Does the Republican from Arkansas really care about states’ rights? Is the Democrat from Pennsylvania truly concerned about prison reform? I’m not so sure. In fact, I have observed many flip-floppers, or people that claim to flip their position on issues, that I feel somewhat inclined to think politicians say what they think will win them an election. Ever seen a presidential political debate in the primaries? Each person finds a way to differentiate themselves from another, then the general election comes and everyone from the party supports each other.

The first of these debates for the Republican presidential primary comes this Wednesday. Whether you have friends following politics or not, you are probably bound to hear someone start supporting and disowning various candidates this week. “I like what he said about this, clearly more educated than the others,” or “None of these candidates are fit to be president, I cannot get behind what they say.”

As the next year comes upon us, many of us will be in full support of one candidate and, I would bet, we support most of what they say. Then we can focus on spending more time with those with whom we agree. But that would be incredibly naive in my opinion. Why disrespect the opinions of one who did not originate those opinions? I am not recommending disrespect, but if you want to have a qualm with anyone, why is it not the politician?

And here’s the bigger part; it’s not just the one you do not support, but the political system in general; it fosters arguments and creates rifts among society. Yet, we throw our time and money behind candidates who are making that engine run. You may be asking, what’s the solution? Unfortunately, I doubt a community of blog post readers will fix the American two-party system. I am not the first nor the last to complain about such. Nonetheless, everyone can have an impact. It’s simply showing respect for others, regardless of political opinion. Opt for the discussion, not the argument. Don’t let the politicians win, not in elections, but in driving societal disagreement. A small endeavor, but one that actually recognizes and addresses a detrimental cog in the convoluted American political system.

Respectfully…

JTA

[Note: this is part of our annual Guest Writer Series. Meet guest writer #9.]

I am a Christian.  But for those of you who consider yourselves to be non-Christians – and this might sound odd – much of the church actually owes you a bit of an apology.  

See, much of the missionary work that churches endeavor to accomplish is derived from the Christian belief that Jesus Christ has sent them on a lifelong Great Commission to convert as many people to the faith as possible before He returns to judge earth’s rebellious inhabitants with such wrath that it will result in the obliteration of everything we see before us. The “end of the world,” therefore, plays an inherently bigger part in the Christian message than most people realize because most Believers have been taught that Jesus promised to come back at any moment (“like a thief”). Naturally, this increases the urgency in evangelizing.

So, to enhance this resolve, the American church has invented a terrifying narrative of “end-times” (eschatological) theories to propel the corporeal fear associated with being the object of God’s wrath when Jesus returns. For example, ever hear of the famous number sequence, “666” or the “mark of the beast?” (Revelation 13) Sure, you have. Movies, songs, games, and countless societal elements have incorporated this biblical reference into its superstitions.  Many popular, evangelical pastors teach this future mark will be administered through some form of digital technology that will be implanted into the human body as a control mechanism, authorizing one’s status as a public consumer; without it, one cannot buy or sell anything in the marketplace. And, they say, anyone who takes it will be eternally condemned (Rev. 14:10).

So great is the fear surrounding this mark that three years ago, a group of young men committed suicide after they became convinced that it had arrived in the form of the COVID PCR test. They chose to kill themselves rather than face the risk of everlasting condemnation from inadvertently receiving “the mark” (They planned to ‘ride out the end of the world.’ They wound up lost at sea | CNN.)

Consider also the message coming from the pulpit at Grace Community Church, pastored by eminent evangelical minister, John MacArthur. In his fierce opposition to the perceived hysteria of climate change activism, he has unashamedly taught that, because of man’s sin and immorality, God has “cursed” this “disposable planet” and that if what humans presently see before them worries them, they should know that “this is nothing like what’s going to happen next time” when “He will destroy [it] in an instant.” This is one of the most famous evangelical ministers in the United States teaching that God has deemed this planet – a throwaway item.  All because Eve ate the apple. 

And with evangelical teaching that convinces congregants of the universe’s eventual destruction, is it a wonder that, in the last decade, white evangelical protestants are the most “unconcerned” religious group regarding climate change? (Why conservative Christians don’t believe in climate change – Bernard Daley Zaleha, Andrew Szasz, 2015 (sagepub.com) 

How many doomsday pastors have had their time in the spotlight because of their predictions about Jesus’ Second Coming? Harold Camping, made popular by his brazen, repeated predictions about the world’s end, prophesied that God’s final judgment day would arrive on May 21, 2011. His unwavering confidence in this revelation jumpstarted a public campaign into which he invested tens of millions of dollars and dispatched numerous followers around the country to spread the message, some of whom had “quit their jobs and sold all their possessions” to support the cause. One man reportedly spent more than $140,000 of his personal savings on advertisements to bolster the efforts.

