I grew up with three older brothers, have never been raped, and have been known to be more inclined to tolerate lewd or crude behavior than many of my female friends and associates. So I may not be the best judge of what constitutes offensive humor. But I also served as an EEO (Equal Employment Opportunity) counselor in a federal agency for two and a half years. My role was to attempt to resolve potential harassment or discrimination issues before they got to the stage of a formal complaint. My boss appointed me on the principle of worst offender; he told me that if someone came to me to complain about a problem, they would have to be serious about it. They came, they were serious.
I learned a lot from “the thought police” during that time, including two things that might be useful for comedians who are trying to up their game from the nightclub circuit to primetime. The first thing I learned is about the “reasonable person” standard. It is used to judge actions when it may be difficult to determine due to unique context whether certain language or behavior is offensive. More recently and in cases relating to sexual harassment, it has been made more specifically the “reasonable woman” standard. It was changed from a “reasonable person” to a “reasonable woman” standard specifically out of recognition that men and women have very real reasons to judge sexually-charged language and behavior differently. The “reasonable woman” standard may be used to evaluate whether language or behavior would be seen as offensive by a “reasonable woman”, other than the recipient of the behavior. It can be useful to isolate other issues from an interaction between people that may establish hostile context.
The second thing I learned is that with respect to language and behavior that may be subject to EEO policies in the federal workplace, if something is offensive to the person receiving the language or behavior, it *is* offensive. Period. It is a difficult standard to meet, precisely because it can be different with every single person and every single context in which language is used or behavior occurs. Because it is completely dependent on individuals and context, in order for someone to have a legitimate complaint about the language or behavior, they have to communicate to the other individual(s) involved that they find it offensive. If you use sexually inappropriate language on the job that I find offensive, and I tell you that I find it offensive, the next time you use it, you are guilty of sexual harassment.
Now, why do I raise these concepts in the context of stand-up comedy? Am I suggesting that comedians should be held to the same standard as employees in the federal workplace, and that we should send in the thought police to clean up the comedy circuit? Oh, hell no! What I will suggest is that, in my experience, the best comedians use principles like these to adapt their material. On the fly. That’s what makes them the very best comedians.
I will use my favorite comedian as my standard: Craig Ferguson. He is spectacularly foul 
mouthed, and has taken on subjects that range far and wide in the course of his unrelenting, brilliant humor. He makes jokes about all kinds of people – men, women, straight, gay, drunk, drugged, celebrities, royalty, religious, Americans, foreigners, … you name it. I have wondered often over the last many months why I don’t find his humor offensive. My sense is that he has a well-honed sense of the threshold for a “reasonable person” (and “reasonable woman” for that matter) when it comes to delivering his bawdy brand of humor. It’s clear he has an acutely refined sense of when he may have overstepped boundaries into an area that could be offensive to his audience. He has well-practiced mechanisms (“CBS cares” and “I look forward to your letters”) for communicating to the audience that he realizes he may have overstepped. These mechanisms give him a chance to pause, reflect, and redirect – or not. There have been a few – very few – instances in which I think he was treading close to a subject that was either over the top or had a chance to legitimately offend someone. It is fascinating to me to watch him make a course correction on the fly – he drops his head, says something sincere, direct and apologetic – and then changes the subject. Ferguson is a master at listening to his audience and adapting his material when they let him know they find the territory he has wandered into offensive. His response often begins with “Don’t you oooh me!” – but then most often, he launches in a different direction. Ferguson also relies on the team of comedy professionals he works with to ensure that his delivery hits the target – including the person he keeps very busy pixellating his indiscretions and what would seem to be a censor, just off-camera.
For me, there is no comparison between someone like Ferguson and lesser comedians. When a lesser comedian gets a reaction from his audience that his material may not have been as universally funny as he thought it was, he attacks the person who reacted. I’m not interested in seeing a comedian who tries to build his humor out of attacking me or anyone else in audience; but like others, I’d line up for hours to have a chance to participate in Ferguson’s audience, even if I were seated in the celebrated “Lesbian Row” and subject to jokes reserved for the handful of people who get seated there.
