Tesla's Loss, Rivian's Gain?

Not long ago I thought that Donald Trump could present a boon for Rivian. But with all the angst against Tesla right now, my perspective on why that might be has shifted a bit—it's clear there's more at play than I initially anticipated. And frankly, who could have seen any of this coming?

Tesla is literally on fire.

That said, this isn't some seismic event, so it's not going to cause me to change my position on Rivian for the long term, nor do I think it potentially knocks Tesla out of the game. Sure, the left right now is in a tizzy over Elon Musk's presence in the White House running DOGE, but when heat gets applied to businesses, no matter who's applying the heat, it tends to be fleeting. Boycotts and protests, no matter how loud, usually fizzle out over time.

Take the Bud Light-Dylan Mulvaney controversy. It's mostly in the rearview mirror now. While some customers haven't come back, the stigma has cooled considerably. Even Kid Rock who once made headlines by shooting up a case of Bud Light, now says, "It's okay to drink Bud Light again." 

That's not to say there's no lingering impact. Yuengling, for instance, has seen a notable surge in popularity, likely fueled by those still upset with Bud Light, aiding their push into new markets.

Like some beer drinkers may have traded out of Bud Light and into Yuengling and other beers, Tesla owners are reportedly trading in their EVs at unprecedented rates—not for gas guzzlers, but for other electric vehicles from legacy automakers, and more interestingly, from startups like Rivian.

By the way, Rivian's lineup is already impressive, and with more affordable models on the horizon like the mid-size R2 SUV and the R3 crossover hatchback, they're poised to attract a whole new wave of customers.

Sooner or later, the protests targeting Elon Musk will lose momentum. But, as with the Bud Light controversy, scars may linger after the dust settles. This creates a chance for others to step in, capture interest, and expand their market share. 

As the saying goes, one man's misfortune can pave the way for another man's gain. My long-term outlook for Rivian remains unchanged, and I'm holding steady on my position. Still, it'll be worth watching to see if Rivian capitalizes on the moment while Tesla's negative hype is still buzzing.

Like the things I write about or the way I write about them? Follow me on my Facebook page to keep up with the latest writings wherever I may write them.

© 2025 Jim Bauer

You may also want to read:

Ford's Long Road: Why its Consistency Keeps me Invested
What's Next for Rivian Stock?
The Cost of Being Right
Tesla Could Become a Literal Powerhouse, But Not in the Car Market

Bud Light Pain Continues

Attention spans are rather short, so it becomes a real question regarding Bud Light whether it can actually ever fix the problem it created when it teamed up with transgender Dylan Mulvaney and return itself to the #1 spot in its category.

I think the beer can recover. But I am not sure if it will ever do so fully.

Part of the problem has been the lack of any real apology nor acknowledgement that they "screwed up," and that has been weighing heavily on boycotters when they decide whether or not forgiving and forgetting is an option.

Of course, only time will tell. Surely 10 years from now will anyone even really remember who Dylan Mulvaney even was, let alone the controversy? Older generations will. But newer generations won't, and that's going to be who Anheuser-Busch, the parent company who owns the Bud Light brand of beer, is going to target through its marketing campaigns.

That being said, the controversy and the boycott live on, with AB still down more than 30% since the boycott started, and it has been holding steady. Sales have not otherwise picked up despite multiple marketing efforts to pull the brand away from the image of Dylan Mulvaney and instead focus on the workers—and now they've brought in Manning and other prominent athletes to try to bring the beer back around to more popularity.

Which, by the way, could be a good thing or a bad thing. For Manning, that is. It wasn't that long ago that veteran star Garth Brooks came under fire for supporting Bud Light quite vocally. I don't have stats on record sales or streams, but I do recall reading somewhere that he's been abandoned by at least a portion of his audience.

The thing for Bud Light was that its campaign (which they denied was even a campaign) simply came at the wrong time. Too many companies had tried to go woke and quite simply put, people simply had enough.

