Writing and procrastination might stereotypically go hand-in-hand, but no one has ever written a book by procrastinating. The only way to write a book is to write. It’s a crazy concept—I know. But if F. Scott Fitzgerald procrastinated on The Great Gatsby, none of us would even know such a book existed.
So, how do we reverse procrastination, start putting words on paper, and cross the finish line? Let’s break it down.
Become a reader. The best writers are the best readers. Read anything and everything you can get your hands on—especially bestsellers in your genre. Do you plan on writing a self-help book, but haven’t read one in a while? It’s kind of hard to reach your target audience when you don’t know what they’re into. Reading isn’t about copying; it’s about learning and discovery.
Observe your world. Technology has made it so easy to ignore the world around us. We can so easily turn off real life and tune into our social media feeds or emails, but by doing that, we lose the ability to observe. Some of my best ideas and free-writes come from quiet moments in which I’m watching the world move around me. Sit on a park bench on a beautiful afternoon. What do you see? Write it down.
Set goals.Goal-setting is so important for life in general, but it’s important for writing too. Are you thinking about writing a book? In order to achieve big goals, we need smaller goals to get us there. The standard book length for non-fiction books range from 60,000 to 75,000 words. But look at it this way: 75,000 words over the course of two months is a mere 1,250 words a day. Sound a bit easier to achieve? That’s because it is easier.
Protect your time.Once you figure out your big goal, it’s time to start protecting your time. How do you protect your time? First off, you have to make time. Writing has to become part of your life, not something you do when you’re bored. Just as you build your work schedule into your day, you must build writing into your day or week. Decide how many times a week you’re going to write. Then, decide how many hours on each of those days you’re going to write. Put these blocks of time on your calendar.
Find your writing space. This one may take some trial and error, but it’s important to find a writing space that works. Maybe it’s a local coffee shop. Maybe it’s the dining room table or a home office. Wherever your writing space may be, it should be comfortable temperature, well-lit, and the right noise level.
Set and keep boundaries. Just like protecting time is important, it’s also important that family members and friends respect the boundaries of your writing time as well. If you have a block of time for writing on Tuesdays for two hours before bed, it’s important that no one interrupt that time: no dishes, no laundry, no “can you come here real quick.” Shutting off the world for a bit is important for efficient writing.
Take care of yourself. Hydrate, get enough sleep, squeeze in a workout, use prayer or whatever helps you feel calm, clutter-free, energized and focused. When you’re at your best physically, there’s fewer obstacles to your creativity.
Get online. Use a website like Scrivener or Reedsy to house your writing. This also gives you a place for collaboration if you want to ask others to help you write, edit, or get feedback on your work.
Keep readers in mind. Some say to write for yourself; others say to write with your readers in mind. The writing process should actually be a little of both. You have to write something you’re going to enjoy writing. Otherwise, you’ll never finish. You also have to keep your readers in mind. Invest time in your writing if you want readers to invest their time in reading your work.
Build a team. This one especially applies to those who want to publish a book: I have yet to meet a writer who can also perfectly edit their own book, design their cover, typeset their entire book, and create a marketing plan. It’s so important to build a team of experts in each field, and it’s equally important to let them do the work they know how to do best. As a writer, your job is to write, revise, and work with an editor on revisions. It’s a partnership that takes both parties to create a positive experience. Build a great team and enjoy the experience, instead of feeling weighed down by stress.
Lil Wayne Doesn’t Want to Talk About Colin Kaepernick: ‘I’ve Never Dealt With Racism’ (Video)
Lil Wayne doesn’t think he’s fit to address Colin Kaepernick’s national anthem protest because the rapper claims he has never had to deal with racial prejudice.
“They wouldn’t want my answer to represent it because god knows I have been nothing but blessed … I’ve never — and never is a strong word — I’ve never dealt with racism and I’m glad I didn’t have to,” Lil Wayne told Skip Bayless during Fox Sports One’s “Undisputed.” “I thought [racism] was over. I still believe it’s over, but obviously it isn’t.”
Bayless went on to ask about a previous encounter between the two when the rapper told him the vast majority of the audience at many of his concerts is white.
“I don’t want to be bashed, because I don’t want to sound like I’m on the wrong, if there is a side, but I thought that was clearly a message that there was no such thing as racism,” Wayne replied. “That’s what I thought that was. That was a perfect example.”
Fellow co-host Shannon Sharpe commended Wayne for his words, saying that it is better for someone to be honest about their experiences with racism rather than make something up for the sake of getting attention.
San Francisco 49ers quarterback Kaepernick has refused to stand for the national anthem before NFL games out of refusal to “show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people.”
It’s a question Coke and Pepsi drinkers have been asking for decades. In the prolonged marketing battle that began in the '70s and saw the beloved major brands duke it out via celebrity endorsements, rewards promotions (Pepsi Stuff, anyone?), an onslaught of advertisements, and even a race into space, RC Cola remained on the sidelines, a quiet blue and red can that seemed content to simply be.