I think aspiring comedians have a lot to learn from “the thought police” as represented by federal EEO policy standards – and as practiced in his own way by Ferguson. Aspiring comedians could learn that there is comedy merit in tailoring their material to a “reasonable woman” standard. They might also learn there is a tremendous payoff when they can listen to their audience and be prepared to adapt their material when the audience lets them know it’s offensive. It’s no wonder second rate comedians are fearful of “the thought police” – it would require that they actually try to be intelligent, adaptable and authentically funny.
One last thought. When I googled “Craig Ferguson rape joke” I couldn’t find a single reference to a rape joke told by Ferguson. All I got were references to some second rate comedian named Tosh.
In my post yesterday, “Why Doesn’t Governor Romney Campaign on Jobs?” I asked for help understanding if there is merit to trickle down economics, why it is not a slam-dunk for Governor Romney to campaign on his record of jobs creation as a result of his considerable personal wealth. My sense is that he actually doesn’t have much evidence to support such a campaign strategy. I will admit that my reason for asking is that I feel a tremendous amount of skepticism in the trickle down theory and its proponents, having voted for President Reagan, and then over the next 30 years watched the disparity explode between the wealthy and the less than wealthy. I am also skeptical that Mr. Romney would choose to govern in a way that would do anything but exacerbate that disparity.
I have taken a personal pledge in recent months to try to be mindful of balance and accountability in my thinking, analysis and language. In keeping with that pledge, I realized that my skepticism of Mr. Romney could arise from personal bias – suspicion of the very wealthy, uncertainty about having a Mormon in the White House, and doubts that someone so removed from middle-class America could possibly lead in a way that would benefit the majority of Americans. And then I got an account notice for my Marriott Rewards account…
According to Forbes, William and Richard Marriott, heirs of the Marriott dynasty, are each worth over a billion. I expect the Marriott brothers, observant Mormons, would support many of the same policies as Romney, and have been reported to donate generously to his campaign. And yet, knowing little else more about them, I would be more inclined to consider favorably either of the Marriott brothers as candidates for President of the United States than I do Mr. Romney. On reflection, the difference in my perception comes from how the Marriotts have made and invested their wealth. They have made hundreds of thousands of jobs available to Americans in their hotels. They have contributed to the economic health of communities all across the country by building hotels at levels that were at — or just slightly above – the economic reach of neighborhood. With their families of hotel chains, the Marriotts are acutely aware of the economic conditions in American – and global – communities and give me a greater sense than I have with Mr. Romney they would be better able to govern all of the country to the benefit of citizens at all economic levels. Just as they have done in America, they have done around the world – providing good, respectable, honorable work for people worldwide. Furthermore, because the name Marriott is an American business icon, they have provided a positive presence for this country worldwide. And by so doing, they have also made it easier for Americans to interact positively with others around the globe. As Mr. Romney will not reveal the details of how he has accrued his fortune or how he has met his tax obligations, I tend to be suspicious of his wealth, his motivations, and his personal philosopy. In contrast, I celebrate the Marriotts and the wealth that they have appropriately garnered. In fact, I am delighted to contribute every chance that I have to travel!
So, with the timely arrival of my “frequent sleeper” account information, I feel comfortable putting to rest my uncertainty as to whether my skepticism of Mr. Romney as candidate for President of the United States might be the product of a personal bias related to his faith or his wealth. As it did yesterday, my skepticism returns to the question of what jobs has Mr. Romney’s made possible in the United States as a function of his personal wealth?
I know there is a lot of discussion lately about Governor Romney, his wealth, his personal financial policies and the policies that he might adopt as President. I admit, economics are not my strong suit. I very nearly failed Accounting 101 in college, and the class was self-paced, pass/fail. So I acknowledge that there may be a clear and simple answer to something I don’t understand, which is: if trickle-down economic theory says that it’s important to foster wealth among the wealthy, who will in turn drive the economic engine that results in greater wealth – and presumably jobs – for the less-than-wealthy, why doesn’t Mr. Romney highlight the vast numbers of American jobs that have been created as an ancillary benefit of his tremendous personal wealth? For someone whose net worth is estimated on the high side of $200 million, he should have an abundance of evidence to substantiate the merit of trickle-down economics. It seems he would be uniquely suited based on his personal wealth alone, to make the case for trickle down theory, and that it would be a compelling campaign strategy. On the other hand, given such tremendous wealth, if he can’t document the benefit to the country as an economic by-product of his wealth, he represents a singularly important example of the abject failure of the theory. So, why doesn’t Mr. Romney campaign on the jobs that have been created as a direct benefit of his substantial wealth?