"You're shoving this identity thing down our throats, and we're sick of it. Just sell beer," they so much as said to AB. And it was a message to other companies as well that we're tired of being marketed feelings and ideology, and we're tired of being forced to make-believe that these ideas resonate with more people than they actually do.

It does seem to me that AB has pretty much gotten the message. The odd thing is that they are rather quietly acknowledging it. Rather than just come out and say it, they are simply looking for distance to right the situation for them. 

But again, only time will tell if Bud Light ever sees itself back in the #1 spot ever again. In the grander scheme of things, even if Bud Light can ever get to #2, sometimes that's not a terrible spot to be in either.

Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on my Facebook page to keep up with the latest writings wherever I may write them. Looking for something different? Give my single, Where Do I Go a spin on Spotify.

Don't Rush to Buy These Boycotted Companies' Stock

Not so fast, folks. As I work my rounds around the Facebook and Twitter spheres about this controversy faced by several companies over backlash against Pride stuff—Anheuser-Busch, Kohl's, Target and others—it seems the naysayers and deniers of the effectiveness of the boycotts are quick to simply say, "Thanks for the opportunity to make a lot of money buying shares of stock of these beaten down companies."

Normally I would agree with them. And maybe ultimately, they are right. Eventually these companies will make a comeback and perhaps come back stronger. It is certainly not outside the realm of possibility, and things like this do eventually tend to pretty much go away once the heat dies down.

I will say that being an avid and long-time stock market guy, I will certainly be keeping my eyes on it. I don't want to miss any opportunities to make money either. But I think the time is not now. Not immediately. Because I also think this backlash has legs left yet.

It would be best to sit this one out and wait until the fire dies down, the smoke clears, and the ashes have all been cleaned up.

Because this is a different feeling backlash. It's still quite hot. And I don't think consumers are near done with it yet and may not be for some time. Especially when it comes to Anheuser-Busch. Even just the other day when I went to Casey's to pick up a craft beer to share with my brother-in-law, all of the AB InBev beers were untouched while competing brands like Coors Light and Miller Lite were almost completely gone.

Nobody is buying Budweiser, Busch, Busch Light, Bud Light or any other AB beer. And that's the same story at Walmart, Schnucks and everywhere else I have been.

It's different because the fact is that consumers are just very tired of the whole LGBTQ+ thing. As I have said many times on this blog, they've simply had enough of the forceful spoon-feeding of the rhetoric. Not only that, but there's another interesting element here that needs to be considered.

It's the left's reaction to it.

Suddenly the word snowflake is being hijacked and used to describe conservatives. Suddenly, after the left succeeded in kicking Aunt Jemimah pancake syrup off the shelves, destroying iconic logos like the Land 'o Lakes indian and seeing name changes from Uncle Ben's rice to simply Ben's Original, forcing the Washington Redskins to change their name to The Commanders, the left is signaling a "wah-wah-wah" stance against conservatives over beer, and over our stance against the Pride movement.

Apparently, unless you are on the left, you are not allowed to have a position, take a stand, voice an opinion, or otherwise be offended by anything.

The left also makes a mistake to assert that we, the ones opposed to cancel culture, are now engaging in cancel culture. I have pointed out in my arguments that what we are opposed to when it comes to the Pride movement is in fact, in direct opposition to cancel culture.

Because ultimately the LGBTQ+ thing is trying to cancel gender.

This movement on our side against Pride and the LGBTQ+ movement is something that runs quite a bit deeper than other positions in the past—from both sides, frankly. It is an assault on family values. It aims to clutter the minds of children and influence them to question their identity. It pits normal lines of thinking against a societal fringe. And it is attempting to create bigotry where none exists.

If you disagree, you simply hate. And no one likes to be called a hateful bigot when that's not the case at all.