Of course, it’s 2023 – and here we are. Never mind that there are people in debilitating need; he thought that funds were far better spent on forecasting an event that the Bible says is impossible to predict (Matthew 24:36). 

What about a future “Antichrist?” Surely, secular media (film, books, etc.) has so entrenched this term – which represents some future person who will embody all evil – that the average non-Christian cannot claim ignorance of a character with this distressing identification. Believe it or not, evangelical opinions about the Antichrist impact how some Christians vote in elections. Did you know that Franklin D. Roosevelt received 666 votes at his 1932 Democratic Convention presidential primary? That occurrence was sufficient for many contemporary evangelical leaders to convince their congregants that a vote for FDR was a vote for the Antichrist. Even Republican legend Ronald Reagan was not immune to such an accusation – Ronald (6) Wilson (6) Reagan (6).

In 1932, two prominent American missionaries, Ralph and Edith Norton, toured Europe to assess the religious state of several of its countries. They eventually arrived in Italy where they had the unique opportunity to interview prime minister Benito Mussolini. In their evangelical religious studies, the Nortons had come to believe that the Bible taught of a future Antichrist who would come to power through a resurrected Roman Empire (Dan. 2:31-35, 7:7-8, Rev. 13:1-2). Consequently, they asked Mussolini, “Do you intend to reconstitute the Roman Empire?” 

As they proceeded to explain their understanding of biblical prophecy, Mussolini displayed surprise at their insinuation, inquiring as to where the Bible made such a prediction. And “in one of the great ironies of fundamentalist history, by the time the Nortons had finished with Mussolini, he apparently believed – and maybe even hoped – that he was the long-awaited world dictator, the antichrist, prophesied in the book of Daniel.” What long-term effects did this have on the prime minister? We do not know. What we do know is that within a decade, he allied Italy with a political entity that would become responsible for the largest Jewish genocide in world history – Hitler’s Nazis.

What about David Koresh and the 1993 Waco, Texas compound massacre? That cult was borne out of a one man’s obsession with what he believed to be a future narrative in the book of Revelation, into which he placed himself and convinced his followers that the “end of days” was upon them. Eighty-two people were killed in a standoff with law enforcement. All because people do whatever they want with the Bible.

So, what am I doing with all this? These examples comprise the tip of the iceberg regarding the absolute devastation that some of the church’s “end-times” teachings have produced on society and culture. Manipulation, defeatism, demonization – death. I’m sorry.

And all of it predicated upon one foundational concept: that Jesus is coming back very soon to judge mankind while God the Father destroys everything around you. So, they say, “you better hurry and ask Him into your heart.”

Fortunately, there is biblical resolution to stopping all these false concepts. Are you ready?

I believe Jesus Christ already came back. It’s been accomplished. I’m serious.  

And if He has already returned, then all of this “end-times” nonsense goes away and instead of Christians yearning desperately to leave this world behind, they can begin to truly live as He lived.

Respectfully…

ZDB

[Note: this is part of our annual Guest Writer Series. Meet guest writer #8.]

What is truth? What comes to mind when you hear the word “truth”? 

Or what does it really mean when someone says: “I’m just living my truth.”?

In my quest to find an answer to this question of “what is truth,” I confess that it is actually the phrase “living my truth” that has prompted my pondering. What does that phrase even mean? There is just something rather unsettling to me about it. If I am “living my truth,” doesn’t that make the meaning of the word “truth” subjective? Hear me out.

The definition of the word “subjective” is based upon or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. If every human being on the planet has “their own truth” and their own definition for the word “truth,” then it would stand to reason that the definition for the word “truth” has become subjective — thus leaving the definition of “truth” at the mercy and whim of whoever is defining it.

So, what does the dictionary have to say about truth? Webster’s defines truth as:

1. The quality or state of being true.

2. The property of being in accord with fact and reality.

The property of being in accord with fact or reality… what in the world does all of that mean? 

Being in accord could also be said as to be in agreement. In short, to be in accord with fact and reality is to be in agreement with fact and reality. Therefore, if truth carries the property of being in accord, or agreement, with fact and reality, then we have to conclude that to say we are “living our truth” is to say we are really, in all honesty, just doing, or believing, whatever we want without any of it being grounded in a firm foundation of fact and reality. 