I highly recommend Pete Carroll’s “Win Forever: Live, Work, and Play Like a Champion”. It is a fast read, full of energy, accessible and authentic, just like Coach Carroll. And for me, the best thing is it reminded me to be true to myself.
Carroll presents layers of themes in the book: Develop a personal philosophy (“Always compete”) and vision; be able to communicate them succinctly. Get the entire team on board, but allow your lieutenants to extend the vision and philosophy in their own voice. It’s the job of the leader to bring the energy, enthusiasm and expectations to the team. Leaders need to cultivate the strengths that are special to each member of the team – as an individual. Leaders are teachers, and in order to teach, you have to know your student – which requires listening and observing. Spend time outside the business functions with members of the team to use that time to observe them in other than the business circumstances for a better overall understanding of the person. Remember the importance of humor and balance in work and in life.
Of course, Carroll presents all of these themes in the context of football, with lots of “behind-the-scenes” feeling. Reading the book feels very much like what I expect it would be like to hear him talk over a beer at the bar, or walking the field at the Virginia Mason Athletic Facility — if I could keep up, that is! It was also fun to tie back the things you hear from his players in interviews to the philosophical background he lays out. In this pre-season, I’ve heard two players talk about getting the install completed so that they can concentrate on practice, and then “things should slow down” – referring to achieving the zone in which playing the game is spontaneous and natural.
One of the insights he related that made the book particularly meaningful to me was that he had underestimated how hard it was to implement change in an established organization, referring to trying to bring his approach to coaching to the New England Patriots. Carroll got fired after three years. It gave him a chance to reassess and regroup, and it was then that he realized he needed to define his philosophy. In a way, I envy Coach Carroll – I spent over half of my career in a very traditional organization that practiced and espoused management theory that dated back to the 1980s. I tried for most of my time in the organization to introduce new ideas about teamwork, shared accountability, the need to support the staff instead of just thinking of them as interchangeable cogs in the big wheel of business. I had some periods of success interspersed with periods of hostility from senior leadership, but I was successful enough to be able to work on fun and interesting projects with great teams right up until the end. Before I left, I had started to question – if I was so smart and if there was any substance to the approach I brought to leadership and teamwork, why was I ultimately unsuccessful in this organization? It was Coach Carroll’s observations on the difficulty of introducing change into an established organization and the need to communicate clearly up and down the management chain what you’re doing and why, that made me realize I was fighting an uphill battle the entire time. I was just too stubborn to get the message and leave on my own. Reading “Win Forever” has reminded me there is merit – and success — in being a “players’ coach.”
It took strong women from both the Democratic and Republican Parties, as well as from suffrage organizations like the National Woman’s Party and the National American Woman Suffrage Association, to secure the right to vote for women in 1920. With so many issues relating to women’s rights being discussed in 2012 in federal and state legislatures, in the churches, and in the press, it will take strong women in both parties to protect women’s rights of self-determination. Republican women have been at the forefront of these battles in the past; American women of all parties need them to take up a leadership role again.
* * * * *
As I was preparing “The Corner Stone (Annotated)” for re-publication, I discovered several surprising connections among the author, Margaret Hill McCarter; the famous suffragist, Susan B. Anthony; the Republican Party; and current events. Over the last several months, numerous issues have been raised in state and federal legislatures that I believe would diminish women’s self-determination. These issues include reducing access to health insurance and health care; reducing access to family planning, contraception, and legal abortion; inadequate protection against rape and other violence; diminished availability of safety-net programs that predominantly benefit poor women; and impractical access to legal redress against unfair pay practices.
I had seen an image used frequently in reports of and reactions to the debates over these issues. The image was of several women from the National Woman’s Party protesting in front of the 1920 Republican National Convention, with a banner that reads “No self-respecting woman should wish or work for the success of a party that ignores her sex. Susan B. Anthony 1872 and 1894.” As most of the initiatives at play have been put forward by the Republican party at state and national level, the implication of the contemporary use of this image is clear and direct, questioning how and why a Republican woman would support a political party that ignores her sex.