I simply think that there was a final straw on this issue that broke the camel's back, and it is going to take a lot longer than usual to heal the wounds. And for that reason, I am not so sure those discounts offered today are really discounts at all. I don't think they will bear fruit. And even if they one day do, it's going to be a long time to wait for them.

If you are a lefty thinking a pot of gold has been left on your doorstep, you may want to take careful hold of your britches and wait this one out. Because I think not only have you lost the LGBTQ+ fight to attempt to change the status quo of common culture, the companies who have fallen in your court have also fallen out of favor, and there's no guarantee a comeback is coming.

Like the way I write and the things I write about? Follow me on my Facebook page to find the latest posts in all of the places I write. You can also follow me on Twitter @jimbauer601. Interested in some free Bitcoin? Check out this fun faucet.

Chick-fil-A Next in the Crosshairs

Considering the recent debacle over a beer can depicting transgender social media influencer, Dylan Mulvaney, clearly a marketing campaign despite what Anheuser-Busch wants to say—you sent a can to an influencer with millions of followers and had to have known that influencer would post something about it—which lost AB InBev billions of dollars in beer sales, not just of Bud Light but across all brands, that they still have yet to recover from, and now with Target showing losses in a major consumer backlash over pride merchandise being marketed to kids which has plummeted the value of the company by $10 billion in 10 days...

What in the hell is a company, who was long the bastion of conservative consumer high fan-fare, like Chick-fil-A doing when it decides it wants to join in on the fun and make an effort to potentially destroy what they have worked so hard to build by introducing DDI into its work culture?

Because we are operating at a time when, and it is not just conservatives, people in general have simply had enough of woke and cancel culture and having pride and diversity and gay and transgender life rammed down our throats at every turn.

It is not a question of if there will be backlash. It's a question of when will it come?

Granted, the Chick-fil-A thing is slightly different and so maybe the company can slide quietly on this without a major impact. It's not a marketing campaign. But I think consumers see the writing on the wall. It's just one more company trying to push something, even if from a purely business perspective it makes no sense to do it.

You would think, especially from a company like Chick-fil-A, that they would have gotten a clear message from both the Bud Light and Target disasters—maybe we still want to do something but now may not be the right time to do it.

When it comes to business the thing that puzzles me the most is that the entire purpose for any business is to make a profit. That's really all there is to it. It's the only reason you exist as a business. To enjoy a profit and make money for everyone who works for the company or who owns it. 

There is no other purpose.

So, why would anyone knowingly and willingly put that potential profit in jeopardy? On purpose! Why would you do it?

I am hard pressed to figure out what the purpose actually is. Is it to strongly support woke and cancel culture and all this liberal ideology fueled garbage because you believe in it? Is it a political agenda on the part of management? Even if it is either or those things or something else, it goes completely against the purpose of being in business, which is why I am perplexed about any of it.

It also makes me wonder if shareholders may now have grounds to sue for lost value of their investments in a case like this where management has to be fully aware that engaging in any of this sort of thing is absolutely going to destroy value.

It's just not a question right now because we have the proof right in front of us and it is clear. In this environment, if a company decides to do something that will clearly drop their bottom lines, can investors say, "Hey, wait a minute. This is our company and we want you to focus on what makes us money. Nothing else matters."

None of this is to say that any group should not be acknowledged or left behind. But it is to say that we should also recognize what any group represents as the whole, and clearly the LGBTQ+ community is in the minority, and by leaps and bounds. It's a very tiny percentage of the population that is part of that community.

What's at issue here is that that small group wants the majority to conform or else. Something I have talked about extensively. No one in society should be forced to do anything. And beyond that, it's about the kids right? And I think that's really where all of this backlash is really coming from. It's the fuel for the fire, so to speak.

Had this thing not been pushed in SCHOOLS, for Heaven's sake, maybe no one would care if you had a beer can with a transgender face on it or a few tuck friendly swimsuits on the shelves at Target.

