IF you’re searching for a nearly perfect insect on planet earth, look no further than the bee. There are approximately 25,000 species of bees spanning the globe, from the African continent to the Americas and nearly every other land mass between. They are superior pollinators — collecting pollen and nectar for food and subsequently cross-pollinating one plant to the other — on and on — contributing to the fertilization process, when fruits and seeds are formed and matured. According to estimates, bees are responsible for nearly 35 percent of the food we eat.

In Florida alone, there are 300 native species of bees, including species of honeybees, a very busy and furry little insect that visits 50 to 100 flowers on any given garden trip under the sun. Often you’ll find one buried in a bud or a few others buzzing nearby. Honeybees usually go about their important business, docile and unassuming, but sometimes the bees will sting a passerby, puncturing through the skin of a human, and losing their stinger in the process. It’s actually quite a tragic and gruesome death for the bee, a self-mutilation, if you can imagine, as the abdomen is ruptured, leaving a gaping hole, and half of the bee is gone with the stinger.

Bee stings, more than anything, are a mere annoyance to most humans. But there are times when a single sting, including one from an Africanized Honeybee, can send a person into anaphylactic shock and cause death. And, there are times when bees swarm. Though swarms seldom harm humans, serious injury or even deaths can and do occur if unlucky persons were to cross their path. It’s rare. But it does happen.

The Swarm

On one particular Florida afternoon, in the middle of the week, November 19, 2019, the bees arrived. It was trash day and oversized garbage bins and recyclables blocked parts of the street, proof that garbagemen had been there — were still there — grappling with, and emptying the bins, then tossing them anywhere other than their original spot.

One trash can a bit further down hadn’t budged, still filled to the brim with plastics, papers, rotten food, and old mail. Directly below it, two recycle bins, one yellow and one blue, overturned along with a syrup bottle, an empty tub of protein powder, a can of tuna, and a few cans of cat food. The bees were there; flying and bouncing from one carton to the next. Some flew higher in the air, then buzzed back down to the bins where more bees occupied the space, claiming new and savory territory, lumped together in a feeding-frenzy swarm.

It is said that bees swarm as a form of survival. When a colony becomes overcrowded, it will subdivide, splitting in two, and some bees will leave, looking for more resources and another place to live. In the late summer and fall months, for instance, when rainfall begins to subside and flowers wither in the heat, a trash can or recycle bin can make an appetizing alternative, a goldmine of leftover treats, sweeter than nectar, and free for the taking, but certainly, not without risk.

But for these particular Florida bees, the risk was worth the sweet stuff; the sweet, drippy, honey-like syrup oozing from a tipped over jug. It had drizzled in the recycling bins, on top the tuna and cat food cans and somehow smeared on an empty gallon of milk. It was everywhere. And so were the bees. A few hundred or so.

As it turns out, garbage men have the fifth most dangerous job in America. The work isn’t easy and injuries, even fatalities, occur for all sorts of reasons. Broken glass, a passing car, hazardous waste, flying squirrels, and raccoons — sometimes bad things happen to good garbagemen. Bad things that can and should be prevented with a few simple protocols like securing items in heavy trash bags or washing out food containers and keeping cartons or bottles covered. It’ll keep out the critters. And the bees — which garbagemen avoided that November afternoon.

And it also turns out that bee removal experts are in high demand. So much so that services requested and services rendered can have a lag time of up to 24 hours, or more, and calls made by those encountering a bee swarm may often go unanswered. And then there’s the bill, $500 or so, if an expert can get there in time, of course, which they couldn’t.

And time was a factor on this particular Florida afternoon. School would be out soon; children would walk home and pass through the street, near the untouched trash can, overturned recycle bins, the syrup bottle, and bees. Hundreds of bees.

Tough Choices

Dish soap. Large, black plastic bags. A water hose. Goggles. Gloves. White rain coat with a white hood. Blue bandana. I already had a pair of jeans on and boots that covered my ankles. Except for the bridge of my nose, not one square inch of skin was exposed, not one single stinger would puncture my flesh. And not one passerby would recognize me, to be sure, since I looked a bit like a bee keeper — a champion and protector of bees. The irony was striking.

Down the drive, a few yards from my front door, the bees were still buzzing, like a mad mob — a hive mind — a collective consciousness, operating as a unifying force, hovering over the cartons, remnants of food and syrup. Delicious, delectable syrup.

When making the choice to conquer a bee swarm, one must have the upper hand — to be in position of advantage, power and control. All of these elements, along with an element of surprise, are needed to achieve the desired outcome. The bees would be unlikely to stay, especially when the rush of water floods in, if the syrupy source is wiped clean and if they believe the food is gone. All things considered, however, the swarm may be reluctant to leave. But the bees had to go, one way or another.