With respect to the protest in 1920, however, I had never given much thought to who it was these women were protesting. What I discovered is that the targets of this protest likely included Margaret Hill McCarter, the author of the sweet little book, “The Corner Stone”, that I was in the process of re-publishing. As a member of the Republican National Women’s Committee, McCarter was the first woman to address a national convention of a major political party – the 1920 Republican National Convention. She was introduced to the Convention as “well known as a writer and a staunch Republican by inheritance as well as by belief.” Given the contemporary controversies (and my ignorance of history), I must admit, I was surprised that it was the Republican Party that had first included a woman speaker.
The next discovery I made had to do with the original quote. I realized I was woefully unfamiliar with the details of the role that Susan B. Anthony played in the fight to secure women’s right to vote. I learned many things I should probably have known already, including that she voted once, illegally, on November 5, 1872 long before the Nineteenth Amendment was passed or ratified. The circumstances surrounding her trial and conviction were discouraging in their own right. But the second surprise I discovered was how she voted. As she told her friend and fellow suffragist, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, she voted “positively voted the Republican ticket—strait…” Given events of the day, I was shocked. My immediate thought was “I wonder what Susan B. Anthony would think of the current state of affairs?!” I think she would be tremendously disheartened.
And that brings us back to events of the day. The third discovery that has surprised me is that there are prominent Republican women who believe that vastly different interpretations of recent initiatives represent “honest disagreements between the parties,” that they somehow contribute to “empowering women”, giving women greater independence and opportunities. They genuinely believe that will be the outcome of the forces that are being put into place. I don’t agree with them, but I respect their right to hold that opinion.
Given the demographics on what proportion of American women use contraception; rely on insurance for their health care; have faced the gut-wrenching choice of whether or not to continue a pregnancy; have suffered rape or other violence; have trained the men who were promoted over them time and again, and known that the men were paid more – I think there must be many other strong, Republican women who recognize that the steps being taken in these important issues will damage women’s self-determination, and will reverse the successes that have been won for women in 2012. I admire strong Republican women like Senators Kay Bailey Hutchinson, Olympia Snow, and Lisa Murkowski for calling for more equitable treatment of women in GOP legislative initiatives. But these strong women need support of others in the Republican party who understand the damage that is being done, and greater damage at risk, from legislation that undermines women’s self-determination. I would hope other strong Republican women would speak up – to their husbands, fathers, brothers, elected representatives – and to the people of their political party, who would otherwise ignore their sex.
For those who do, thank you!
The Dalai Lama is a remarkable individual, for all of the grand reasons that people already know about – and for a reason that is important to me personally: he has written books, parts of which have stayed with me for years. As someone who couldn’t tell you the plot of last seasons TV shows, that I remember specific sections of books, continue to turn them over in my mind, and bring them to the surface when conditions call for it, is truly remarkable.
One of the books in which His Holiness the Dalai Lama achieved this remarkable feat is “The Art of Happiness”. The part that has stuck with me for years was the last section, the last chapter. The section is titled “Closing Reflections on Living a Spiritual Life” and the chapter “Basic Spiritual Values”.
He begins to make his point when he notes:
There are five billion human beings and in a certain way, I think we need five billion different religions, because there is such a large variety of dispositions. I believe that each individual should embark upon a spiritual path that is best suited to his or her mental disposition, natural inclination, temperament, belief, family and cultural background. [Dalai Lama, (2009-10-01). The Art of Happiness, 10th Anniversary Edition: A Handbook for Living. Penguin Group. Kindle Edition.]
The variety of people calls for a variety of religions. The purpose of religion is to benefit people, and I think that if we only had one religion, after a while it would cease to benefit many people. [Dalai Lama, The Art of Happiness]
He provides a simple and fundamental position:
We must respect and appreciate the value of all the different major world religious traditions. [Dalai Lama, The Art of Happiness]
Remarkably, he goes beyond. Some men of faith draw a line between their own faith and the faith of others, and sometimes an even more harsh and unforgiving line between those who believe in God and those who are unbelievers. In contrast, His Holiness the Dalai Lama opens his arms and heart, accepts and attends to the rest of humanity who do not identify with religious belief. In other writings, the Dalai Lama has compared ethics and religion to water and tea.