It is when it is not about inclusivity, but rather about indoctrination, not just of kids mind you, but society as a whole to simply accept their point of view or else is when the whole thing implodes on itself.

Because that's what they are doing. The LGBTQ+ community is not wanting inclusion at all. They are wanting to disrupt everyone else's lives in order to have their way. Shove it right down our throats, have pride flags flown everywhere, have children be taught about their way of life, have our television shows and TV commercials and billboards filled with Pride Awareness and Pride Agenda. 

The backlash against these companies, regardless of what their actual agenda is, is about all of that. And consumers are saying no. Enough. And it is almost as though the companies don't care if they go broke in the process. 

Perhaps there is another little hidden agenda in all of this. Destroying wealth and pushing the real hidden cause. Universal Basic Income and socialism at its core. Maybe that's what these companies are really up to? 

Who knows? All I can say is that Chick-fil-A certainly will fall into the crosshairs, and it may not bode well for the company. And once reputations are ruined, the reality is that it will be difficult to get it back. As I was always told, "It takes years to build a loyal customer and only seconds to lose one." 

I am almost of the opinion that these companies don't care. It's the only thing that makes sense to me.

Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on my Facebook page to keep up with the latest postings wherever I may post. Want to have a conversation? Find me on Twitter @jimbauer601.

Media Reporting of LGBTQ+ Movement is Wrong

The manner in which the conservative backlash toward transgender and identity and the whole LGBTQ+ movement is being portrayed in the media is just more propaganda and false reporting. I would say the media is missing the point, but that's not the case at all.

The media knows exactly what they are doing.

And that's the same thing they always do. They are installing a narrative. The story is not the reaction by conservatives to handing Dylan Mulvaney a can of Bud Light beer with his picture on it. The story is not the reaction to Pride offerings in Target stores. 

The story is the force feeding of woke and cancel culture, which is a minority viewpoint, onto the majority. The story is forcing this ideology onto children. The story is forcing the majority of people to be forced to conform to a fringe societal view.

The fact is that there is only one thing that the LGBTQ+ community wants, and that's for everyone else to simply sit down and shut up and accept their viewpoint, or else.

Conservatives have simply had enough. And I think even to suggest that it is only a conservative movement is also false. But that's part of the narrative. That's what the media wants us all to believe, that in order to have a viewpoint that is different from the LGBTQ+ community and movement, one must be a conservative.

I think there are actually many liberals and independents also tired of it. Based on the impact and the numbers, I think only the latter must be true.

The fact is that the proper way to report any stories about any backlash toward transgender and identity and LGBTQ+ issues is this way. "A large portion of the American people are pushing back on the forced push of LGBTQ+ ideology."

Because that's what is really happening.

Granted, it may be that it is more likely that one with a conservative viewpoint will have a stronger opinion on the issue. However, it is not the whole story and certainly it is not a prerequisite to be a conservative for standing against these things.

Part of the issue is that what people are being asked (and I use the word "asked" very lightly here) to do is accept, without question, whatever it is that the left and woke and cancel culture wants and simply fall in line. People are being forced to be confrontational just because. 

If you think that taking down a statue of Robert E. Lee is wrong, you must be a racist. If you think that boys should only use boy's bathrooms, you must be a homophobe. If you think it is okay to enjoy a pour of Aunt Jemimah syrup on your pancakes, you must be in support of white supremacist movements. If you think that transgenderism should not be present in schools, you must be insensitive to LGBTQ+ issues.

I could go on, but I think anyone is aware what these issues are that are involved with woke and cancel culture.

What's being missed in the discussion, but again not by the media because they know exactly what they are doing as I mentioned earlier, is that other people simply have a difference of opinion and it so happens to be that MOST people disagree with woke and cancel culture.

Sure, one can make an argument that sets this movement alongside the Civil Rights Movement. At that time, it could have been argued that most people were of the viewpoint that blacks were inferior people and not entitled to the same rights as everyone else.

At that time, that majority viewpoint was wrong.

