People – and many organizations that advocate for them – have been entranced by the calculated contrivances of Fast Food and Big Soda. Sugarcoated, overly cosmeticized, pristinely lit, and airbrushed to romanticized perfection, the products hawked by these prophets of perdition are all style and no substance, poison pills of accessible pleasure at the root of America’s obesity epidemic.

You know them well, and they probably stir up heartwarming childhood memories that often threaten to eclipse even your formative spiritual moments. Why, when I look back to Sunday afternoons as a kid, I realize I relished the ice cream sundaes with my parents at Dairy Queen after Mass way more than I enjoyed sitting in church watching my old man nod off.

Sad but true. McDonald’s birthday parties were more memorable than those at our humble home a stone’s throw from the Mexico border. The Coke I drank after climbing up to Horsetail Falls in Monterrey, Mexico in 100-degree heat during a junior high field trip was more transcendent than the endorphin-pumping arduous hike itself or the breathtaking view of the cascades as I connected to Mother Nature and my cultural heritage.

Had I not evolved into a non-believer in the religion of Fast Food and Big Soda branding, when I recently glimpsed the giant fiberglass sculpture of Ronald McDonald with raised and outstretched arms beckoning me amidst a sea of strangers in a crowded Newark airportterminal I might have simply felt welcomed home. I might have dashed beneath his looming, larger-than-life shadow towards the warm embrace of Fast Food’s fried fragrance and filled my belly with tempting creations “crafted for my craving” and conveniently offered bilingually too. “Hecha a tu antojo.”

Faith is free nourishment. Fast Food is as close as you’ll get to that these days. Perfect for those with low incomes and lower education levels, it is today’s manna for the masses. How kind and inclusive of Fast Food to not overlook Spanish-language speakers. Maybe someday McDonald’s will spring for a mammoth statue of Ronald with outstretched arms towering over a glittering bay like the Cristo Salvador landmark in Rio de Janeiro. It would be a fitting tribute to the reigning deity of the fast food pantheon.

But instead of swallowing the Gospel According to Ronald whole, I peered at him through the lens of a branding professional and public health communicator. At that moment, riveted to the floor at risk of missing my flight, I saw Ronald for who he really is: not a welcoming friend or a savior, but a clown, a poser who won’t even show you his real face, a crafty salesman hiding behind make-up and wigs while co-opting Christian imagery with outstretched arms raised to the jet-clogged heavens over Newark International Airport. Crisscross a couple of French fries behind him and what do you get?

Is Ronald subliminally offering salvation for hungry, time- and cash-depleted souls? Is he trying to morph into a “Mcssiah”?

Symbology, believe it or not, is a powerful, visceral and often undetected force in our cultural and social behavioral patterns. Established systems of iconography and ritual are frequently co-opted by emerging movements to ease people into adopting new behaviors with a sense of comfort and familiarity. It worked for the Spaniards when they conquered the Aztecs and replaced one of their goddesses with the Virgen de Guadalupe in order to facilitate their conversion to Catholicism. And it works in the secular realm as well, often being factored in the development of iconic brands and the marketing of their related products and experiences.Could the feminine Coke bottle figure of the favorite beverage of choice for washing down Big Macs be meant to replace the Madonna? Hmm. Eucharist and wine. Quarter Pounder and Coke. Interesting communion.

Think about it. Pepsi looks mysteriously like the yin yang symbol.  Nike draws on Greek mythology, alluding to the winged goddess of victory. Apple’s logo references the forbidden fruit savored in the Garden of Eden. Except when you bite into this Apple, the mega-corp won’t banish you from Paradise. Instead, it will just take your money and hook you on a never-ending plethora of devices and services as they transform the very way you behave and communicate. Apple acts as a forgiving demigod, so long as you pay tribute and evolve your daily rituals in accordance to their wishes.

But I digress. Consumers are not the only ones that need to stop trading their long-term well-being for short-term pleasures under the illusion that brands like McDonald’s and Coke are somehow good for them, regardless of the imagery and emotion these co-opt, regardless of their efforts to convince the world that they are committed to a higher purpose.

Advocacy organizations must also wise up, open their eyes, and stop swigging the Jesus Juice of Fast Food and Big Soda’s corruptive cash.

Recently, an image was circulated on the Internet of a promotion by KFC whereby a purchase of a giant jug of Pepsi for $2.99 triggers a $1.00 contribution to the Juvenile Diabetes Research Fund.

So you’re telling me that health organizations are taking money from the very companies that make people sick in the first place? Sugar, fried foods and obesity are directly linked to diabetes. Sure, not the Type 1 Diabetes that the JDRF focuses on, but still, shouldn’t that be too close for comfort in taking cash from KFC and Pepsi for diabetes research? The JDRF states on its website that it’s mission is to “find a cure for diabetes and its complications through the support of research.” Tell you what, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to guess that if folks stopped gulping so much Pepsi and ingesting so much McDonald’s, obesity and diabetes rates would decrease.

This kind of bizarre disconnect between the mission of many advocacy organizations and who they take money from has been going on for a long time and it must stop. These organizations are putting their integrity on the line for a quick buck. Sacrificing a non-profit’s ability to advocate for its constituents without fear of compromising corporate funding sources poses a serious conflict of interest. And the Fast Food and Big Soda companies know it. While they win over consumers with strategic branding and low prices, they are converting the very organizations that should be fiercely protecting their constituencies’ long-term health interests into allies via donations and savvy cause marketing like the Pepsi Refresh Project. How many non-profit advocacy groups might be silenced this way, persuaded to not be critical of the marketing of unhealthy products to not only the general population but also to more vulnerable groups like minorities and children, or people with specific diseases?

Just because Ronald and Pepsi dole out cash for causes, it doesn’t mean their ill-begotten gains should be justified and perpetuated. On the contrary, they and the recipient organizations should be chastised for corrupting the integrity of advocacy on top of promoting products deleterious to people’s health.