For example, if truth is in accord with fact and reality, we are forced to be honest and say that women cannot be men and men cannot be women. This is one example of how current culture has become influenced by personal feelings. In this situation, truth is no longer in accord with fact and reality. Truth has become nothing more than our own opinion. This is one example of how fact and reality have been lost and our foundation is nothing more than shifting sand.

Good Ol’, reliable Webster has long since been a trusted friend of mine through the years as I have engaged in countless word studies. There is always something to be gleaned from the study of a word. However, there are times when another viewing angle needs to also be considered — which is why I took to the streets of my community and did some research of my own. I asked several different individuals the same question: what is truth? 

Here is a slice of the insight I gained.

“Truth means that if you did something bad you would tell somebody.”  ~ Rubie, Age 7

“Truth means that if you do something bad and someone asks you to tell the truth you tell them.”  ~ Maybrie, Age 9

“Truth to me means the opposite of lies.”  ~ Emma, age 10 and Alyssa, Age 17

“Truth to me is God. God is Truth. God is our foundation. So, that would have to make truth foundation.”  ~ Mayci, age 7

While each of these responses carry their own measure of depth, it is the insight shared by Mayci that struck to the very quick of my soul. 

Truth is foundation.  

Just let that sink in and settle in your weary bones. Let that resonate deep within your soul and, if this were true, wouldn’t that make truth the very thing on which we should build our lives? Truth is that firm foundation that when our emotions are on the brink of being out of control will stand. If truth is foundation, and God is our foundation, then it could do nothing more but stand to reason that God is truth. Sometimes we adults make things far more complicated when all we really need to do is have the simple faith of a child like Mayci and remember that truth is foundation.

Respectfully… 

LJS

[Note: this is part of our annual Guest Writer Series. Meet guest writer #7.]

I have thought a great deal on what we are and are not teaching in US History. Since I spent a lifetime educating both college and high school students I thought that perhaps it was time to educate the masses. In my classes, there were always facts/dates. I once asked when the War for Independence began and then made the case for 1622 when the Virginia House of Burgesses announced they were going to tax themselves and not the Parliament — made them think. My classes were filled with what students labeled “infomercials” — things to know but not be tested on.

So here are a ‘few’ questions I have asked including some “landmark” decisions which have had an impact on the lives of citizens almost from the beginning of what we know as the United States. I always include the Declaration of Independence; we read through the entire thing — analyzing/discussing/debating. Hoping the following spurs an interest in “googling” answers you may and may not know…