Ethics and inner values without religious content are like water, something we need every day for health and survival. Ethics and inner values based in a religious context are more like tea. The tea we drink is mostly composed of water, but it also contains some other ingredients—tea leaves, spices, perhaps some sugar or, at least in Tibet, salt—and this makes it more nutritious and sustaining and something we want every day. But however the tea is prepared, the primary ingredient is always water. While we can live without tea, we can’t live without water. Likewise we are born free of religion, but we are not born free of the need for compassion. More fundamental than religion, therefore, is our basic human spirituality. We have an underlying human disposition toward love, kindness, and affection, irrespective of whether we have a religious framework or not. [Dalai Lama, H.H. (2011-12-06). Beyond Religion: Ethics for a Whole World. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. Kindle Edition.]
In the context of his thoughts on Basic Spiritual Values, he offers:
[T]here’s another level of spirituality. That is what I call basic spirituality—basic human qualities of goodness, kindness, compassion, caring. Whether we are believers or nonbelievers, this kind of spirituality is essential. I personally consider this second level of spirituality to be more important than the first, because no matter how wonderful a particular religion may be, it will still only be accepted by a limited number of human beings, only a portion of humanity. But as long as we are human beings, as long as we are members of the human family, all of us need these basic spiritual values. Without these, human existence remains hard, very dry. As a result, none of us can be a happy person, our whole family will suffer, and then, eventually, society will be more troubled. So, it becomes clear that cultivating these kinds of basic spiritual values becomes crucial. [Dalai Lama, The Art of Happiness]
Beyond the general outline of his thesis, the part of his discussion that has stayed with me all these years is this simple and very practical analysis:
In seeking to cultivate these basic spiritual values, I think we need to remember that out of the, say, five billion human beings on this planet, I think perhaps one or two billion are very sincere, genuine believers in religion. Of course, when I refer to sincere believers, I’m not including those people who simply say, for example, ‘I am Christian’ mainly because their family background is Christian but in daily life may not consider very much about the Christian faith or actively practice it. So excluding these people, I believe that there are perhaps only around one billion who sincerely practice their religion. That means that four billion, the majority of the people on this earth, are nonbelievers. [Dalai Lama, The Art of Happiness]
Indeed. The majority of people on this earth are nonbelievers.
For a man of faith, that is a remarkable statement. For many men of faith, the realization that the majority of people on earth are non-believers would be cause for either separation or a call to proselytize. Not so for the Dalai Lama.
[I]f we believe in any religion, that’s good. But even without a religious belief, we can still manage. In some cases, we can manage even better. But that’s our own individual right; if we wish to believe, good! If not, it’s all right. [Dalai Lama, The Art of Happiness]
It’s all right. Simple acceptance of a practical fact. But rather than separating himself from this mass of unbelievers, much of his life’s work has been to find means and mechanisms to have productive discussion with ALL people to reinforce fundamental qualities of compassion, kindness, and caring in pursuit of “a better, happier world.”
[W]e must still find a way to try to improve life for this majority of the people, the four billion people who aren’t involved in a specific religion—ways to help them become good human beings, moral people, without any religion. Here I think that education is crucial—instilling in people a sense that compassion, kindness, and so on are the basic good qualities of human beings, not just a matter of religious subjects. I think earlier we spoke at greater length about the prime importance of human warmth, affection, and compassion in people’s physical health, happiness, and peace of mind. This is a very practical issue, not religious theory or philosophical speculation. It is a key issue. And I think that this is in fact the essence of all the religious teachings of the different traditions. But it remains just as crucial for those who choose not to follow any particular religion. [Dalai Lama, The Art of Happiness]
Today, June 5, 2012, every single Republican Senator voted against cloture on the Paycheck Fairness Act. The proposed bill would provide avenues of legal redress requiring employers to demonstrate that pay was based on performance, not gender; would prevent employers from retaliating against women who *gasp* ask their colleagues what they make; would make employers who discriminate liable for damages; and would provide a timeline for action that is correlated to each discriminatory paycheck, not just the first one as previously. The burden of evidence needed by someone to invoke the provisions is high, making abundant or frivolous lawsuits unlikely. And it addresses only one of four affirmative defenses available to employers, adding to very targeted circumstances in which it would be invoked. Taken together, it is hardly likely to become a “trial lawyers’ bonanza” as claimed by Senator Enzi. Absent that argument, I cannot fathom what else would prompt the Republican Senators in good faith to block the measure.