Jesus told his disciples to beware of wolves in sheep’s clothing. Regardless of what you believe, or how hungry you are for cheap food and drink or charitable contributions, you should have faith that the cunning and clever wolves of Fast Food and Big Soda practice are driven by an insatiable appetite for profits masked by the illusion of joy, goodwill, generosity and even undertones of salvation promised. I call it Brand Religion.

So next time you’re about to step up to the altar – or counter – and accept that friendly embrace from your favorite Fast Food or Big Soda brand icon, pause. Reflect. And, remember, the Mcssiah won’t save you from yourself. Only you can do that.

The opinions expressed in this post and throughout RedBrownandBlue.com are intended to encourage civil discussion and invite well-reasoned alternatives. To join in, please visit our Contact Us page and drop us a line. Your contribution may be highlighted as a selected response and posted to the site at a later date.

Rudy Ruiz has been hailed as a cultural visionary. A published author and multicultural advocate, Ruiz is an acclaimed multicultural communications entrepreneur. He founded Red Brown and Blue as well as Interlex, one of the nation’s leading advocacy marketing agencies ranked by Ad Age as one of the Top US Agencies across all disciplines. Prior to that, Ruiz earned his BA in Government at Harvard College and his Masters in Public Policy at the Harvard Kennedy School.

Why is it that time and again over the past couple of years, the inability of elected leaders in Washington to work together to forge sensible compromises, real solutions, and major changes has pushed the country closer and closer towards paralysis and decline?

If you’re interested in politics you likely watch and read the news. And as you witness the spokespeople of the two parties, including the President and the Speaker of the House, relentlessly argue over every major issue – from healthcare reform to the debt ceiling crisis – it appears that they are not really dialoguing or conversing but rather engaging in obstinate and ineffective intersecting monologues.

Have you ever been in one of those crowded rooms with your family over a tension-filled holiday where everybody is talking but no one is communicating? Everyone has his or her own story to tell and nobody is listening? I have found myself in those interesting and often amusing situations. And in those moments, I’ve smiled and remarked, “This isn’t a conversation; it’s a set of intersecting monologues.” Ironically, nobody has ever really picked up on my comment so I just add to the cognitive dissonance.

Well, maybe it’s manageable to survive such a communication conundrum for a long weekend stuffed with turkey and apple pie or a monotonous yearend week disrupted only by furtive escapes to linger beneath the mistletoe. But in the world of American politics and the economy, it seems that remaining in such a discombobulated state for perpetuity is unsustainable. If we continue along this path of polarized intransigence, our nation’s persistent decline as a global leader in economic might and social right will be as certain as the inevitable indigestion and headache following that dysfunctional holiday feast.

As our leaders engage on these difficult and complex issues that face our nation – from the massive debt to how to care for our aging and increasingly sick population, from our lack of competitiveness in manufacturing products for exportation and the failure of our educational system to compensate by churning out more highly skilled generations of thinkers and workers to drive our new economy – they must commit to practicing a more honest and earnest brand of civil discourse in order to arrive at actionable and impactful solutions palatable to a majority of our overall population, not to a majority of each representative’s own narrow base of constituents.

What is civil discourse, some might ask given it’s marked absence from our world today? Well, it’s basically talking and listening to each other in a civilized manner with the shared goal of achieving a better understanding of each other’s views and, perhaps in the best of all worlds, come to an agreement or compromise that allows us to move forward together.

That’s not the Webster’s definition; I’m sure you can look that up too. That’s just how I see it.

All it takes is three things: listening with an open mind, speaking up respectfully of the opposing perspective and its conveyor, and being willing to change one’s mind in light of new information.

Blogger Rob Mars offered up Seven Rules for Civil Discourse at OpenSalon.com that seem right on the money. I’ve abridged them here:

Rule 1: Shun name-calling and personal attacks.

Rule 2: Avoid ad hominem arguments, instead focus on evidence and fact.

Rule 3: Listen. By which is not meant simply giving “ear time” to the other person, but paying enough attention that you actually understand his or her point.

Rule 4: Avoid common fallacies. We’ve talked about ad hominem already. Some other common fallacies: begging the question, appeal to emotion, false dilemma, and argument by authority; but there are more.

Rule 5: Appreciate nuance.

Rule 6: Use reason but shun scientism and hyper-rationality.

Rule 7: Respect. The other person is just that, a person. He or she is your brother or sister, no matter how much you may differ in your views.

The rules seem simple and straightforward enough, elementary even. But perhaps if more people used them our society would benefit from fewer intersecting monologues and more constructive conversations.

It’s hard to live, think, write, and comment in a world where you sometimes feel all too lonely in striving to elevate that conversation. Or, if not alone, at least greatly outnumbered and underappreciated. In fact, I stopped writing over a year ago because I felt I was engaged in one of those intersecting monologues, one of those where there’s no one sitting at the other end of the line. So all this time, instead of yelling at the talking heads on TV and writing out loud via machine gun-fire computer keyboard abuse, I’ve been quietly listening. And I’m committed to continue listening.

But now, it’s also time to speak up again. Please join me. But this time, let’s connect. If more and more people start doing that, then little by little we all might just learn how to get along.

The opinions expressed in this post and throughout RedBrownandBlue.com are intended to encourage civil discussion and invite well-reasoned alternatives. To join in, please visit our Contact Us page and drop us a line. Your contribution may be highlighted as a selected response and posted to the site at a later date.

Rudy Ruiz has been hailed as a cultural visionary. A published author and multicultural advocate, Ruiz is an acclaimed multicultural communications entrepreneur. He founded Red Brown and Blue as well as Interlex, one of the nation’s leading advocacy marketing agencies ranked by Ad Age as one of the Top US Agencies across all disciplines. Prior to that, Ruiz earned his BA in Government at Harvard College and his Masters in Public Policy at the Harvard Kennedy School.