Fact is, RC has had loyal fans throughout its more than 100-year history. Its roots go deep in the south, where drinking one with a Moon Pie is a blue-collar tradition that’s still popular today. There’s even a song that celebrates the pairing. RC also has a presence internationally, in countries such as Estonia, Thailand, and Iceland. It’s currently one of the top-selling soda brands in the Philippines.
But the number of RC drinkers could have been much, much higher. In an alternate—and completely plausible—universe, it would have given Coke and Pepsi a run for their money. At one point, it did. Believe it or not, Royal Crown Cola used to be one of the most innovative companies in the beverage industry. It came out with the first canned soda, the first caffeine-free soda, and the first 16-ounce soda. It was the first to take diet cola mainstream, and the first to stage nationwide taste tests.
Given its long and pioneering history, RC deserved to be more than the middling soda brand it is today. In an industry that lives and dies by marketing, RC didn’t do nearly enough. But its failure wasn’t just due to lack of initiative. It was also a case of supremely bad luck, bad judgment, and a fateful ingredient known as cyclamate.
Like its main rival, Coca-Cola, RC Cola also started in Georgia, in the town of Columbus. It was a disagreement with Coca-Cola, in fact, that led a man named Claud Hatcher to develop what would become the Royal Crown Cola Company. Hatcher was a pharmacist and a grocery wholesaler who, along with his father, ran the Hatcher Grocery Company. In the early 1900s, the Hatchers sold a lot of Coca-Cola to their customers—so much, that Claud felt he was entitled to a discount or some sort of commission acknowledging his contribution to the company. The local Coke representative, however, denied the request, knowing full well Coke was the most popular soda in the country and not one to be pushed around by its customers. Frustrated, Hatcher told the representative he’d purchased his last case of Coca-Cola, and vowed to develop his own brand.
After months spent tinkering in the basement of Hatcher Grocery, Claud came up with Royal Crown Ginger Ale, an effervescent alternative to Coke’s caramel-colored (and formerly cocaine-laced) bestseller. The drink, with its regal-sounding name, proved quite popular, and soon Hatcher and his father ditched the grocery gig to become full-time soda bottlers. Claud’s next development was Chero-Cola, a cherry-flavored cola that would grow the company into a legitimate soda maker and, inevitably, put him in direct competition with the brand he used to sell.
In the early 1900s, like today, Coca-Cola was far and away the most profitable soda company in the United States. And with that success came numerous imitators eager to cash in on the market it had created. According to Tristan Donovan, author of Fizz: How Soda Shook Up the World, these included knockoffs like Candy-Cola, Kos-Kola, and Coke-Ola. There was even a cola called Klu Ko Kolo, made to attract those suddenly interested in the Ku Klux Klan after the group was featured in D.W. Griffith’s 1915 movie The Birth of a Nation. Coke was hardly amused. To maintain its dominance in the industry, the company began suing these imitators for trademark infringement. Over the next three decades, Coca-Cola sued more than 500 copycat manufacturers, according to Donovan, and won more often than not.
Caught in the crosshairs were Claud Hatcher and Chero-Cola, which Coke argued could not use the term “cola” in its name. Hatcher fought the lawsuit, and continued to fight it for several years while simultaneously building Chero-Cola’s distribution to more than 700 franchise bottlers. His soda was no mere imitator, Hatcher would claim time and again, and he would not be bullied out of business.
In 1923, a judge ruled in Coca-Cola’s favor, saying that Chero-Cola was in violation of Coke’s trademark. That meant Hatcher had to drop “cola” from his company’s name, thereby costing him valuable brand recognition. A drink called “Chero” just didn’t sound the same, and sure enough, Chero sales slipped. After a few years Hatcher changed the company’s name to that of his most popular fruit drink, Nehi (pronounced “knee-high”).
The Great Depression put a dent in Nehi’s sales, just as it did for other soda companies. To make matters worse, Claud Hatcher died in 1933, leaving Nehi in the hands of its sales director, H.R. Mott. What looked to be a disaster, though, turned out to be just the opportunity the company needed. Mott was a shrewd businessman. Immediately after taking over, he jettisoned poor-performing drinks and focused the company’s efforts on top sellers. He also re-introduced Chero-Cola without the cherry flavoring, and under a new name—one that, after two turbulent decades, harkened back to the company’s beginnings. In 1934, Nehi came out with Royal Crown, and over the next several years its sales increased tenfold.
The middle of the 20th century brought one win after another for Nehi. In 1944, the courts ruled that Coke did not, in fact, own the word “cola,” thus allowing Royal Crown to become Royal Crown Cola, or RC Cola. With nationwide distribution and sales on the up and up, Nehi shoveled money into print and television ads featuring stars like Bing Crosby, Joan Crawford, Shirley Temple, and Lucille Ball. “You Bet RC Tastes Best!” magazine ads crowed. And this wasn’t just an empty boast: Nehi had staged public taste tests across the country pitting RC against competitors Coke and Pepsi, and declared itself the winner. It was the first time a beverage company had ever done such a promotion. Whether or not the tests were rigged in some way is up for debate; what mattered was that people believed them.