1. Do you know the reasons behind America’s intervention into Vietnam?
2. Why does the Speaker invite the President to address the nation in a Joint Session of Congress?
3. Why does the President “knock” on the closed House Chamber doors to be announced requesting permission to enter?
4. What is the reason behind the Presidential Records Act? What does it say?
5. What is the reason behind “impeachment”? (Go back to Colonial New York and the Royal Governor during the reign of Queen Anne.)
6. How are classified documents declassified?
7. Can a sitting president repeal any amendment? (In 2016, it was claimed that Secretary Clinton could.)
8. How does an amendment get added to the Constitution?
9. What are the reasons for the Bill of Rights? (BOR)
10. What are the Articles of Confederation? 
11. What is the National Archives?
12. When the British burned down the Library of Congress, who replaced the books lost?
13. When did John Adams and Thomas Jefferson die? 
14. When was the Secret Service created? 
15. What 2 West Point graduates, besties and roommates, rode from the west (i.e. California) to fight on opposite sides at Gettysburg?
16. How was Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address received?
17. What was the Trail of Tears?
18. What was the Nullification Act?
19. What stopped the slave trade in DC, and what year was the trade stopped?
20. Who was Medgar Evers?
21. What was the March in Selma about?
22. What is the National Institute of Health?
23. What are the first 5 freedoms covered by the First Amendment? Why were they included?
24. Why is one cabinet member not permitted to attend any State of the Union (SOTU) or a Joint Session of Congress?  
25. The Second Amendment has its roots in Colonial America; why was it added to the BOR?
26. Why were the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and Civil Rights Act of 1964 passed?
27. When did all male schools like Washington & Lee and The University of Virginia admit women? And our military academies?
28. When did women get the right to vote, and what president reluctantly signed it into law?
29. What was the Oregon Trail? 
30. The state laws in Louisiana are based on _______. Why?
31. Most western states’ laws are based on _______. Why?
32. The original 13 states and most of the states east of the Mississippi laws are based on _______. Why?
33. What is Juneteenth? 
34. What and when was the Tulsa Massacre?
35. What were the reasons behind Wounded Knee?
36. Why did the Southern States decide to leave the Union? (1860-1865)
37. What is The Gilded Age?
38. Why does industrialization come to the north over the south? 
39. What were the Lincoln-Douglass debates, and why was it a forgone conclusion that Douglass would win? 
40. What were the fireside chats? 
41. Why and when was NATO formed? What is the importance of Article 5?
42. What events led to America’s going to fight in The Great War?
43. Why was America reluctant to get involved in the upheavals in Europe and Japan in the 1940’s?
44. What was the root cause of the Spanish-American War?
45. What was the root cause(s) of the War with Mexico? 
46. What is the Monroe Doctrine? What is the Truman Doctrine?
47. Who were  Thomas Paine, John Marshall, Sandra-Day O’Connor and Thurgood Marshall, and why are they important?
48. What was Iran-Contra about, and why does the Reagan Administration side with them?
49. What was Desert Storm? 
50. What was the root cause of 9/11, and who was president on that day in 2001?
51. Who was John McCain?
52. What illness did JFK have, and how did he injure his back? 
53. Can you name the 5 declared wars America has fought? Who actually declares war?
54. What is a “police action”? (International)
55. What is a ‘banana republic” and where are they located? 
56. What was the Six-Day War?
57. What was the Suez Canal upheaval about? (1956)
58. What is the debt ceiling, and when did it become partisan? Why has it become such a big deal since WW1?
59. What was the Albany Congress? What were the Townshend Acts?
60. What is the actual “line of succession”?
61. What does the entire Declaration of Independence say? (DOI)
62. Why do the 13 colonies declare independence from Great Britain?
63. What does freedom of speech mean? 
64. What event turned George III from his earlier siding with the 13?
65. Who were the men who died at the Alamo? 
66. Why are the mascots of the following named as such: UVA-Cavaliers, Tennessee-Volunteers, and Texas-Longhorns?
67. Why does the UP (Upper Peninsula) belong to Michigan?
68. Why is Toledo in Ohio and not Michigan?
69. Who was Maya Angelou? Who is Toni Morrison? And what is each famous for writing?
70. Who is Toni Morrison, and what is she famous for writing? 
71. Who was Alex Haley, and why was his book “Roots” such a turning point in American and TV history in 1977?
72. How long did M*A*S*H last on TV, and why was it considered trailblazing? 
73. What was the impact when UTEP defeated the University of Kentucky for the NCAA 🏀 Championship in 1966?
74. Why are the following films believed to be game changers: “Glory,” “The Color Purple,” “Schindler’s List,” “Philadelphia,”’ “Brokeback Mountain,” and “The Godfather” (all 3 parts)?
75. Who was Francis Marion? 
76. Who was Sitting Bull? 
77. Who was Chief Joseph, and what is his famous quote? 
78. What does it take for a bill to become a law?
79. Why is the power of the purse in the hands of The House of Representatives? 
80. How many votes does it take to pass a bill in both Houses? 
81. What is “gerrymandering,” and what does it do? 
82. Should we continue to have the Electoral College or does it preserve the voting rights of small states?
83. How many total years can a president serve? (Think LBJ more than a single answer.) 
84. Who is the President Pro-Tempore of the Senate? (4th in line in succession) 
85. What is the line of presidential succession? And do you know who they are?
86. If you graduate from Harvard Law and want to move to Texas to practice law, can you and what hoops would you have to jump through?
87. If wars are and have been fought over land/power/hate, how many wars have been fought for love? 
88. What were the Salem Witch Trials really about? 
89. What is Arthur Miller’s classic “The Crucible’ set in Salem of the 1600s really about? 
90. What is McCarthyism (not Kevin), and what was the HUAC (aka the House Un-American Activities Committee)?
91. What was the New Deal? 
92. What are the qualifications for the SCOTUS and lesser courts? 
93. Does the Preamble to the Constitution include the word “God”?
94. What was the 3/5ths Compromise and the Great Compromise?
95. When was “under God” added to the Pledge of Allegiance and why?
96. What groundbreaking Broadway musical focused on civil rights/equal rights/Vietnam War while letting in the “sunshine”?
97. Who was Cesar Chavez, Gloria Steinem and the Chicago 7?
98. Who authorized the Clean Air and Water Act in the 1970’s?
99. Why do the Brits drive on the wrong side of the road? 