I would like to tell you that the bees flew away — tired of the soapy water — to find a new source of food and plenty of flowers and nectar to feed a colony. I would like to tell you that most of the bees lived. But as the water continued to rush inside the bins, frothy and bubbling over, the bees and their stingers began to drown.

Later, after containers were shoved into large black plastic bags, the yellow bus pulled through, and children walked their normal routes, stepping over cracks in the sidewalk, hurrying home after a long day at school. Soapy water still flowed in the gutters nearby. But they never saw the bees. They never saw the swarm.

Share

THE patient smiled as he motioned for me to enter his room. It was the middle of the week, in the middle of the day, and though the Florida sun was shining bright outside, the room was dim and the air was still.

His wife sat by the window, near the foot of the bed, and a tray of half-eaten food remained on the rolling table to his right. I introduced myself and asked how he was feeling. After a few pauses, the conversation quickly moved from topic to topic, and in minutes, it felt as though we’d been friends for years.

As a volunteer clergy member with the Spiritual Care Department at JFK Hospital in Atlantis, Fl., it was my job to visit with patients during their stay. They could be lonely, bored, receiving chemotherapy, or even near death. For three years, since 2017, I had walked the hospital floors and spent time with those who needed a friend, a coffee, a prayer, or even a new book to read. The word search paperbacks were a favorite.

But on this particular day, as I sat with the man and his wife, something had shifted, and yet, I didn’t fully comprehend what it was at the time. Though our conversation was light and cheerful, the patient’s wife mentioned something about a virus. There was an outbreak in China, she said, and other countries such as Canada, Vietnam and Australia had reported infections. The United States had confirmed at least five cases.

I had heard similar news stories and read the headlines, it was January 2020, after all, but the speculation about what might happen remained uncertain. No one knew, at that point, the pandemic disruptions and drastic changes up ahead, and most surely not me. And here’s the other thing I didn’t know: that was my very last day walking the hospital floors and spending time with patients. The pandemic changed everything.

By the time March rolled around, the world had gone into full-blown panic. Schools, stores, community centers, doctor’s offices, libraries, and yes, hospitals, closed their doors or drastically reduced the number of people permitted inside.

It was clear, according to authorities, that people should not be near people, and if they must, a mask was needed. In the short term, the guidelines made sense. In the long term – which was the case in many places in the world – the rules contributed, in part, to a breakdown in relationships including family members and close friends, neighbors and everyday interactions within the community.

Take, for example, the casual acquaintance – the coffee barista or the waiter at a local eatery – these are people in everyday life, easy to take for granted, but each, in their own way, provide meaningful companionship. This especially is the case for the elderly and those who may not have close friends or family. People have always needed people.

As I write this, I’m reminded of a nice woman named Priscilla. Of all the baristas in Wellington – and there are quite a few – no one poured a Caffè Americano quite like Priscilla. She worked mornings at the coffee counter inside Whole Foods, and occasionally, in the afternoons. Priscilla was always busy – preparing and grinding beans, scrubbing mugs and cups, cleaning counters, taking orders, and pouring drinks - but she was never too busy for her customers. To others, including myself, she was the friend you always wanted: kind, lighthearted, funny, a good listener.

But in 2020, and once the lockdowns began, the coffee counter closed. Not long after, Whole Foods physically removed the entire bar from the store, like it was never there. The fresh coffee, camaraderie, and Priscilla were gone–and so went the relationship.

According to a September 2020 Pew Research Center poll, 41 percent of Americans described negative associations with relationships early in the pandemic such as feelings of isolation and ‘losing touch’ with acquaintances, friends and loved ones. Yet, along with the negative experiences one would expect during a pandemic, positive changes also occurred. Sixty-seven percent mentioned at least one positive change in relationships since the pandemic began.

Though each perspective and situation is particularly personal, it’s impossible to deny that most Americans, even now in 2023, share similar relationship stories in the pandemic’s aftermath. This week, I surveyed a group of Americans about their experiences with friends or loved ones over the past three years and the results were evenly mixed. Slightly more Americans (49 percent) mentioned a change in relationships due to the pandemic, while a smaller share (46 percent) mentioned no change. Of the 49 percent, some 33 percent said these changes were negative, while 38 percent described them as positive. Roughly 29 percent of responses claimed both negative and positive changes in relationships as a result of the pandemic.

Here are some direct quotes from Americans who say the pandemic changed their relationships.

Subscribe now

A Silver Lining

We’ve come to a closing act, of sorts, as the U.S. national emergency to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic ended April 10 of this year. President Biden had signed the measure behind closed doors. There were no parades, no celebrations, no one ‘broke the Internet’ with viral headlines. It was anticlimactic, business as usual, though the fragmented pieces and broken relationships remained. Perhaps these relationships were doomed long before the pandemic. Who knows?