Slowly, steadily, RC muscled its way into soda fountains and onto grocery store shelves. To stay top-of-mind with consumers, it continued to innovate. In 1954, it became the first company to nationally distribute soda in aluminum cans. Shortly after, it began selling soda in 16-ounce bottles as an alternative size for thirsty fans. In 1959, Nehi changed its name to match its bestselling product, becoming the Royal Crown Cola Company.
But while Royal Crown had made significant progress, it would continue to trail Coke and Pepsi so long as it continued to sell a similar product. What it needed was something new. What it needed was a game changer.
In 1952, the founder of a sanitarium in Williamsburg, Brooklyn named Hyman Kirsch invented a sugar-free soda called No-Cal. Available in ginger ale and black cherry, No-Cal was made specifically for patients in Kirsch's sanitarium who were either diabetic or suffering from heart ailments. Kirsch quickly discovered that his drink had a much wider appeal, and along with his son began making other flavors, like chocolate, root beer, and cherry. The two sold No-Cal to local stores and quickly built up a distribution network that extended throughout New York and the northeast. Since Kirsch wasn’t a businessman, however, he struggled to expand beyond the regional market. He also continued marketing No-Cal mainly toward diabetic customers, further limiting his reach.
Kirsch’s success caught the eye of the Royal Crown Cola Company. In the mid '50s, it began secretly developing its own diet soft drink—one that would appeal not just to diabetics, but to an entire nation of increasingly calorie-conscious consumers. While other food and beverage companies continued to push everything sweet, salty, and delicious, RC recognized a budding demand for healthier choices.
After a few years RC came out with Diet Rite, a drink that the company believed would be the breakthrough it so desperately needed. Test markets had emphatically confirmed its appeal. One, in South Carolina, saw supermarket managers clamoring for the product. “In Greenville, S.C., where we had been running a poor third behind Coke and Pepsi, we actually had grocery store managers getting into their cars and chasing down RC trucks to get Diet Rite on their shelves,” one RC rep noted.
What could cause such a reaction? It wasn’t just that Diet Rite was nearly calorie-free—it’s that it was nearly calorie-free and tasted strikingly similar to the real thing. The key ingredient—the one Kirsch had first used in No-Cal—was an alternative sweetener called cyclamate that was 30 times sweeter than sugar. First developed by a student at the University of Illinois in 1937, it was initially sold as a tabletop sweetener. In 1958, the Food and Drug Administration gave full approval, paving the way for its use as a mass-market ingredient. The timing couldn’t have been better for Royal Crown.
In a particularly shrewd bit of marketing, the company made sure to sell Diet Rite just like real cola: In the same slender bottles for a nickel each, or as a six pack. It also made sure to put the word “cola” on its labels. Consumers wanted something different, RC executives figured, but not too different.
When Diet Rite hit shelves in 1962, it was a smashing success. Within a year and a half of its release, it had rocketed up to number four on the sales chart, behind Coke, Pepsi, and regular RC Cola. America, it turned out, was ready for what had for years seemed oxymoronic: a healthy soda. The rest of the industry was in something close to a state of shock. “So stunning was Diet-Rite Cola’s impact on the soft drink market in the early 1960s,” reported Georgia Trend, “that its acceptance could be compared to the beginnings of mighty Coca-Cola itself some 75 years earlier.”
Coke and Pepsi were caught completely off guard. Not only had they not anticipated the mainstream appeal of diet soda, they didn’t even have anything in the pipeline. Within a year, Coke would scramble to release TaB, which it also sweetened with cyclamate. Pepsi responded with Patio Cola, a diet soda aimed at women that also contained cyclamate, and which it would soon rebrand as Diet Pepsi. There were, predictably, numerous other fast followers to the market, including long-forgotten brands like LoLo, Coolo-Coolo, and Bubble-Up. In 1965, Coke came out with a citrus-flavored diet soda called Fresca.
None of them, however, could catch Diet Rite, which continued to build market share for Royal Crown Cola.
“RC had the dominant diet cola brand, and that was a very big deal,” Tristan Donovan tells mental_floss. “For RC, there was this sense of, ‘finally, we’ve broken through.’”
By the late '60s, Royal Crown owned 10 percent of the soda market. That was far from dominating, but it was still a very respectable figure, and the company was poised for further growth. By all accounts, the company that started in the basement of a small town grocery store was positioned to become a major player in the soda industry.
The rise of diet soda may have delighted soft drink manufacturers and American consumers, but it downright frightened the sugar industry. After decades of pumping its signature product into sodas, here was a comparable beverage that did away with sugar entirely. What if diet sodas continued to grow? What if all sodas became diet sodas? Ever resourceful, the industry searched for legal channels to undermine diet drinks.