So why the big hoopla?

Is this another example of how America is simply so polarized that we’re primed for a fight?

Conflict drives theater. It fuels drama. It excites. It draws ratings and eyeballs. It gets attention for vocal politicians at a moment when they might not otherwise be in the limelight. It rallies political bases during a pivotal campaign fundraising season as the mid-term elections approach.

Why is this such a big controversy? Maybe because the healthcare fight is over and the Left and the Right still have a raging cauldron of angst boiling inside of them, always eager for a chance to spill over. Or maybe it’s because the pain of 9/11 cuts so deep and we’re still at war in the Middle East, the explanation which would be most justifiable.

But if you really think it through, this should not be that big a debate. As Americans we should encourage freedom even when it makes us uncomfortable, especially when it makes us uncomfortable. Otherwise, we will find ourselves calling for self-censorship and self-constraint by all Muslims, the vast majority of whom have nothing to do with the terrorists who destroyed the World Trade Center and took so many lives indiscriminately. How can it be in the American spirit to ask an entire religion, with an estimated 7 million believers on our soil to forever be apologists and live in shame, when they themselves have committed no crime?

There are two main reasons why we should stand back and let the group planning the mosque – as well as the local zoning commission – make their own decision. The first is that our Constitution clearly states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Freedom of religion and the way and place where people practice it is right up there with freedoms of speech and assembly in the American pantheon of principles. How can we not recall that the very quest for such liberties impelled the early Pilgrims to leave England for what was then a harsh and rugged land? It’s the same reason so many people of so many creeds have flocked here over the centuries. And it is at the bedrock of our nation’s diversity. Nowhere is this more evident than in the very community in question: New York City, the original melting pot and today the most colorful and dazzling tapestry of diverse cultures, languages, religions, races and ethnicities in the world.

For people such as the former Governor of Alaska to decry the building of a place of worship that would embody the very spirit of multiculturalism and tolerance that characterizes New York City is downright bizarre and pure political theater. Imagine how riled up her base is getting? The Right is vocally incensed about the concept of a mosque so near to what has gone from being a sacred commercial and financial site to hallowed American ground. Regardless of the level of sincerity versus the level of politically motivated agitation, the debate is sure to spark increased fundraising to fuel a Republican rebound in the upcoming elections.

But that leads me to the second reason we should stand back and observe as this minority religious group exercises its freedoms and responsibilities in peace: one of the most basic tenets of Christianity itself, which is important since Christianity is an essential philosophical contingent of the Right Wing and more broadly the predominant spiritual fabric of our nation. This is not the moment to attack the Muslim group planning its mosque. This is not the moment – as a nation – to dwell on our pain and loss. For any sincere Christian this is the moment to turn the other cheek. I am not about to quote scripture or cite verses, but we all know what I’m talking about. To reference popular Conservative bumper sticker vernacular: What Would Jesus Do?

So whether we view the issue as Americans or as Christians, or as both, we should stop yelling and yammering about the horror of this action. We should respect all people’s rights, including Muslims. We should acknowledge and internalize that the folks hoping to build this mosque are not the same people who hurt us on 9/11. And, most importantly, we should stand up for American principles of freedom. Because doing so when it’s easy is merely convenience. Doing so when it’s tough requires courage and faith in their underlying wisdom. And it’s also what makes them principles.

In that state, whose population is 30% Latino, the government seeks to broaden police powers to identify and apprehend undocumented immigrants, in effect legalizing racial profiling of Latinos, trampling on federal jurisdiction over immigration policy and enforcement, and undermining the ongoing efforts of the US Census to accurately count undocumented immigrants.

Just as the Civil War was largely about race and the balance of power between states and the federal government, Arizona’s bold – and reckless – move echoes an inglorious chapter from our nation’s past.

The sweeping immigration bill passed by the Arizona Senate and signed into law by Governor Jan Brewer is an attack on undocumented immigrants, Latinos and all Americans who abhor discrimination.

Isabel Garcia, an Arizona legal defender, told CNN: “We have not seen this kind of legislation since the Jim Crow laws.”

The situation brings to light an issue that all Americans must acknowledge and confront: that the debate over undocumented immigrants conflates perceptions, feelings and attitudes regarding all Latinos, legal and not. My own personal example is that I’d never faced much discrimination for being a Latino until I wrote in support of immigration reform. I was then flooded with hateful emails and comments demanding that I “go back where I came from.” The thing is I’m American. I came from here.  I was born here. Where am I supposed to go? Get my point? Suddenly I was seen not as an American exercising free speech but as a foreigner in my own land.

Anti-immigrant sentiment, fervor and the type of misguided legislation that has passed in Arizona only boils the cauldron of hatred bubbling within certain groups in our country. And when that hatred overflows, undocumented immigrants are not the only ones that will be targeted, pulled over without reason, humiliated or abused, thrown into the back seat of a squad car with cuffs on because they didn’t have their ID handy. It’ll be anyone who “looks like” or “sounds like” a Latino immigrant. And that could be – if left up to the interpretation of someone who is not an expert in anthropology or someone with less than honorable intentions – just about any Latino on any given day. This moral hazard that Latino citizens, our shared society, and even police officers may be asked to bear should be offensive to all Americans who value fair treatment – if not of undocumented immigrants – at least of our own citizens.

Interestingly, the legalization of this racial profiling of Latinos is also an example of “tyranny of the majority.” Because, although nearly a third of Arizona’s population is Latino, none of the largely Republican statewide elected officials – and only one of the Arizona legislators who voted for the bill appear to be so. That’s discrimination without representation.

It ought to serve as a wake-up call to Congress and the White House, as they have typically been the ones to step in to protect Constitutional rights when racist policies are being implemented on the state or local level.