But, equally important, are the relationships that survived and thrived. After three years, the world proved – in a nutshell – that it operates through people connecting with and caring for people, and in many ways, we understand more about the frailty of healthy human interaction and how quickly it can be lost.

And, lastly, one final note about my work at the hospital. There’s another reason why I never went back: I had a child – a pandemic baby – and indeed, a silver lining. Maybe one day I’ll walk the floors again and visit with patients, but for now, my companionship is needed elsewhere.

To read more about The Neighborly and the type of stories published, check out the ABOUT page.

It was mid-October and San Francisco was in the thick of it. Politicians and health leaders in the city had forced the closure of schools, community centers, theaters, and other places of public gathering. Overburdened health agencies were at a breaking point. The virus – a countrywide epidemic – was tearing through the city. San Francisco needed to slow the spread.

But authorities in the region first needed compliance. The Board of Health issued recommendations to the public such as avoiding crowds and following good personal hygiene. Hospitals were told to accept only critical need patients in order to avoid a system collapse. Still, it wasn’t enough, and city leaders insisted more should be done. Then came the ordinance: city workers who served the public were ordered – by law – to wear face masks. A few days later, every resident in the city was mandated to ‘mask-up’ while in public or in a group of two or more. Mealtimes were the exception.

To promote widespread changes in health behaviors among the public, advocates, physicians and officials utilized mass media interventions such as public service announcements, espousing the virtues of wearing a mask and caring for neighbors, especially those who were sick or elderly. Patriotic themes and emotional appeals – often defined as propaganda – proliferated in the city. Catch-phrases and slogans became easy ways to influence the public and to ensure compliance. Then came the shaming.

Though an estimated four out of five San Franciscans wore face coverings, dissenters held firm in their resistance. These outliers –the anti-maskers –were called dangerous and selfish. They were ostracized as slackers. Relationships suffered. Some were fined or kicked out of establishments. Several faced jail time. Physical altercations ensued. But mask opponents –despite the authoritarian approach – would not comply and they continued to complain, citing the ineffectiveness of mask materials as being too porous or looking like muzzles. Others worried that masks affected their own personal health or that they couldn’t breathe. Some said that forced facial coverings were unconstitutional and that it should be an individual choice.

The city was divided. At one point, a San Francisco health officer shot three people – an individual named James Wisser and two innocent bystanders over a mask dispute. Mr. Wisser, according to reports, refused to wear a face covering.

This was the city of San Fransisco in 1918 during the four week face mask ordinance.

While many modern day mask opponents might scoff at a measly four week mandate, they would undoubtedly empathize with the plight of fellow anti-maskers, even those living through the Spanish Flu pandemic over a hundred years ago. Their stories, in fact, are unequivocally similar. Both groups faced penalties and fines for refusal to mask. Both groups experienced ostracism and public shaming. And both groups loathed –perhaps most fiercely– the hypocrisy and phoniness of authority figures.

It was Saturday November 16, 1918 and most establishments in San Francisco had reopened. The Board of Health voted to lift the bans three days prior so long as every citizen wore masks inside buildings and when congregating outside in groups. It was a day of celebration for city residents desperate for a bit of fun and entertainment. It was also a great day for a fight.

Nicknamed "The Rochester Plasterer", American boxer Fred Fulton, would go down in history as one of the greatest punchers of all time. He was big and he was strong, and on that night, he would fight Willie Meehan inside the Civic Auditorium. The wild crowd, which included several prominent men of the city, packed in tight, and watched Fulton win easily by decision. The boxing match – if you can imagine – was a thrill. It was also revealing.

Of the prominent names in attendance that night, two men, James Rolph and Dr. William Hassler, easily stood out in the crowd. One of the reasons both men stood out was due to their high positions in the city of San Francisco. James Rolph, also known as Mayor Rolph, served the city for nineteen years and was known as a “mayor of all the people. In fact, one of his signature achievements as mayor was the construction of the Civic Auditorium. He was also responsible for shutting down the city weeks prior and issuing the controversial mask order. Nearby, Health Officer, Dr. Hassler – a lead member of San Francisco’s influenza task force – watched the fight with fellow city leaders including a congressman, a justice, a Navy rear-admiral, and several supervisors. The men were easy to spot, which brings us to the other reason both men stood out in the crowds. Neither wore a mask.

It’s a story similar to our very own. High-profile politicians and leaders are caught in a compromising position, disobeying the very rules they bestowed upon the commonplace. But someone – as we all know – is always watching. And on the night of November 16 inside the packed auditorium, a police photographer recorded, on film, the bare-faced men for all the city to see, along with the chief of police. Both men paid fines. There were no arrests, no jail sentences and neither was met with violence.