In the mid-'60s, it began: the slow trickle of studies suggesting that cyclamate was hazardous. In 1964, a study linked cyclamate to cancer in animals, and raised the possibility that it could have adverse effects on humans. But the authors stopped short of linking the sweetener to specific conditions like cancer or birth defects. Royal Crown president W.H. Glenn dismissed the study as “nothing derogatory,” and other manufacturers echoed that sentiment. As the decade wore on, however, studies made more specific claims. In 1969, the decisive blow against cyclamate came in the form of two studies. One claimed that chicken eggs injected with cyclamate resulted in deformed chicks, while another found that rats given doses of cyclamate showed an increased risk of developing bladder tumors. The studies’ findings, splashed across newspapers and television screens nationwide, implicated cyclamate as a very dangerous ingredient.
“Everyone began saying, ‘Oh my god, diet soda’s going to give you cancer!’” Donovan says. “The market collapsed almost instantly.”
The FDA, meanwhile, had no choice but to remove its "generally recognized as safe" (GRAS) classification for cyclamate. The diet soda industry went into a tailspin, plummeting from 20 percent of the market to less than 3 percent. Manufacturers frantically reformulated their drinks and tried to reassure consumers, all to no avail. Overnight, the diet soda craze had come to a standstill.
The downturn hit Royal Crown particularly hard. Diet Rite had been its star performer, the one advantage it had over Coke and Pepsi. Without it, all the company had was the nation’s third favorite cola, which on its own wasn’t going to gain any ground on its rivals. After a few weeks, the company re-released Diet Rite, this time sweetened with saccharine. But the taste—saccharine has a notoriously metallic tinge to it—wasn’t the same, and many people weren’t ready to come back to diet drinks anyway. Eventually, Coke and Pepsi re-entered the market with better formulas and marketing, and once again, Royal Crown Cola had merely served as the guinea pig for its competitors.
According to Donovan, the cyclamate backlash was the direct result of the sugar industry’s meddling. That lobby, he said, provided $600,000 in funding for the studies that doomed cyclamate, both of which are now seen as controversial because they involved exposing animals to much higher levels of the ingredient than any Diet Rite or TaB drinker could ever possibly imbibe. To get the same amount of cyclamate as the rats in one of the studies, for instance, you’d have to drink more than 500 diet drinks a day. Today, cyclamate is widely used as a sweetener in countries like Australia, South Africa, and throughout the European Union. Scientists around the world say it's safe for consumption, yet the results of the 1969 studies still linger. The United States, Japan, and 45 other countries have upheld their ban on the additive.
How could such dubious results be admissible? Donovan pointed to a legal loophole called the Delaney Clause, an amendment to the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act of 1938 established by a senator named James Delaney, who investigated insecticides and carcinogens in the food industry in the late '50s. The clause required the FDA to ban any additive found to “induce cancer in man, or, after tests, found to induce cancer in animals.” As well-meaning as the Delaney Clause was, it didn’t outline restrictions on the amount of a certain ingredient that could be tested. No matter if it was a granule or a gallon, if it proved hazardous to human or animal health, the ingredient had to be pulled.
“The Delaney Clause was a very well-intentioned but poorly thought-out law,” Donovan says.
As unfortunate as Royal Crown’s luck was, its response in the years that followed didn’t help matters. Vowing to never again put so many resources behind a single product, the company began to diversify. It bought two fruit juice manufacturers, Texsun and Adams Packing. Then it took the truly bizarre step of purchasing seven home furnishing companies. What, exactly, the soda maker saw in that industry is unclear, but it must have been pretty compelling: By the mid-'70s, nearly a quarter of Royal Crown Cola’s business was tied up in making mirrors, picture frames, floor tiles, and cabinets.
The downhill slide accelerated. In 1976, Royal Crown bought the fast-food chain Arby’s. That acquisition, at least, made some sense, as it would give the company an outlet for its fountain sodas. But Royal Crown mismanaged the chain, introducing burgers and other conventional fast-food fare to a company that had made its name with roast beef sandwiches. In 1984, Victor Posner, a billionaire businessman who specialized in corporate takeovers, acquired Royal Crown, which by this time had dropped the “cola” in its name to become Royal Crown Companies. In the nine years Posner owned Royal Crown, he slashed the company’s marketing budget and battled executives over the company’s direction. In 1987, the government convicted him on tax evasion charges, and soon after investigated him for insider trading.
While Royal Crown was busy cutting costs and making lampshades, Coca-Cola and Pepsi were dumping millions into an unprecedented marketing arms race. Beginning in the mid-'70s, the two began one-upping each other with taste tests, rewards programs, TV ads, new products, and numerous other promotions. Pepsi unveiled Pepsi Stuff; Coke countered with Coke Rewards. Coke put Bill Cosby in its ads; Pepsi answered with the King of Pop. In 1985, after it found out that Coke was putting a specially engineered Coke can aboard the Challenger space shuttle, Pepsi quickly rigged up its own can and pressured NASA into letting it onboard. Neither can worked the way it was supposed to, and the astronauts complained about the gimmick. But no matter: The two companies had been to outer space.