I used to vote Republican. I don’t any more. I don’t know why any woman would. Unless she feels it’s true that her work is worth a fraction of what a man would be paid to do it. I don’t.
June 6, 2012 Update: First, my mistake, the Lily Ledbetter Act provided for the change in reporting requirements. Second, here is the text of the bill: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c111:1:./temp/~c1116eZMan:e8830: and here is a discussion of its importance: http://www.nwlc.org/resource/closing-factor-other-sex-loophole-equal-pay-act.
I was eager to read the book, Political Dilemmas at Work: How to Maintain Your Integrity and Further Your Career, by Gary Ranker, Mike Phipps, and Colin Gautrey. An avid reader of works on leadership, teamwork and management theory, I have found scant wisdom on the question of what to do in case of a train wreck, and was hoping Political Dilemmas might offer perspective on options available when you see that your organization is heading for disaster, and no one else seems able or willing to acknowledge the situation.
The book is organized by scenarios based on various political dilemmas that are reasonably expected to occur in the workplace. Within each scenario, Ranker et al. identify particular situations that could arise, and offer a number of steps of “Action to Take.” It concludes with a section on “A New Charter for Career Success.”
The insight I appreciated most had to do with the explicit and implicit contracts associated with working in an organization. Aside from the explicit contracts, the authors note, “there are also psychological contracts that are more about trust and truth, than deadlines and budgets. They are more about motives, support, and commitment than they are about what and when.” This insight helped me to realize that a particularly painful train wreck that occurred at one of my places of employment happened in part because many of my colleagues and I had different terms for the implicit contract than the employer did. I had erred in thinking that the terms of the implicit contract included mutual respect, teamwork and a level playing field. For me, this was the most significant element of the analysis from Political Dilemmas.
While Ranker and colleagues offered the insight above that applied to my interests on the train wreck question, overall, I was disappointed in the lack of substantive analysis. I was also disappointed in the quality of production, with respect to editing and grammar.
For the most part, Ranker et al. proceeded from assumptions that were common sense if not profound, such as:
- “Good bosses would rather have debate than compliance.”
- “Acknowledge and reward people who continue to be candid at times when trust and truth are threatened.”
- “Spend less time fighting adversaries and spend more time with your trusted stakeholders.”
In constructing their hypothetical scenarios, the authors sometimes manufactured rigid circumstances that seemed to reflect their view of the only course of action that could occur, or the only motivation that might result in a course of action. Sections that were over-manufactured in this way distracted me into thinking of situations that were alternatives to the rigid circumstances described in their analysis.
In addition to being underwhelmed by the analysis, I was disappointed by poor writing and production. This book could have benefitted from the services of an editor. An occasional typo or editorial oversight in a book is distracting; when they occur throughout, it detracts from the quality of the work overall.
Examples of editorial issues are abundant. On two occasions, the word “loose” was used when “lose” is what was intended. The somewhat casual modifier “hugely” was used three times in rapid succession. The introductory material included frequent use of the phrase “politics is…” The phrase may be stylistically acceptable, but when it is used in overload mode, combined with other grammatical errors, such use seems to be another example of poor grammar. My conclusion that this was an indication of careless grammar was reinforced by use of “one criteria”; if there is only one, it’s a criterion. In several sections, the authors use an informal style of address which left me puzzled as to whether they were speaking to the reader, and hence using the pronoun “you”, or talking with the reader, using the pronoun “we.” That both usages occurred within one section made for awkward reading. Other production distractions that should have been caught by a good editor include inconsistent formatting, such as varying spaces between bullets and leading text, and the use of outlines – or not – for text boxes.
Due to the unremarkable analysis, careless editing and poor grammar, this is not a book I recommend.
From my facebook page, March 22, 2012: Dear Friends and Family, thank you all for your warm birthday greetings! I especially appreciate them this year. Not only is today my birthday, it is the first day of a new direction in my career. I am leaving the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, and taking advantage of their generous severance package to fund my launch into writing and publishing. I will be formally separated from the lab as of April 20, but today is the first day of my new work regimen. So far, so good. Alarm went off at 7:00, got up at about 7:15, breakfast and coffee ready at 7:25, at work by 7:45. The day’s schedule includes making some progress on the first book for publication, and then lunch with friends. We’ll see how the adventure goes…