And…

100. Can you name the Commonwealth States? And why are they  Commonwealth States? 

Also, some landmark court cases to learn from (see www.Oyez.org to learn more about each case):

1. Chisholm v. Georgia (1793)
2. Marbury v. Madison (1803)
3. Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee (1816)
4. McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)
5. Gibbons v. Ogden (1824)
6. Jones v. VanZandt (1847)
7. Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857)
8. Schenectady v. United States (1917)
9. Korematsu v. US (1944)
10. Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (1954)
11. Mapp v. Ohio (1961)
12. Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)
13. NYTimes v. Sullivan (1964) 
14. Miranda v. Arizona (1966)
15. Loving v. Virginia (1967)
16. Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969)
17. Roe v. Wade (1973; overturned in Dobbs v Jackson’s Women’s Health Organization in 2022)
18. US v. Nixon (1974)
19. Bush v. Gore (2000)
20. Moore v. Harper (2023) 

Always learning and asking questions…

Respectfully…

JBR

[Note: this is part of our annual Guest Writer Series. Meet guest writer #6.]

Oh, how the mighty have fallen….

Donald Trump is as likely to end up in jail as he is back in the White House.

The New England Patriots are no longer a playoff team.

And Bud Light is no longer the top selling beer in America.

How did this happen? Unless you’ve been sleeping under a rock for the past several months, back in April, someone at Anheuser-Busch made the decision to send commemorative cans of Bud Light to transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney to mark “365 days of girlhood.” Dulvaney proceeded to put posts on social media in a dress drinking Bud Light and in a bubble bath dancing around with it. And the boycott was on.

To understand the significance of the boycott, realize that Bud Light has been the top selling beer in America for more than 20 years.

This has to be the dumbest brand marketing decision in the history of brand marketing, right down there with New Coke, but even that was not even close. What is the first rule of marketing? Know your target market. What was Bud Light’s target market? Men who enjoy sports and socializing. Frat boys and bubbas.

I can promise you this: other than those catering to gay and bisexual men, no fraternity in America wants any association with an image of boys who think they are girls drinking beer in dresses and bubble baths.

When I was in college, two men were caught in a compromising situation in one of the fraternities. Rightly or wrongly, there was zero interest in anyone rushing that fraternity for years to come.

And while I have less experience to speak on the subject, I think it is safe to assume a similar reaction from bubbas as frat boys.

I look forward to reading the Harvard Business Review case using this example to teach future MBAs the principles of marketing. But it may be years until it is socially acceptable to write about it.

I do not have any issue with Anheuser-Busch or any other beer maker marketing a brand to the LGBTQ+ community. Enjoy a Montucky Cold Snack with the rainbow on its annual pride can, as I have. In a blind taste test, most people cannot tell the difference between brands of beer anyhow. It is all about image. And Bud Light just royally screwed up its image.

Which begs the question, what in the world were they thinking? Bud Light’s (former) VP of Marketing, Alissa Heinerscheid, stressed the need to “evolve and elevate” the Bud Light brand away from the “fratty, kind of out of touch humor” brand of the younger generation.

You mean the target market that has made you the top selling beer in America for 20 years?

This should set off alarm bells demonstrating how pervasive political correctness has become in corporate America. Companies are now getting graded on their “ESG” scores (environment, social, and governance), and being viewed as socially in vogue was more important to Heinerscheid than protecting FIVE BILLION DOLLARS in annual sales of Bud Light. That she could be so blinded by political correctness that she put all of that at risk should make us all realize how prominent this has become in the minds of our corporate leaders, all else be damned.

Bud Light has put itself in an impossible position. The right thing to do would be to apologize to its customer base for being insensitive to their perspectives and for calling them “fratty” and “out of touch,” that it was in fact they who were “out of touch.” But such a move would almost certainly unleash a backlash from the LGBTQ+ community for not standing behind Mulvaney, implying that their partnership was a mistake, even though it clearly was. And so they do nothing, as if it did not happen, hoping it will go away.

It will not. This is not as simple as bringing back Coca-Cola Classic. At this point, no one wants them. If they are not going to renounce their action, they might as well just go full rainbow.

Let’s look at this from the perspective of the boycotters. It is no fun to be one who holds traditional values in America right now. Those pushing different agendas have successfully made it socially unacceptable to do so. So we smile quietly when our employers observe Pride Month, fearfully hoping no one calls us out for not celebrating with enough enthusiasm. When is Traditional Values Month? Where is the “God created them male and female” parade? They do not exist. Only one side gets to celebrate.

I am all for diversity, equity, and inclusion. All Americans should be. It is one of the founding principles of our country. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men [and women] were created equal.” It does not help that one side of the spectrum has politicized the word “equity,” meaning vote for us, because the other side does not. We all should.

But those who do not flock to the other side, which appreciates their votes, even though their perspective should be flatly rejected.

As with so many things in today’s world, the right answer is in the middle, and there is no one in the middle.