From the consumer perspective, the cola wars looked to be two giants bent on destroying each other. The reality, though, was that both of them benefited from the exposure.
“The cola wars took sales away from any brands that weren’t Coca-Cola and Pepsi,” Donovan says. “At this point, nobody is even thinking about RC because they’re not in this race.”
With its limited ad budget, RC came out with some standard-issue TV spots showing people chugging from a bottle before pausing to smile at the camera. There were even some mildly amusing ads, including one in which prisoners “sentenced to a life of Coke or Pepsi” snuck cans and bottles of RC into their cells.
To most people, though, the more than 100-year-old brand was largely invisible.
An Onion headline from 1997 seemed to sum things up: "RC Cola Celebrates 10th Purchase." Through the '80s and into the '90s, Royal Crown continued to lose market share while its two main competitors gobbled it up. The company had a loyal following and national distribution, but in the eyes of a Coke-and-Pepsi nation, it was the loser, the perennial bronze medalist.
Things only got worse for RC. As the two cola giants continued to grow, they inked deals with retailers that guaranteed them ample shelf space. They offered special discounts to supermarkets and began paying slotting fees, a practice that still exists today. (If you’ve ever wondered why Coke and Pepsi dominate the soda aisle, it’s because they’re oftentimes paying for that real estate.)
"[Coke and Pepsi] started carving up the retail market and shutting RC out in the process," Donovan explains. "So not only was RC losing out on advertising, it was losing out on stores as well."
RC tried to wedge its way back into the fight. After the company got out from under Posner’s ownership, it gained a solid advertising and development budget. Its first attempt to jump-start sales came in 1995 with RC Draft, a so-called “premium” soda made with cane sugar. Unfortunately for RC, people didn’t see what was so “premium” about the drink, and within a year it was pulled from shelves. In 2000, Cadbury-Schweppes bought RC, then moved it over to its Dr. Pepper Snapple Group. In the years that followed, RC came out with a few souped-up colas—RC Edge and RC Kick—along with low-calorie options RC Ten and a re-branded Diet RC. None of the new products managed to move the dial, and today no RC product is anywhere near the best-seller charts.
So who drinks RC Cola these days? In addition to its southern fans, the brand has a presence in Chicago, where it’s served at Bears games and at pizzerias throughout the city, which often give out a free liter with orders. According to Encyclopizzeria, that arrangement began back in the '60s, when a creative local bottler got in good with local pie shops, figuring the pairing of RC and deep dish pizza would generate good vibes with customers. It did, and today many a Chicagoan has a soft spot for the underdog cola.
Aside from the Windy City, though, RC’s appeal seems tied to small town America and times gone by. “The company never shook its strictly southern, small-town image,” states the New Georgia Encyclopedia, which chronicles the state’s history. For fans of RC, that image as the overlooked, underappreciated casualty of the cola wars is just what they love about it. It’s the scrappy bargain brand—the un-hyped, unadorned alternative for true cola lovers.
Donovan, for one, believes RC’s narrative would have been much different had the cyclamate ban not happened. Diet Rite’s continued success could have given Royal Crown the confidence—not to mention the funds—needed to market more aggressively and continue innovating. Its name recognition could have grown, and its clout with restaurants and retailers along with it. Could it have joined Coke and Pepsi in the stratosphere of soda sales, or even have overtaken them?
"RC probably wouldn’t have had the resources of Coke or Pepsi," Donovan surmises, "but they could have held their own a lot better."
These days, being a top soda company isn’t something worth bragging about. The entire soft drink industry is declining, and has been for more than a decade as consumers opt for healthier choices. Over the past 20 years, sales of full-calorie soft drinks have fallen by more than 25 percent. Instead of one-upping each other, Coke and Pepsi are scrambling to stay relevant with a nation that’s rejecting their signature beverages. They’re expanding into juices and snacks, developing new zero-calorie soft drinks and dumping millions of dollars into advertising tying their brands to happiness, nostalgia, and other emotions that might transcend any worries about personal health.
Drinking less soda is surely a good thing. But for many people, there will always be something wonderful about a full-calorie, ice-cold cola. Whether it’s an everyday thing or an every-so-often treat, odds are most people will reach for a Coke or Pepsi. But if history had gone just a bit differently, they could be just as easily reaching for an RC Cola.
"Phyllis was a strong, proud, and fierce warrior. That’s what she was. She was a warrior. And she was a warrior for the country, which she loved so much… To borrow a phrase from a great poet, Phyllis was that strength which in all days moved heaven and earth.”
Donald Trump at Phyllis Schlafly’s Funeral: A Movement Has Lost Its Hero, Our Country Has Lost a Warrior
ST. LOUIS, Missouri — Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump paid his respects on Saturday at the funeral of conservative icon Phyllis Schlafly, 92, who passed away this week.
“We are here today to honor the life and legacy of a truly great American patriot,” Trump told attendees of Schlafly’s funeral mass on Saturday afternoon. “A movement has lost its hero.”
SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER
Prior to delivering his remarks, Trump met privately with the Archbishop in the adjoining chapel where Schlafly was married in 1949. He then met with the Schlafly family to express his condolences.
Trump was joined by his wife Melania, campaign manager Kellyanne Conway,deputy campaign manager David Bossie, and campaign CEO Stephen K. Bannon.
Trump was introduced by Schlafly’s son, Andy Schlafly, who told attendees that his mother is “grinning from ear-to-ear from heaven” at the “honor” of having Donald Trump speak at her funeral.
“My mother enjoyed immensely watching his rise to the top, to the pinnacle [of the Republican presidential primary],” Schlafly’s son said. “She saw in him the embodiment of her classic work that she wrote in 1964, A Choice Not An Echo. As she was telling me last year, this person [i.e. Trump] is the choice, not an echo.
“My mother is thrilled and delighted that this distinguished guest would grace her by speaking at her funeral.” Schlafly added. “She is grinning from ear-to-ear with what we are about to see.”
Schlafly’s son noted that when the campaign reached out to his family to discuss attending her funeral, “the campaign was very careful. They said they wanted to make sure they weren’t disruptive. And I thought to myself politics were never disruptive to Phyllis Schlafly [Schlafly’s son and the crowd laugh]… Thank you so much, Mr. Trump, for taking the time to come and speak at our mother’s funeral.”
Trump was welcomed by the mass attendees with a standing ovation.
The Republican nominee began by offering his “deepest and heartfelt condolences to her six wonderful children whom she loved so much… her sixteen grandchildren, and her three great grandchildren.”
“You have lost a mother, an amazing woman. And our county has lost a true patriot,” Trump said. “Phyllis was a strong, proud, and fierce warrior. That’s what she was. She was a warrior. And she was a warrior for the country, which she loved so much… To borrow a phrase from a great poet, Phyllis was that strength which in all days moved heaven and earth.”
“This incredible woman has been active in American politics for one quarter of American history– one quarter of American history and at the top,” Trump added. “She was the ultimate happy warrior. Always smiling. But, boy, could she be tough [chuckles from the audience]. We all know that. And in all of her battles, she never strayed from one guiding principle: she was for America, and it was always, always America first. People have forgotten that nowadays. For Phyllis, it was America first.”
“Even at the age of 92, this beloved woman had more strength, and fire, and heart, than 50 strong politicians all put together,” Trump said, adding:
She never wavered, never apologized, and never backed down in taking on the kingmakers. She never stopped fighting for the fundamental idea that the American people ought to have their needs come before anything or anyone else. She loved our country, she loved her family and she loved her God. Her legacy will live on every time some underdog, outmatched and outgunned, defies the odds, and delivers a win for the people. America has always been about the underdog, and always been about defying the odds. The idea that so-called “little people” or the “little-person” that she loved so much could beat the system– often times the rigged system… that the American grassroots is more powerful than all the world’s special interests put together– that’s the way Phyllis felt. She’s always felt that way. That’s the romance of America. That’s the story of the mother and the patriot that we honor here today.
Trump concluded by telling attendees that “Phyllis, who is rejoined with her late husband Fred, is looking down on us right now and I’m sure she’s telling us to keep up the fight, no doubt. Phyllis we love you, we miss you and we will never ever let you down. God bless you, Phyllis. God bless her family. and God bless everyone. Thank you very much.”
When Trump had finished his remarks, attendees, once again, rose to give him — and her — a standing ovation.
The funeral mass concluded with attendees being led in singing “America the Beautiful.”
Ed Martin, President of Schlafly’s Eagle Forum, told Breitbart that he was honored to have the opportunity to “thank” Trump for helping to uphold Schlafly’s legacy and for his role in crafting a “great” Republican Party platform.
“In March when Phyllis and Mr. Trump met before she endorsed him, Phyllis handed him her copy of the 2012 Republican platform and asked him to help her keep it strong. Today, I handed him Phyllis’ copy of the 2016 platform and said ‘Thank you’ because it is a great platform that Mr. Trump and his staff at Cleveland made even stronger.”
Martin also gave Trump a copy of Schlafly’s final book, The Conservative Case For Trump. Schlafly died on the eve of the book’s release. Many have observed that helping Trump win the Republican nomination was Schlafly’s last great battle. As Trump said on Friday during his remarks at the Value Voters Summit:
Phyllis endorsed me a long time ago when it wasn’t necessarily something that was so easy to do. And she was incredible. She was so brave… And I will never forget that. [Her endorsement] had a huge impact. She was a great, great powerful woman with a tremendous heart.
Seth Perlman/AP
The funeral mass was held at Cathedral Basilica of St. Louis. Mass attendees included David Limbaugh, Jim Hoft, Michele Bachmann, Morton Blackwell, and Congressman Steve King.