But hold up a minute. Was that viewpoint actually the majority viewpoint? I think it wasn't. I think most people were actually on the side of the black community. Had that not been the case, I don't think the Civil Rights Movement would have been effective at all. It never would have worked.

And let's face it, there's one other thing about the Civil Rights Movement that is important to keep in mind.

The movement made sense!

But there is also another element here which I think is important to understand. That is that I have serious doubts that most genuine people within the LGBTQ+ community agree with most of this stuff. I think the genuine gays and lesbians and trans people simply want to be live their lives quietly just like everyone else on the other side.

So, the movement, to my mind, is entirely on the fringe. It is an agenda not to try to bring people together. It is a movement to portray a certain, defined group of people a certain way for the purpose of winning political favor. It is a movement designed to further pit people against each other and create division.

It's why anyone who speaks out against Bud Light or against gender neutral Potato Heads is automatically assigned as a conservative.

Frankly, I think the real woke culture is the vast majority of Americans, and I think that is an important distinction to make. It is not just conservatives waking up to the reality that all of this "woke" stuff is bad. It's the vast majority of the AMERICAN PEOPLE who believe this. And they are fighting back. 

They are fighting back for history to be preserved. They are fighting back to save the children. They are fighting back to stop the division. They are fighting back to simply say, "Let me enjoy my breakfast. Let me enjoy browsing through the aisles of Target. Let me enjoy my M&M's and enjoy a cold beer. Let me enjoy a sitcom or a movie. Let me enjoy a football game. And let me enjoy it all without all sorts of politics and innuendo injected into it."

That's the story the media is failing to report. And again, it's not that they don't know what the story is. They simply aren't interested in reporting it. 

Like the way I write and the things I write about? Follow me on my Facebook page to follow me around all the places I write, and around all the things I write about.

Make Sure Bud Light Boycott Really Bites In

Most of the time when conservatives boycott something, the impact is short-lived, for whatever reason. I think most conservatives just eventually move on. I mean, don't get me wrong. It's a good quality to have, and a lot of times conservatives don't really participate in boycotts all that much anyway—although we will be apt to participate in more focused support for certain companies who follow certain principles and do the right thing.

Think Hobby Lobby and Chick-Fil-A.

But the Bud Light controversy is sticking, and conservatives across the country are sticking it hard to parent company Anheuser-Busch InBev, not just leaving Bud Light on the shelves and refusing to order the beer in bars and restaurants. They are sticking it to their other brands as well and simply not buying any of the beers made by Anheuser-Busch. 

No doubt the pain is being felt. The company is losing billions of dollars in revenue each week and meanwhile, other beers like Miller Lite and Coors Lite are flying off the shelves.

There is even a beer that was launched being monikered Ultra Right, that is being contract brewed somewhere in Northern Illinois, created by Seth Weathers, a former director in Georgia in 2016 who headed up former president Donald Trump's campaign.

It should be noted that it was initially going to be contract brewed by Bent River Brewing, but company president Nick Bowes declined to brew it after he saw what the marketing would be for it. Perhaps conservatives should take note of Bent River as well?

Because again, as I have asked multiple times before, is business about money or politics? And if you want to inject politics into your business plan, maybe that should have an impact on your business? Good or bad mind you. Certainly, Ultra Right would be doing that with their own beer brand. And being marketed as an unwoke beer is certainly a political statement if there ever was one.

By the way, I should point out that Miller Lite and Coors Light are American beers of course. But the company that produces them are no longer American, and while that doesn't necessarily matter in light of the Bud Light controversy, perhaps just keeping that somewhere in the back of the mind is something to think about.

As far as large American breweries go there's Yuengling and the Boston Beer Company to consider. Boston Beer makes Sam Adams. Yuengling says they aren't woke. Boston Beer has not currently taken any position.