But that’s not the only reason the Feds should intervene. The Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF) is planning legal action to stop the measure, arguing that it violates due process and Supreme Court precedents, infringing on federal government jurisdiction over immigration policy and enforcement.

As if that weren’t enough to heighten the sense of urgency on the national level for immigration reform, Arizona is also flying in the face of the US Census’ unprecedented and ongoing push to fully count all Latinos and all undocumented immigrants in 2010. The Census reportedly invested 20% of its ad budget on this effort. Arizona’s rogue maneuver, one that is sending shockwaves through the Latino and undocumented communities, can only heighten fear and undermine participation by undocumented immigrants, an intent measured by a RedBrownandBlue.com survey as 76% nationally, compared to only 43% participation by undocumented immigrants in the country ten years ago.

If you are an undocumented immigrant, or an outsider looking in, all these mixed signals from diverse government entities might frighten and confuse you. But as an American-born Latino, border native, patriot and longtime student of government, to me they’re a reminder of Palmetto Hill. My only hope is that the final outcome also echoes history.

For back in those fateful days in May 1865, on a stark and unforgiving landscape of sandy brush and shifting sand dunes, where two nations meet and a then-untamed Rio Grande flowed unbridled into the treacherous waters of the Gulf of Mexico, the Confederate rebels may have won the battle but the Union won the war.

Rudy Ruiz has been hailed as a cultural visionary. A published author and multicultural advocate, Ruiz is an acclaimed multicultural communications entrepreneur. He founded Red Brown and Blue as well as Interlex, one of the nation’s leading advocacy marketing agencies ranked by Ad Age as one of the Top US Agencies across all disciplines. Prior to that, Ruiz earned his BA in Government at Harvard College and his Masters in Public Policy at the Harvard Kennedy School.

According to the New York Times, “Passage of the law, which would, among other things, allow the authorities to demand proof of legal entry into the United States from anyone suspected of being in the country illegally, testified to the relative lack of political power of Arizona Latinos, and to the hardened views toward illegal immigration among Republican politicians both here and nationally.”

Isabel Garcia, an Arizona legal defender, told CNN: “We have not seen this kind of legislation since the Jim Crow laws. And targeting our communities, it is the single…largest attack…”

The situation brings to light an issue that all fair-minded Americans must acknowledge and confront: that the debate over undocumented immigrants conflates perceptions, feelings and attitudes regarding all Latinos, both those who are legally residing in this nation and those who are not. My own personal example is that I’d never faced much discrimination for being a Latino until I wrote in support of immigration reform. I was then flooded with hateful emails and comments demanding that I “go back where I came from.” The thing is I’m American. I came from here.  I was born here. Where am I supposed to go? Get my point? Suddenly I was seen not as an American exercising free speech but as a foreigner in my own land.

Anti-immigrant sentiment, fervor and the type of misguided legislation that has passed in Arizona only boils the cauldron of hatred bubbling within certain groups in our country. And when that hatred overflows, undocumented immigrants are not the only ones that will be targeted, pulled over without reason, humiliated or abused, thrown into the back seat of a squad car with cuffs on because they didn’t have their ID handy. It’ll be anyone who “looks like” or “sounds like” a Latino immigrant. And that could be – if left up to the interpretation of someone who is not an expert in anthropology or someone with less than honorable intentions – just about any Latino on any given day. This moral hazard that Latino citizens, our shared society, and even police officers may be asked to bear should be offensive to all Americans who value fair treatment – if not of undocumented immigrants – at least of our own citizens.

People should not be singled out for negative treatment due to how they look, the color of their skin, their accent or their religious beliefs. It is a commonly touted – if not universally enforced – principle of American democracy that we should not discriminate on the basis of race, color or creed. But that’s exactly what racial profiling does. And that’s exactly what this law will do.

Interestingly, the Arizona measure is also an example of “tyranny of the majority.” Because, although nearly a third of Arizona’s population is Latino, none of the largely Republican statewide elected officials – and only one of the legislators who voted for the bill – appear to be Hispanic.

If Latinos can find no power or justice on the state level, this turn of events should raise the ante. Congress and the White House must act with a greater sense of urgency on immigration reform before states and regions saddled with a history of racism increasingly take matters into their own hands, particularly on an issue that most experts agree is outside of their Constitutional jurisdiction.

If Arizona’s immigration bill is implemented, I have a haunting feeling there’ll be many more horror stories about discriminatory run-ins with the police circulating around tables wherever Latinos sit down to talk, from college campuses to coffee counters, construction sites to libraries. And that would be not a step forward, but a step backwards in time.

Rudy Ruiz has been hailed as a cultural visionary. A published author and multicultural advocate, Ruiz is an acclaimed multicultural communications entrepreneur. He founded Red Brown and Blue as well as Interlex, one of the nation’s leading advocacy marketing agencies ranked by Ad Age as one of the Top US Agencies across all disciplines. Prior to that, Ruiz earned his BA in Government at Harvard College and his Masters in Public Policy at the Harvard Kennedy School.

Most of us grew up with a soda in our hands and a twelve-pack in the pantry, but it’s time to wake up and smell the stench of empty calories. Diabetes Health reports that researchers from UCLA and the California Center for Public Health Advocacy discovered “a strong correlation between soda consumption and weight.” Specifically, they found that “adults who drink a soda or more per day are 27 percent more likely to be overweight than those who do not drink sodas.” The results were published in a study called, “Bubbling Over: Soda Consumption and Its Link to Obesity in California.”


“If we are serious about tackling the obesity crisis, cutting back soda consumption has to be the top priority,” said CCPHA Executive Director Dr. Harold Goldstein, co-author of the study.

So what he’s saying is… “Soda: It’s bad for you?”