"As astute students begin to recognize the manipulative nature of an "agenda" driven "age of non-reason," more are stepping away from the cattle drive tactics of a progressive movement toward the slaughterhouse of common sense. Wisdom is not borne in the hothouse of ideas but in the quiet reelection of minds and hearts that embrace truth above trend, character above collectivism, and fact above facade." (jgr)
Disheartening’ number attend Bucknell ‘social injustice’ conference; students wonder why
The quantity of students attending Bucknell’s “Conscience, Courage, and Community: Bucknell Responds to Injustice Today” discussion apparently was insufficient enough to discourage quite a few — and led to at least one student proposing making future attendance compulsory.
The discussion, according to The Bucknellian, “was in response to the all-too-frequent acts of violence that have occurred in recent months across the globe, including the June shooting at a gay nightclub in Orlando, the shootings both by and of police officers, the attack in France on Bastille Day, and the Stanford University rape case.”
Writing & Teaching Consultant Peg Cronin, a “queer feminist,” and Harvey Edwards, a 1978 Bucknell grad and professor at Susquehanna University, facilitated the talk. Other topics included the current controversy surrounding Colin Kaepernick, other LGBT issues, and violent crime here and abroad.
It seems the school has held two previous such conferences, and like this recent event, attendance was … “disheartening.”
“These seats won’t fill up … Three years and they still aren’t filled,” [student] Anthony Scrima said. …
Following the three speakers, there was a free writing session and an open microphone for comments and reflections, during which students and faculty called attention to specific problems that occur on the University’s campus. One of the most pertinent questions regarded the large number of students who did not choose to attend the discussion. How could those in attendance reach out to the rest of the University students?
Suggestions included holding small group discussions in the classroom and a general refusal to be privy to non-inclusive, misogynistic, and hateful language.
“We’ve made these conversations optional. The nightclub victims didn’t have an option, the victims of police brutality didn’t have an option. These seats won’t be filled because we make this an option,” Danielle Taylor ’17 said.
Some students pointed to close-mindedness as the root of the problem.
Indeed, Ms. Taylor, making attendance at future discussions mandatory will really solve the problem. It may fill seats, sure, but it isn’t going to make people care about what you (and others) say.
It’s certainly not far fetched to conjecture that it isn’t the close-mindedness of students that inhibits their participation, but the likely direction in which the discussions would venture. As noted, Ms. Cronin is a “queer feminist,” and Professor Edwards once directed a local high school’s “Tolerance Troupe” in which “students travel[ed] to area schools, civic organizations, and conferences and perform[ed] interactive skits that mirror the realities of school environments and life situations.”
It’s probable that Bucknell students are wary of the university “Hey, let’s talk!” mantra which, unfortunately, too often becomes lectures and complaints by those on the political left.
Whether they’re called “Courageous Conversations,” “Difficult Dialogues” or some other semi-inventive equivalent, in reality they’re like this. Or these. After all, just look at what happens on campuses –stuff like this. And this. And this.
Man of God: The king whose humility saved a nation
by Greg Baker
When we think of World War II leaders, we think of men like FDR, Charles de Gaulle, Dwight Eisenhower, and Joseph Stalin. World War II Britain, specifically, brings to mind the strong, bold leadership of Winston Churchill.
Too often overlooked, however, is King George VI, Britain’s head of state. As the symbol of the nation, the head of state is a very different responsibility than the chief executive. Heads of state set the standard on what it means to be a citizen of that nation. They provide an example of who we should be, rather than who we are. The culture of a nation rises and falls with the standards put forward by its head of state.
The British people most certainly rose to the standards of King George VI. In fact, it is hard to see how Britain would have been victorious in World War II without the humble, servant example set by King George VI.
The British people learned what truly mattered in a head of state: that charisma isn’t nearly as valuable as character.
King George VI came into power in an improbable way. He was not the direct heir to the throne of King George V. His older brother, King Edward VIII, was. Yet King Edward VIII did not hold the throne for even a full year before he abdicated it. For Edward wanted to marry an American woman who already had a husband. As king and the head of the Church of England, to marry an already married woman compromised his role. Rather than sacrifice his lustful desires, Edward abdicated the throne and married the woman. His brother, Prince Albert, took the throne in his place and was crowned King George VI.
King George VI did not have a smooth start. His brother was very much beloved by the British people and many wanted his return. George VI also suffered from a severe speech impediment that limited his public communication, a major problem when you serve as the head of state.
Yet the people of Britain drastically changed their feelings toward King George VI after war broke out in Europe and the Nazis threatened to invade Britain. For the British people learned what truly mattered in a head of state: that charisma isn’t nearly as valuable as character.
King George VI was a man that led by his faith in Jesus Christ and Christ’s example of being a humble servant: “In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death – even death on a cross!” (Philippians 2:5-8)
King George VI was keenly aware of who he was and who God is, and that knowledge led him to unprecedented – and absolutely essential – humility. For King George VI was the first British king to visit the United States of America since the War for Independence in 1776. He knew that an alliance with America was important to ensure that freedom would survive the fascist expansion in central Europe. George VI would not let pride get in the way, but rather he and his wife humbly came and visited with U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt at his residence in New York. They shared a humble meal of hot dogs and discussed the dire international situation.