As far as the boycott is concerned, I think the message being sent needs to be a clear one. We are tired of this woke crap being shoved down our throats and being forced to submit to it. In other words, we can't just go back to business as usual when it comes to Anheuser-Busch InBev. In order for the message to have long legs it needs to serve as a warning and poster child for any other company who wants to engage in woke politics that their best move would be to cease and desist. Otherwise, businesses wanting to engage in such antics will simply calculate their short-term losses to maintain appeasement for the minority groups wanting to push their politics on everyone else.

In other words, businesses will be allowed to simply have their cake and eat it too.

At least for now it appears that this boycott will have a lasting impact. But it's also way too soon to assert that as a reality. And it's not about necessarily punishing or bringing down a company. It's simply about making it clear that businesses need to know their customers and simply stick to branding and selling products and leave the rest up to advocacy groups to have their say. It's to say that if you decide to cow-toe to minority pressures while alienating your core customers to accomplish it, there will be a price to pay for it.

Even if Anheuser-Busch backtracks and apologizes to save their business, I think conservatives need to say no. It's not enough. Your last move was the final straw. It's what broke the camel's back. We have to determine whether or not the apology is really genuine. We have to know that they really got the message. And other businesses need to be all too aware that if they decide to go the direction Bud Light and Anheuser-Busch did, there's not going to be an easy way out of it.

What's the old saying? You shouldn't have to say sorry to one's you love. Beyond that, sorry doesn't always cut it. And in this case, perhaps it shouldn't.

Like what I have to say or like the way I write about it? Follow me on Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/jimbauerwrites to follow all the places I ply my trade on.

Is Alissa Heinersheid Out, or Is She Over Bud Light Marketing Controversy?

Was the vice president of marketing, Alissa Heinsersheid, fired over the Bud Light controversy? Well, that depends on who you talk to and how you want to interpret words. Which, by the way, is an age-old tactic with the left that perhaps took root when Bill Clinton famously answered a question by asking another question, "That depends on what is is."

Or maybe it was something the left has been doing long before Clinton's now famous response to what was a rather simple question. They say things that sound like the same thing but aren't exactly necessarily the same thing.

What Anheuser-Busch InBev said is that she simply took a "leave of absence."

One thing the left, and particularly the woke and cancel culture people, hate to do is admit defeat. They very strongly don't want to be wrong. 

It depends on what "is" is.

Whether or not company officials say she was fired or not to me doesn't matter. As I have said before, business is about dollars and cents. Not politics—even if many corporate America executive boards and leadership now seemed to have tapped into woke people to lead them.

They chose to allow a bad idea to hit the airwaves thinking they were being inclusive and thinking that woke culture is "the new next best thing," and they thought that consumers would rejoice when they saw transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney on their beer cans.

Because woke people, besides being misinformed about their own cause and popularity, and despite the feeling of power they think they have, are simply out of touch with reality. Consumers are having had enough of it and they sent a clear message to Anheuser-Busch InBev about it. They don't want to just come right out and say they were wrong.

So, they didn't fire the person behind the marketing idea gone wrong. She's just on a leave of absense. Okay. Whatever.

Meanwhile, Todd Allen, who is the vice president of global marketing for Budweiser takes her place, and other changes to marketing teams and leadership have also been made so that there is more oversight over how marketing campaigns will be conducted and reviewed in the future.

Sounds clear to me that Anheuser-Busch InBev is making these changes because of the Bud Light, Dylan Mulvaney controversy. What else would it be about?

Speaking about transgenderism, I think it is worth noting that the way the media is portraying any backlash on the issue, they say that the right (and republicans in general) are "fixated on transgender issues," with many state governors and legislators introducing bills that they claim infringe on transgender rights.

Wait a minute. Who is fixated?

For several years now I think the truth is that the left has been fixated on it, literally shoving their cause down everyone else's throats and forcing them to "accept this or else." Join our woke movement or be labeled as a racist, homophobe or demagogue.