But that’s not what you hear on TV is it? If you listen to Coke and Pepsi – and all indications are that Latino youth are listening intently – soda is happiness and soda is refreshing.

But it’s important that Latinos absorb this alternative message like a white guayabera soaks up a spilled Big Red at a carne asada:

“Soda: it’s bad for you.”

And the companies that make soda: they’re bad for you too.

As soda tax battles explode in places like New York and Philadelphia, proponents contend the measure will improve health and raise funds for public health programs. Their arguments draw on a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine recommending a tax on “sugar-sweetened beverages,” projecting that for every 10 percent rise in price, consumption of soft drinks would decline a corresponding 8 to 10 percent, leading to weight loss and reduced health risks.

Sounds sweet, unless you’re in the business of selling soda, in which case the interpretation becomes, “Soda Tax: it’s bad for you.”

When Congress considered the measure, the American Beverage Association crushed it like a flimsy aluminum can beneath the heavy boot of its influence, boosting lobbying expenditures from $4.7 million in 2008 to $40.4 million in 2009, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

The ABA created the “Americans Against Food Taxes” campaign, arguing people are already struggling to make ends meet. But they forget that health problems – increasingly related to obesity – often cause families’ financial struggles.

Worse even, the ABA is attempting to manipulate Latinos, exploiting lower health awareness and price sensitivity to mobilize our largely lower-income community against its own best interests.

The ABA’s website and campaign oozes Latino imagery. A Spanish-language TV spot features a Latina mom carrying soda while lambasting Congress for considering a soda tax. She says while tax supporters dismiss the tax as “pennies,” the pennies add up when feeding your family. She indignantly asserts that a tax seemingly insignificant to legislators could overwhelm Latino families.

Un momento, señora. Last time I checked, soda didn’t add any nutritional value to “feeding” our families. We could substitute tap water or milk for soda and deliver healthier nutrition while saving money. And, if a soda tax is regressive, hurting Latino families, imagine how much more devastating the obesity epidemic is to the health of those very families.

But why imagine, when the facts speak for themselves? Latinos over-index on soda consumption, just like we do on obesity and diabetes. According to Simmons Research, while 58% of Non-Hispanic Whites drink regular cola, 70% of Latinos do so. The dynamic contributes to a tempest in a Coke cup, with Latinos in the eye of the storm. According to the CDC, 29 percent of obese Americans are Latino. That’s double our share of the general population! Prevalence of obesity is 21% higher among Latinos than among non-Hispanic whites. The most likely person to consume soda is also among the most likely to be obese: a Latino.

In this light, it’s downright predatory of the ABA to target Latinos for help in defeating soda taxes, which – by decreasing consumption – would benefit Latino health. Sadly, it’s working.

The ABA’s coalition boasts a “who’s who” of national Latino organizations, lined up like shiny cans on a shelf. From HACU to LULAC, American GI Forum to the US Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, numerous groups support the ABA. Why don’t they care about the role soft drinks play in Latino obesity?  Could it be because these organizations have long slurped monetary syrup from ABA members?

Instead of protecting corporate pocketbooks, our advocates should defend Latino health, educate our community about soda’s harmful effects, and explain how these taxes are designed to reduce consumption and encourage adoption of healthier habits. We should also work to ensure that soda taxes and revenues are applied properly, with a focus on reducing minority health disparities.

Latinos may well be the swing vote in many soda tax initiative battles. Instead of letting the soda companies pull our strings, let’s take control of our destiny, starting with the sweet realization that, yes, you guessed it:

“Soda: It’s bad for you.”

Rudy Ruiz has been hailed as a cultural visionary. A published author and multicultural advocate, Ruiz is an acclaimed multicultural communications entrepreneur. He founded Red Brown and Blue as well as Interlex, one of the nation’s leading advocacy marketing agencies ranked by Ad Age as one of the Top US Agencies across all disciplines. Prior to that, Ruiz earned his BA in Government at Harvard College and his Masters in Public Policy at the Harvard Kennedy School.

"Los Cantores"

Reflections on the art of Carla Veliz, featured in the Instituto Cultural de México’s “Remarkable Paradigms” exhibit for International Women’s Month.

Staring at Carla Veliz’s Los Cantores, I swoon with the rhythms implied in its curves and undulating lines. I yearn to tap my feet in unison with the festive percussion of a geometrically rendered pineapple pattern in the background. I am inspired by the pair of lovers interlaced and framed within the voluptuous and fiery heart of a Latina, represented by a ruby mane shaped like a corazón. The two dance and jointly hold a malleable guitar as their figures intertwine indistinguishably. Who is strumming? Who is playing? Who is watching? None of it matters as the cantores fuse into one kaleidoscopic being, two Latinos singing, dancing and loving as one vivid manifestation of culture and passion.

I sit in another room, and yet again I cannot help but stare, fighting back my strict, traditional upbringing. My eyes open wide as a fascinated child’s, absorbing a vast landscape of muted tones, ochers and browns, rust and hints of the pale blue sky of yet another in a seemingly endless series of melancholically squandered afternoons fading into dusk. A swath of tattered screen spanning the vertical length of the canvas transports me to moments trapped behind a closed porch door, listening to the adults converse outside and yearning to be heard. The words grooved onto the canvas – “Tenia tanto que decir, pero nadie me escuchaba” – lament the unrequited desire for expression, for acknowledgement, for validation. “I had so much to say, but no one would listen.”

They say it’s not polite to stare, but in this case it’s okay because in studying Carla Veliz’s works of art you are taking a long, hard look at your self. Her works speak directly to the diverse soul of Latino culture: capturing a dazzling range of emotions and imagery, from figurative to abstract, from celebration to sorrow, from longing to loss, from shimmering beauty to foreboding darkness. But in her ambitious artistic odyssey, something magical happens amidst swirls of paint, explosions of wax and fragments of found objects colliding and fusing: Carla Veliz transcends her roots and her context. She taps into currents that run universally through all of us. Love, danger, joy, tragedy – at times surely experienced as a Latina raised along the US-Mexico border, a mother, a wife, a daughter, a sister, a friend – are presented in such a way through Carla’s paintings that we are reminded that the common truths that bind us together outweigh the nuances which render us unique.