During the bombing of London, King George VI was encouraged to stay in Canada for his own safety. Yet the king refused to leave Buckingham Palace. He did not believe it was right to leave his people. Even though the palace was bombed nine times, the king never left. He knew that if he left, it would send a message that there was no hope, that the war was lost. Rather the king and his wife decided to set an example that declared London was worth fighting for, and he joined his people in the streets, helping them after the bombings. Even when the Allies had major military setbacks in 1942, the king called for multiple national days of prayer.
During this dark, difficult hour, a well known phrase was born, “Keep Calm and Carry On.” The phrase encapsulated the spirit of the British king, and the people followed. In Britain’s darkest hour, the people joined their king in keeping calm and carrying on.
The recently popularized signs carrying the “Keep Calm and Carry On” slogan were originally printed with the purpose of being posted if the Nazis did in fact invade Britain. King George VI wanted it to be his last message to the people, a message that in essence said, “In this dark hour, do not conform to the ways of the darkness. Rather persevere. Persevere in the most difficult of times. My people, keep calm and carry on.”
Thankfully those signs never had to be used. One of the primary reasons was the British people never gave up. Unlike some of their European counterparts, the British were willing to sacrifice anything, even their lives. King George VI led by example, risking his own life every day as he stayed with this people.
Leadership is not found in fame, power, glory, charisma, glamor, or wealth. Rather a good leader is a person of high character.
Furthermore, King George VI wanted to make sure he communicated that he valued the service and sacrifice of the men a and women in uniform. He frequently visited the troops, even in some hostile areas, to show his appreciation. He founded a new award called the George Cross to clearly communicate how much in debt the nation was to the men and women’s bravery during the war.
But perhaps the greatest thing the king did for the British people was show that he valued them. Motivated by his Savior, the king did not use his authority to lord over his people. Rather the king was humble and he served, his example sparking a spirit of service throughout the British Empire. This spirit made it possible to survive one of the darkest hours the nation ever encountered. The people kept strong and followed their head of state, their king.
When remembering King George VI, we must remember that leadership is not found in fame, power, glory, charisma, glamor, or wealth. Rather a good leader is a person of high character. King George VI is an excellent example of how God often uses ordinary people to do extraordinary things. Great Britain owes much of their nation’s survival to this humble, ordinary servant of the Lord’s. King George VI showed what it truly means to be a head of state, and the example he gave should be the expectation all nations have for their heads of state. After all, it is God’s expectation.
All politics is local, and that goes double for school politics. But just what does “local” mean?
Georgians are going to have an argument about that word between now and the November referendum on the proposed Opportunity School District. A great logomachy over localism, if you like.
The OSD, if approved, would allow the state to take control of public schools with failing grades for at least three straight years. The state could force certain changes at such a school, run the school itself, convert it to a charter school, or even shut it down.
In doing so, the state would have the authority to redirect the school’s portion of locally raised taxes. And that has opponents screaming about “local control” being undermined.
First, it’s worth noting that “local control” is one of the more malleable political-cudgels-posing-as-principle you’ll find in state politics. Republicans use it to bash Democratic proposals, and vice versa.
But our debate this fall isn’t really about whether to honor local control. It’s about exactly how local the control should be.
Opponents of the OSD argue the local school board is where the authority properly lies. They have the advantage of tradition on their side: That’s the way it’s always been.
But the way it’s always been has never produced the results we’ve always needed. Local school board elections — in communities where parents of current students are typically outnumbered by other voters — have not provided the accountability needed to end chronic failure in far too many places, both urban and rural.
The OSD would not shift the local board’s power to the state so much as allow the state to drill below the local board’s level and insert that power in the schoolhouse itself.
While the OSD’s superintendent would have four options for dealing with schools selected for takeover, I think most close observers agree the most common option would be converting them to state charter schools.
No school has more local control than a charter school. It has its own governing board, rather than the board for the whole district. And that board has real power: over finances, hiring and firing, curriculum, and so on. That’s much more power at a lower level than the vast majority of public schools have. At OSD schools that don’t become charters, there will still be advisory school councils.
In fact, the bill passed to direct implementation of the OSD, should voters approve the measure, has at least a dozen references to control being exercised well below the state level.
The OSD’s superintendent must hold a public hearing before selecting a school for the new district; must consult the local school board, principal and superintendent before transferring it to the new district; and must seek still more local input before deciding which of the four options to take with the school. Particularly in the case of converted charter schools, the OSD’s superintendent will yield much of the school’s operations to school leaders. Then, when it’s time for a school to leave the new district (within 10 years), the OSD’s superintendent must work with the local community again about how to make that transition.
Taken together, that’s a more meaningful measure of control at an even more local level than most schools, parents and students enjoy today.
Writing and procrastination might stereotypically go hand-in-hand, but no one has ever written a book by procrastinating. The only way to write a book is to write. It’s a crazy concept—I know. But if F. Scott Fitzgerald procrastinated on The Great Gatsby, none of us would even know such a book existed. 