They don't care what the majority wants. We are not supposed to have our voices heard. We are supposed to just quietly sit back and take it—all of it—and accept whatever their definition of the world is.

Regardless of whether or not Alissa Heinsersheid is out of a job or not I don't think makes a difference, ultimately. At least not in the short term. With this wording of her departure, I think consumers are smarter than the narrative. They want an admission of guilt, and they want the company execs to be honest about what happened and why, and admit they were wrong.

This isn't going to be a moment where consumers, essentially ignored and unappreciated, now simply go back to the stores and start buying Bud Light again. The damage has been done and the little token of a "white flag" being thrown up in a kinda sorta way isn't enough.

Besides, I think consumers need to continue to stand tall against what Bud Light tried to do. If the "moment" is one in which execs simply feel they dodged a little bullet here, the real message will be lost in translation.

Like the way I write and the things I write about, you can find more of my work from all of the places I write on Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/jimbauerwrites

In Bud Light Debacle Workers Should Fight Too

I stand firmly with the Bud Light boycott over the controversy surrounding putting transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney on their beer cans. And that's saying something since I am generally opposed to boycotts. However, when it comes to woke and cancel culture, which has permeated businesses of all kinds for some years now, I take a different stance.

Enough is enough.

The role of business is not to promote social causes or to necessarily have one position or another. It is to promote their products and services and make a profit. When they sway from this primary purpose, they jeopardize their ability to do that.

But it is not just owners and shareholders that suffer when a backlash happens. It's the workers who get hurt in the process as well.

Consumers who are unhappy with what a business is doing is going to make a stand against it with their wallets. As someone once was quoted as saying, "Every dollar we spend casts a vote for the kind of world we want to live in." In the case of the Bud Light controversy, consumers are speaking quite loudly about their unhappiness.

At some point the position the company is taking is going to affect the workers who produce the products and services and I think they should be fighting just as hard against this sort of thing as consumers are. It's their jobs at stake, after all.

Because let's not forget, while Bud Light is only one brand among many, consumers boycotting Bud Light aren't necessarily boycotting just that brand. They are boycotting the company behind it. Anheuser-Busch InBev. So, while one may consider that other brands being sold could pick up the slack, so to speak, that's not necessarily the case.

Workers need to stand up and tell the company they work for that this sort of thing doesn't do anyone any good. You are taking a stand for a group of people who represent only 1% of the population. The other 99% are standing against you and if profits fall, our jobs could be cut.

Granted, people in general do have short attention spans, and so it is reasonable to assume that perhaps this issue falls by the wayside sooner rather than later. Still, with losses looming around $7 billion and counting, and with woke and cancel culture becoming more and more disliked, the impact of Bud Light's decision to put Mulvaney on the can could well be a lasting one after all.

Part of the issue, I think, is that I don't think companies are necessarily getting the message clearly enough. The response from Anheuser-Busch InBev about the controversy, which was more of a non-response, seems to indicate that.

They sort of said to their customers, "We don't care what you think." And even if that's not word-for-word what they said, that's what customers heard. That was the essence of the company's response. "We are going to do what we want to do and you're just going to have to accept that and fall in line."

In other words, I don't think it is enough for just consumers to stop buying the products. I think other businesses should make a stand too and pull products from their shelves, and workers should step off the production line and say, "We're not returning to work until you understand your customers better."

You have to fight fire with fire. Because the woke and cancel crowd right now have all the fire, and a lot of it. The rest of us need to have as much fire individually as they do, because ultimately we will have more fire. We are the majority.

Whether or not workers would actually do this is debatable. Or even retailers. I understand, on a common-sense surface level why they might choose not to. Still, if the message is not delivered strongly enough, the other side will simply keep on winning, and the majority will have to continue to be bombarded with more of this nonsense that is becoming a deadly cancer on American business.

Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on my Facebook page http://www.facebook.com/jimbauerwrites where I post my blogs, articles and other writing from here and all the other places I write.