Carla Veliz

I have always believed that the border is not just an end, but a beginning. Carla Veliz’s work is evidence of this optimistic concept. For not only did her life and career commence where our nations meet, but her oeuvre constantly reinforces the hope that the border can generate not only discord but harmony, not only chaos but order, not only war but peace. It is a reminder that through artistic expression diverse people and disparate visions – much like contrasting colors and incongruent materials – can be brought together and made whole.

In anticipation of an exhibit of Carla Veliz’s work by the Insituto Cultural de México in acknowledgement of International Women’s Month, I spoke with her in hopes of unearthing further insights into the artist and person behind the colorful canvasses. The interview follows in its entirety. By all means, feel free to leave your manners behind, become lost in the moment and stare. In doing so you may contribute not only to the fulfillment of the artist’s lifelong wish to be seen and heard but also to your own ongoing quest for self-discovery, enrichment and transcendence. After all, if Carla Veliz’s work teaches us anything, it’s that borders are meant to be crossed.

Rudy Ruiz: How has growing up on the border made it easy or natural for you to cross the line in your life? In terms of from one style of painting to another? From one professional role to another, painter to actress, art director/advertising professional to artist, mother/wife to entrepreneur? Drawing from Latino culture but speaking to a broader audience?

"I am neither from here, nor from there." 2008, mmoc, 60 x 72 in.

Carla Veliz: I believe that the versatility of my work has a lot to do with me being from a small border town. One must be willing to go up and down, right or left, fast and slow in order to survive. And in order to thrive, one must choose wisely, especially when you only are presented with one option. I had to stay or to go, and I left, but all of it remained with me as I started a new life in the US. As life went on I had to apply the same principal to all that I do and that I am. My life literally became a painting, other people started to find treasures in it, one by one, and then I realized it was taking great form, and I started to embrace it. By this I mean that what once was consider my handicap – “being Latina” – later on became my greatest asset. Even though I grew up right on the other side of the river, it took another country to allow me to come to terms with – and accept, love and embrace – the person I had been born to be.

Rudy Ruiz: What’s your ultimate goal with your art? How would you like to be remembered someday?

Carla Veliz: I tend to express what I feel, at times sadness, anger, or ecstasy, then at the end always find tranquility, peace, and hope. I do not want my art to be a monotonous repetition. My life is definitely not monotonous. If my art becomes too mechanical, I step back and start again, still going to the same destination but perhaps needing to create a new route. I just want to be a vehicle to the viewer, the one that encounters my work and might take a few more minutes to meditate upon my art. If my creations can touch one person, I will be more that content.

As far as how would I like to be remembered, well… that I lived, and loved, that I cried and cared, that I tried to be sensitive to all my surroundings and that all my dreams where based on reality.

Rudy Ruiz: Who are your most profound artistic influences?

"I had so much to say, but no one would listen." 2008, mmoc, 60 x 72 in.

Carla Veliz: The best colorist that ever existed: Henri Matisse. Of course, Pablo Picasso for his boldness and creativeness. The romance of Amedeo Modigliani portraits… I love the Mexican muralists – Tamayo, Rivera, Siqueiros, Orozco – their colors, forms, scale. Great admiration for Hans Hofmann. Applaud the works of Helen Frankenthaler & Joan Mitchell, two remarkable, strong female artists. Also deKooning, and Robert Rauschenberg’s works are amazing! I can go on and on, but like Alberto Mijangos often said, “We are all artists.” At first, I didn’t really get it, but now I think that yes, we all are, some are artists who actually create, and some who inspire.

Rudy Ruiz: Do you think it’s harder for Latino/Latina artists to break through on the US and global art scene?

Carla Veliz: Today, I don’t think it is as hard as it was before. More and more, our voices are being heard, and we are starting to matter. We have so much to share, and the world wants to listen. It could be mere curiosity or a trend, but as they get to know more about who we are and how we think, the walls of discrimination, stereotypes, apathy or ignorance start to crumble down.

Rudy Ruiz has been hailed as a cultural visionary. A published author and multicultural advocate, Ruiz is an acclaimed multicultural communications entrepreneur. He founded Red Brown and Blue as well as Interlex, one of the nation’s leading advocacy marketing agencies ranked by Ad Age as one of the Top US Agencies across all disciplines. Prior to that, Ruiz earned his BA in Government at Harvard College and his Masters in Public Policy at the Harvard Kennedy School.

Every action must have an equal and opposite reaction. Haiti’s worst earthquake in over 200 years has taken the lives of tens of thousands and threatens millions more in the aftermath. Out of the darkness of the rubble there must come light.

The forces of nature have devastated the people of Haiti. It is up to us to react and respond.

As Haiti suffers its worst earthquake in over two centuries, it brings out the best in America. Thousands of people are flying into action – from relief workers to the military, from our current President to former ones, from celebrities to average citizens – seeking ways to help.

In disasters such as these there are several waves of activity. There is first the shock and grief and horrid loss of life. There is a search and rescue phase. Then there is the aftermath, the struggle to meet basic human needs amidst the devastation of infrastructure and supply methods. This second phase is critical to avoid the massive loss of life subsequent to the initial catastrophe.

One organization poised to make a difference – with a very strong presence on the ground in Haiti – is the Pan American Development Foundation. My advocacy communications agency, Interlex, develops campaigns for the PADF – a DC-based non-profit organization affiliated with the Organization of American States – which provides economic development, human rights and disaster relief throughout the Caribbean and Latin America. The PADF has over 150 staff members on the ground in Haiti. They’ve been in the midst of this tragedy since before it began. Additionally, the PADF’s field team in the Dominican Republic piled into trucks and drove overnight towards the Haitian capital to assist.