But my affirmation of equity does not mean that I should have to embrace perversity. I have gay friends and family members whom I love dearly. I have no problem with the orientation, and I think gay couples should have the same legal rights as heterosexuals. I also believe that the behavior is a sin. We all sin, and I am no better than anyone else, so I try to treat everyone with respect. But believers are called not to accept sin in our lives, but to turn away from it.

In today’s world, we are told we must be tolerant of everyone except those who believe as I do. Those beliefs are forced beneath the surface to avoid the social conflict that would result. For years now, we have been forced to hold our tongue to get along. We dare not share what we really think for fear of being ostracized. Cancel culture is real. But every time we hold something back, or keep quiet when our employers, the stores we frequent, or our government spend resources celebrating only the other perspective, all of that emotion gets pent up inside.

Then along comes Bud Light. Their choice to associate with Dylan Mulvaney gives me a safe, quiet, anonymous way to vent all the emotion that has been building up inside for quite some time now. I can simply never buy a Bud Light ever again.

And I never will.

All perspectives should be valued. Including mine.

Respectfully…

CAZ

[Note: this is part of our annual Guest Writer Series. Meet guest writer #5.]

“Isn’t it strange that princes and kings

And clowns that caper in sawdust rings

And common folk like you and me

Are builders of eternity.

To each is given a bag of tools

A shapeless mass and a book of rules

And each must make, ere time is flown

A stumbling-block or a stepping-stone.”

— R.S.  Sharp

Many years ago, I was asked to speak at the Life Celebration for a long-time family friend, a man who was really a guide for many, including me, in this business of life. He was respected for his leadership as well as his servant heart. I concluded my remarks with this poem because it was a fitting statement to reflect how he had lived.

Now whenever I re-read it, I wonder if this poem isn’t more relevant to how we are living our life now, not just a statement about how one has lived it. In fact, maybe it should be part of a diploma or something we receive at the beginning of adulthood. Maybe the more fitting application might be to ask ourselves, “What are we/I building? Now, not someday?”

First, the “We,” meaning our home, our community, our country, our culture. Our media seems to be filled with what some would say, “Going to hell in a handbasket.” There seems to be more angst than amicability, more depression than decency, more shouting than solidarity, more panic than peace. So, we tend to wring our hands, separating the “I” from the “We.”

So instead of the “We,” should the “I” not look in the mirror? And ask, “What am I building?”  The poet says that each of us is given “a bag of tools, a shapeless mass, and a book of rules.” He does not say these are identical, but suggests that we are all equipped. The question seems to be “Okay, now what?” Do I evaluate them and their use in my life? Do I envy the equipment of others and thereby waste and neglect my own? Do I seriously ask what I am building, honestly asking myself if I am building a life of purpose and meaningfulness for myself as well as others? 

When I see a construction company at work, it is obviously a team of various skills committed to achieve a unified end. If both the “I” and the “We” recognized this teamwork, it would seem the result of such awareness would negate the handbasket and create stepping stones for both the “We” and the “I.”

Respectfully…

DWL

[Note: this is part of our annual Guest Writer Series. Meet guest writer #4.]

I’m honored to be asked to write for this blog as I have found it to be an open and curious place to meet others not always like myself. One of the things I appreciate most is the ability to pose questions that do not have a fast or definitive answer and so that is where I’m headed today. In the role I play in my “day job,” I’ve encountered a growing trend of what many call “anxiety.”

In technical terms anxiety is classified as both a trait and a state. A trait, a part of an individual’s personality that provides nuances to how one perceives and responds to events in their lives, i.e. “I am a nervous or anxious person.” A state, a temporary condition that will soon fade and return to equilibrium, i.e. “I am feeling nervous about this.”

Because of these two aspects of anxiety, it seems popular in culture to refer to someone as either being anxious or having anxiety. However, what I find in most people I speak to about this is that it is more likely something very common in all humans — which is a state of anticipation or rather an intolerance for uncertainty.

We now live in a world where most things can be learned or received rather quickly, and so we do not have as much of a need for the time that it takes for a feeling to amp up and then slowly return to baseline. In the brain studies have shown this takes about 20 minutes. I’m finding through scrolling through social media and in public forums most people consider their thoughts surrounding uncertainty or “what if’s” cause for concern that they might “have anxiety” as if it is a condition to be treated and extinguished rather than a trait and state to be considered. Once considered, one can decide which tools to use to help regulate the system back to baseline.