Given the logistics, the best way most Americans can share their generosity is via monetary donations, which can be made safely via the PADF at PanAmericanRelief.org or by calling toll-free at (877) 572-4484. Donations are tax deductible as the PADF is a 501 (c)(3) organization. Additionally, the PADF is able to work with corporations wishing to donate bulk supplies or services. Partners that have already stepped up to the table include: Chevron, Royal Caribbean, Moneygram, and MTV.

PADF is utilizing all funds and resources to provide food, water and shelter to Haiti’s people. Afterwards, it will also be a vital player in the rebuilding process, so all contributions will be put to good use in responding to Haiti’s crisis.

One of the PADF’s ongoing spokespeople for efforts to improve life in Haiti is Haitian actor Jimmy Jean Louis, co-star of NBC’s “Heroes.” Jimmy Jean, who also founded the non-profit Hollywood Unites for Haiti, is appearing in the PADF’s TV, radio, print and online PSA’s to mobilize the American public behind the relief effort. He is also planning to travel to Haiti to help search for his own family members. Jimmy told CNN: “I don’t think people have any idea how terrible this is because of the circumstances on the ground in Haiti and the lack of the infrastructure. There are no roads, and it is going to be extremely difficult for help to reach people.”

Despite his personal ordeal, Jimmy Jean Louis has made himself available to help rally American support around this cause, working to quickly shoot and record TV and radio PSA’s before heading home.

That said, in such times an effective reaction and response requires not only generosity but expertise to successfully deliver aid and save lives. As Americans search for ways to help respond to this catastrophic force of nature that has crushed the Haitian people, there may seem to be a glut of options for contributing support. The PADF is uniquely positioned as one of those options due to their hands-on experience in Haiti.

Michael Zamba, the PADF’s Senior Director of Communications, told me: “Natural disaster response is one of our three core competencies. In Haiti 18 months ago we reacted to two hurricanes and two tropical storms, helping hundreds of thousands of people. We have been in Haiti for 30 years. We are not just parachuting in; we already have a whole organization there. We are not hitting the ground running. We are already on the ground.”

America can help Haiti rise up from the rubble, climb out of the darkness into the light. Working together, contributing our support to proven organizations like the PADF, we can respond swiftly and strongly in a time of great human need. Overwhelming circumstances must be met with equally overwhelming power. Today, we can become a force of nature ourselves and help heal Haiti.

Rudy Ruiz has been hailed as a cultural visionary. A published author and multicultural advocate, Ruiz is an acclaimed multicultural communications entrepreneur. He founded Red Brown and Blue as well as Interlex, one of the nation’s leading advocacy marketing agencies ranked by Ad Age as one of the Top US Agencies across all disciplines. Prior to that, Ruiz earned his BA in Government at Harvard College and his Masters in Public Policy at the Harvard Kennedy School.

“Greed is good,” Gordon Gekko giddily extolled in the movie “Wall Street,” capturing the hubris of the 80’s and earning Michael Douglas the coveted Academy Award.

But as greed threatens to consume American ideals, we must ask ourselves: Can “good” stage a comeback to beat greed? Where’s Charlie Sheen when you need him? Can we turn back the clock and give him an award too?

Speaking of the past, the Founding Fathers incorporated a healthy measure of realism in their designs for our system of governance, cognizant that if our politics could align the good of the country with the self-interests of individuals a true win-win would be generated.

To that point, James Madison wrote in 1788: “Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. What is government itself but the greatest of all reflections on human nature?”

Our Founders’ foresight would fuel America’s rise from upstart rebellion to global powerhouse. In sync with American ideals, greed was pretty good.

But in recent times – as corporations, private interest groups and coalitions have amassed rights and privileges once reserved for voting citizens, their vast resources have throttled Washington, bringing into question whether the good of the country remains in alignment with the self-interests of the forces in power.

Note that Madison referred to the interest of “man” – not “corporation” – being connected to constitutional rights; and he characterized government as a reflection of “human nature,” not “interest group nature.”

Admittedly, we humans have not only gluttonous – but tribal – tendencies. This collective avarice is at the heart of our fractious and paralyzing partisanship, driven by campaign contributions of clannish party supporters, typically comprised of entrenched corporate and special interest groups. Their conditional support is motivated by the expectation of reciprocal access, influence in policymaking, and return on investment. With our representatives – and thus our government – no longer in the grip of individual voters, “we the people” must truly worry about abuses, not necessarily by the government infrastructure but by the self-interested, calculating cabals who manipulate it.

Current dramas in our democracy demonstrate how greed is usurping the American citizen’s power to do good for our nation because private corporate ambitions are at odds with the public’s communal needs.

In the health care reform saga, the insurance industry has poured millions into influencing the outcome. How much cash do uninsured Americans have to fight back with?

In the financial arena, when AIG and the banks were bailed out a treasure trove immediately left the country or was absorbed by bonuses. The people engineering the dubious transactions were mostly former Wall Street executives and their cronies, including Treasury Secretaries and Federal Reserve Chairmen. The deals are so complex they puzzle even seasoned financiers. As promised reforms loom, how can taxpayers trust they’re not being swindled? And will the powerful banking lobby succeed in diluting proposed regulations amidst reform fatigue?

Finally, there’s the debate surrounding taxation of unhealthy foods to combat obesity and fund health reforms. I’ve advocated for such taxes coupled with shifts in federal subsidies towards healthier foods. To preempt these measures, the American Beverage Association coalesced with like-minded groups to fund a campaign called Americans Against Food Taxes. They want people to rejoice in the unfettered freedom to get fat and sick on unhealthy, cheap foods. Convenient capitalists, they lament government interference when it comes to taxing their products but not when it comes to subsidizing their source ingredients. Ironically, my company was contacted for a proposal to help their campaign penetrate multicultural communities. When I explained I’d written in support of the taxes, I was told that my personal position wouldn’t matter to them. Ah…but you see…it matters to me.

This brief but telling experience illuminates the disconnect between the thriving narcissism of corporate greed and the imperiled integrity of personal values in America.

Greed is certainly in our human nature, as Madison acknowledged. But so is good. The question now – on every contentious reform and election before us – is whether we can find a way for our better nature to prevail?

To do so, we must either realign self-interest with the good of the country or abandon self-interest and act patriotically. If corporations and interest groups can’t do this, then we should constrain their ability to influence the decision making process, restoring the power to the individual. Only then will we assure that while greed may divide us, it will not conquer us.

Rudy Ruiz has been hailed as a cultural visionary. A published author and multicultural advocate, Ruiz is an acclaimed multicultural communications entrepreneur. He founded Red Brown and Blue as well as Interlex, one of the nation’s leading advocacy marketing agencies ranked by Ad Age as one of the Top US Agencies across all disciplines. Prior to that, Ruiz earned his BA in Government at Harvard College and his Masters in Public Policy at the Harvard Kennedy School.

“People fear the loss of what they cherish about their particular identities — their race, their tribe, and perhaps most powerfully their religion. In some places, this fear has led to conflict. At times, it even feels like we are moving backwards. We see it in Middle East, as the conflict between Arabs and Jews seems to harden. We see it in nations that are torn asunder by tribal lines. Most dangerously, we see it in the way that religion is used to justify the murder of innocents by those who have distorted and defiled the great religion of Islam, and who attacked my country from Afghanistan. These extremists are not the first to kill in the name of God; the cruelties of the Crusades are amply recorded. But they remind us that no Holy War can ever be a just war. For if you truly believe that you are carrying out divine will, then there is no need for restraint — no need to spare the pregnant mother, or the medic, or even a person of one’s own faith. Such a warped view of religion is not just incompatible with the concept of peace, but the purpose of faith — for the one rule that lies at the heart of every major religion is that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us.”

His words remind me of one of my favorite movie lines of all time, when Robert DeNiro tells Mickey Roarke in Angel Heart: “They say there’s just enough religion in the world to make men hate one another, but not enough to make them love.”

While America’s Constitution calls for a separation of church and state and we have no official religion, preventing us from ever becoming a theocracy like those we have often dealt with in the Middle East, it is no secret we are largely a Christian nation. As Christians, should we not look to the teachings of Jesus Christ for guidance on our approach to attaining peace? After all he is often referred to as the “Prince of Peace.”

This is the first time I quote scripture, but as long as we’re on the subject of how religion drives conflict, why not? According to the New Testament, Jesus Christ once said during his Sermon on the Plain:

“Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have them do to you.”
—Luke 6:27-31. NIV

So that’s what Obama was talking about. Yet, that’s not what America has ever done. After the towers fell in New York City on September 11th, we made a choice. Peace was not the choice. Perhaps only one of our cheeks is bloody, or perhaps rather than let another strike the flipside of our face, we chose to gouge it out ourselves. And when the President spoke at West Point recently to announce our expansion of the war in Afghanistan, again, peace was not the choice.

The Presidents’ Nobel speech closed with: “We can understand that there will be war, and still strive for peace. We can do that — for that is the story of human progress; that is the hope of all the world; and at this moment of challenge, that must be our work here on Earth.”

Frankly, as war rages on in the regions where it always had, between Christians and Muslims and Jews as it has for over two thousand years, I’m not sold on our progress when it comes to peace. I believe that it is a story yet to be told. But I do agree that it is our challenge and that at some point we must stop “striving” and start “doing.”

Why do we even pretend or attempt to seek out peace if it seems so hard to reach? Why bother, when we seem to love conflict and drama so much? When even our own president acknowledged upon receipt of the highest peace honor offered in our world that: “War, in one form or another, appeared with the first man. At the dawn of history, its morality was not questioned; it was simply a fact, like drought or disease — the manner in which tribes and then civilizations sought power and settled their differences.”

Perhaps, just like our spiritual instincts, it’s because something inside us tells us that while it’s not what we’re doing, it’s what we ought to be doing. Something intangible and invisible tells us that peace is good and that peace is better. Peace is safe and warm and happy. At times like these holidays, we often see, hear and even profess wishes of joy and peace to all. But do we mean it? We should.

Only by laying down our arms and seeking that common ground in our diverse faiths that Obama alluded to, will we ever achieve some semblance of peace on Earth. Only through tolerance, and each religion and its leaders desisting from convincing their flocks that theirs is the only path to enlightenment and the afterlife, might we attain mutual respect and empathy, supporting each other’s culturally unique pursuits of the divine rather than undermining those pursuits and descending into the hell of war.

Would it be worth it? Of course, it would. Peace on earth would free us to end suffering and elevate ourselves to a higher iteration of ourselves, an evolution. We could truly create a shared paradise here on this little planet, a preview of heaven. If only we could stop killing each other over religious differences and realize that what we agree upon is greater: that God wants humanity to live up to its potential and the only way to do it is to stop fighting and start working together.

After all, as my 5-year old son pointed out to me when he heard me discussing this topic: “God wants peace.”

Let’s start making it today.

Rudy Ruiz has been hailed as a cultural visionary. A published author and multicultural advocate, Ruiz is an acclaimed multicultural communications entrepreneur. He founded Red Brown and Blue as well as Interlex, one of the nation’s leading advocacy marketing agencies ranked by Ad Age as one of the Top US Agencies across all disciplines. Prior to that, Ruiz earned his BA in Government at Harvard College and his Masters in Public Policy at the Harvard Kennedy School.