Sometimes the best tool to be used is to see if there are other feelings tied to what is being lumped into the word anxiety. Sometimes it is worry, avoidance, dread, or vulnerability, and even more often it can be excitement or anticipation. Sometimes I will have people move their body (bilateral stimulation, aka something that uses both sides of their body like walking, yoga, bike riding etc.) and they find that the anxiety dissipates. So sometimes anxiety can even be unused energy.

Another aspect that is often looped into anxiety is the concept of fear. Fear seems to be the catalyst towards many of a reactionary social media post or tweet. 

Fear is a negative, short lasting, high alert emotion in response to a perceived threat and like anxiety it can also be measured as a state or trait. (Brene Brown Atlas of the Heart 2022)

Experiencing fear is visceral and immediate in the body. Increased heart rate, dilation of the eyes, rapid breathing, and extremities tingling (from the blood rushing from your limbs to the body’s core). Many who describe fear believe that to be anxiety. Experiencing fear has great qualities for our survival. Many times these responses are what keep us alive and thriving! “Boy that river is running awfully swift, maybe we should cross elsewhere” — or “the milk doesn’t smell — right maybe I should pour it out.” Fear can help us in making us pause and consider rather than rushing in unaware. 

In both anxiety and fear it seems the best action we can take is to lean in with curiosity what it is we are actually feeling, then stay curious about “the why” behind “the what.” For instance, check my surroundings and ask: is anything around me that would cause me harm? Is this a visceral response to my physical environment? Is what I’m experiencing just mere uncertainty? Is it because this person, event, or choice is unfamiliar to me? Does this thing make me question something I had previously felt certain about? Is there something I can learn from this? How can this make me grow to be a better version of myself?

Just as with everything in the universe there is a sun and a shadow side. We have to remember how these gifts from our human body are meant to help and not hinder our growth and wellbeing. As long as we remember when their use is necessary and when their use is not, both fear and anxiety can serve us well and may not need the elimination or immediate extinction that popular culture demands. 

It is my hope in this post that the next time you feel something resembling something akin to anxiety or fear, you’ll stop to consider instead of race to erase.

Respectfully…

NHS

[Note: this is part of our annual Guest Writer Series. Meet guest writer #3.]

I’d like to think the most uninteresting thing about me is the color of my skin. At first glance, this is somewhat of a jarring statement, but nonetheless the truth. With that being said, I think the heritage I come from, which is reflected by the color of my skin, is one of the most interesting things about me. 

Isn’t that a funny paradox. 

Being an Indian-Dominican girl growing up in a predominantly white, suburban neighborhood is the sort of thing that makes you realize from a young age that you are totally different from everyone around you. Not only do you find yourself facing the age old struggle of accepting your individuality, realizing that not all the other kids think your hobbies and passions are the coolest things in the world (in my case, musical theatre and writing), but you also are faced with the realities that come with the stereotypes people place on you because of the pigment of your skin. Understanding yourself at 10 years old is already not an easy thing, but when everyone is expecting you to grow up to be Dr. Singh and all you want to do is direct Broadway shows, it doesn’t make matters much clearer. And maybe you’re not even expected to accomplish anything that grand at all, because your parents were not raised in this country and didn’t attend school here either, so what is to become of you?

As you get older and reach the age of college applications, which you do in fact plan to attend, there is a new problem to be faced: now everyone expects that you’re going to get into any college of your choosing because of the color of your skin. 

Solely because of that. 

You seriously would not believe the amount of times I got told I was only offered an interview from Columbia University because they are looking to “increase their diversity quota.” While in the end I may not have been accepted, I can assure you the reason for me being offered an interview was not because of any amount of melanin my skin may have. In high school, I made sure to be involved in a number of extra curricular activities and worked hard to obtain leadership positions within them. That is what drew an admissions officer to want to speak to me. I committed a lot of service within my community and had impressive letters of recommendations from more than a few of my teachers that I formed genuine connections with. Those are the qualities that got me an acceptance into my university. Now, this is not to brag, while I am extremely proud of all that I have accomplished. This is all to say that I believe the qualities I’ve listed about myself are far more interesting than my ability to “increase a diversity quota.” 

At the time, I used to think the whole “diversity quota” thing was an annoying joke adults would make when the topic of college applications came up at social gatherings. I would just politely laugh and brush it off. Now, I realize that they were actually right, but not in the way they thought they were. My ethnicity is not the sole reason I was accepted into college or have acquired any sort of opportunity for that matter. It is, however, extremely important that I am a woman of color in these settings. It is important because my lived experience as a woman of color and a first generation student contributes a necessary perspective to any institution or job or anything I may find myself part of. 

I am currently completing an internship on an editorial team for a book that is being written by a Broadway director and artistic director at Columbia (how full circle, right?). Another opportunity that provides an opportunity for the adults aforementioned to reduce my qualifications to my skin tone. I have never been more confident in the fact that I received a position solely based on my own merit, especially seeing as I provided no mention or insight as to my race or ethnicity before being chosen as a finalist for the internship. The comments unfortunately get to your head, especially at my young age, and sometimes you truly begin to believe that maybe the only interesting thing about you is that you contribute physical diversity. 

Being selected for this internship was the first time in my life I felt completely confident in my own talent and qualifications. 

I believe that it is so important that women of color understand how vital it is to believe in their own merit. Because it is true what they say, that institutions have diversity quotas to fulfill, but that is not the end all be all of a person’s qualifications. And when given the opportunity, it is important that as a woman of color I infuse my ideas and perspectives into my work, because they are interesting and deserve to be heard, which has nothing to do with my skin tone. It is because as someone who identifies with a foreign culture, I have so much to offer along with those around me. 

Because while my cultural background is quite intriguing, the pigment of my skin is not at all. 

Respectfully…

PS

[Note: this is part of our annual Guest Writer Series. Meet guest writer #2.]

There were two 18^th century revolutions that despite being close in time, were very different in the spirits they embodied.

In July 1776 in Philadelphia, the Second Continental Congress declared America liberated from the rule of King George III and Great Britain. The delegates adopted the Declaration of Independence which claimed the self-evident right of all people to live their lives and pursue happiness in any way they saw fit. After winning the revolutionary war in 1783, Americans were free to go about their business without being told what to do. This live-and-let-live attitude was built into the DNA of the fledgling country.

In July 1789 in Paris, French citizens stormed the Bastille in opposition to the rule of King Louis XVI due to frustration over economic and social inequality. The monarchy eventually fell and was succeeded by the violent Reign of Terror. The king was executed in 1793 via guillotine along with tens of thousands of others not supportive of the revolution. More bloodshed followed, as warring factions continued to fight for power. Instead of people free from being told what to do, the result was a struggle for who got to do the telling.

So here we are in July 2023. Does America today exude the spirit of the American Revolution or that of the French Revolution? In other words, are we Philadelphia or Paris?

The answer is obvious, is it not? We may not be in a revolution, but we certainly are in the midst of a culture war and neither side is simply seeking to live their own lives as they see fit.  One side of the political spectrum has embraced Marxist critical theory which invalidates opposing viewpoints, and on the other side the leading candidate for the presidential nomination has told his supporters that “I am your retribution.”

It’s fine to hold beliefs on social issues, even passionately so. What runs contrary to America’s founding is the desire to impose your beliefs on others who disagree with you.

It doesn’t seem that long ago when the mantra was it’s nobody’s business what goes on inside the privacy of your own bedroom. What the heck happened? Why is all the sex and gender stuff front and center? The push from many on the left has gone from wanting tolerance to wanting to be validated. The thing is, implying that people who disagree with you are bigots isn’t going to win many converts. And taking it a step further, efforts to shape kids’ sexual attitudes in schools, especially without parents’ knowledge or consent, will only invite a massive and vehement pushback.

Those on the right have witnessed the shift in the culture and the frequent “cancelling” of those expressing conservative opinions. Somewhere along the way, their tactics shifted from playing defense to going on offense. To take a recent example, some states have tried to make drag shows illegal anywhere children might be present. Such legislation puts the lie to the claim that lawmakers are even being tolerant. You can’t say on one hand Christian bakers shouldn’t be forced to bake a cake for a gay wedding and then on the other hand prevent people from engaging in free expression.

We cherish our rights to freedom of speech, religion, and conscience. It’s a given that we are not going to speak, believe, and think the same. Therefore, in order for any of us to have these rights, we all have to have these rights. We must seek to resolve our differences with pluralistic approaches where we can live and let live.

Of course, not all political issues allow for solutions where each of us can do our own thing. In those situations where the choice is between X and Y, we can still engage in debate with civility and respect. As the saying goes, you have two ears and only one mouth for a reason. Try listening to understand where the other person is coming from. Chances are you will learn something and just might change your mind.

Every four years we are told, “This is the most important election of our lifetimes!” To the extent that sentiment is true, it’s only because we perceive that the party in charge will get to tell the rest of us how to live our lives. If we returned to a live-and-let-live attitude about our public affairs, we could focus on electing the most qualified candidates instead of only considering those who share our perspective on cultural issues.

Can we please return to Philadelphia?

Respectfully…

PJM