While there’s no definitive link to the November 16 mask blunder and mandates coming to an end, city-wide restrictions dropped just days later. On November 21, newspapers made the decree: “Masks Will Be Put In Discard At Noon Today.” Hassler, the paper said, claimed the flu pandemic had been stamped out and ‘the wearing of masks was no longer necessary.’ Without delay, and at precisely 12:00 PM, sirens gave the signal. City residents tossed their masks into the air and onto the streets. One can only imagine the litter lining sidewalks and roads.

There were a few attempts by city leaders to reinstate mask mandates as reported influenza surges spread in the city. But public perception about face coverings shifted, at which point several noteworthy San Franciscans, city physicians, and a member of the Board of Supervisors, formed “The Anti-Mask League.” Over 2,000 people attended the league’s first public meeting.

The influenza epidemic killed approximately 3,000 people in San Francisco after 45,000 reported infections. According to final figures released by the United States Public Health Service, the city – despite its rigid approach to disease mitigation – suffered greatly with a death rate of 715 per 100,000 people.

When considering moments in time such as San Francisco in November 1918, it’s important to examine the historic parallels to our present moment. Human behavior – past, present, and future – is universal and defies time and space. What we are now living, we have already lived. Our thoughts, actions and feelings are as old as time itself – and the anti-maskers of yesterday and today will carry forward to pandemics of the future. Plan on it.

Share

Dear Harry,

Welcome to America, home of the ‘American Dream’ and land of the free. Freedom is a sacred topic in this part of the world, and though the kinks are continuously being worked out, we do value our personal rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Have you had a chance to read it yet? If not, you might want to check it out. It was created, in fact, a few years after the Revolutionary War – and independence from Britain – your homeland.

But more on that later.

First, I’d like to congratulate you on your highly profitable and successful book Spare as well as the Netflix documentary. That took guts. I think I speak for many when I say how enlightened we now are for all the shocking revelations you shared, from private information about the Royal Family to drug use and even your “kills” when serving in Afghanistan. Surely, at some point, you must’ve been worried about putting that much information in print especially since some of your acknowledgements were deemed harmful to the British forces and government.

Similar situations – where information published was considered harmful and scandalous – have happened (and still happen) here in America. In 1927, Jay Near, an editor of The Saturday Press, published a series of articles about several Minneapolis city officials, even going as far as to share dubious claims about law enforcement officers—in print— no less.

But, you see, like you, The Saturday Press was determined to publish all the sordid details regarding authority figures – no matter the target – from local gangsters to public officials in order to “cleanse Minneapolis of its commercialized vice ring.” Needless to say, the newspaper ruffled quite a few feathers and city officials instituted a gag order – also known as Prior Restraint – under the Public Nuisance Law of 1925 to prevent the paper from publishing further. This eventually led to the landmark case Near v. Minnesota where the United States Supreme Court, in a 5–4 ruling, reversed the lower courts decisions and ruled the Public Nuisance Law as unconstitutional.

Now, regarding prior restraint, there is one bit of information you might find interesting. When a publication includes details of national security, especially during wartime, government institutions can restrict that expression of speech even before that speech takes place. Don’t worry, I’m not making the claim that your admissions put the British people or government at risk. I’m merely an average US citizen pointing out that your speech could’ve been censored here (had you been a member of the US military) if wartime conditions were different. You are indeed a very powerful person and such candid, yet casual, statements about enemy kills, can be cause for worry, and quite possibly, censorship.

Is that what your ‘bonkers’ comment was referring to?

Moving on, though, I thought the Oprah interview was interesting. You were still new to our country at the time, but what a great testament to our speech freedoms in that you felt so compelled to share your truth, although, of course, some recollections may vary. One royal expert even claimed that 17 lies were told during the interview.

But who really knows at this point? Truth is a construct. The important thing is that truths, half truths and even unintended lies are protected by the First Amendment when it comes to sharing information about public figures. Take for example another landmark case, New York Times v. Sullivan. In this decision, the US Supreme Court held that the First Amendment limits the ability of public officials to sue for defamation. It all started over a few inaccuracies in an advertisement criticizing various Alabama officials for violating the rights of African Americans. In a unanimous 9-0 decision, the court established that inaccurate statements made under circumstances involving a public official plaintiff must be false and made with “actual malice,” which is defined as ‘reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.’

Indeed, recollections may vary, and speech involving public figures must survive the standard of actual malice if there can be any legal consequence.

When it comes to private individuals, however, a plaintiff must only prove negligence. Take for example, the “older woman” that you detailed in your book. Had you named her or published information that identified her in any way, then according to speech laws in the United States, she could easily take legal action. Fortunately, you protected her anonymity and no one knew her true identity.

“She liked horses, quite a lot, and treated me unlike a young stallion. Quick ride, after which she’d smacked my rump and sent me to grace. Among the many things about it that were wrong. It happened in a grassy field behind a busy pub.” Prince Harry in ‘Spare.’

Of course, a few rabble-rousers made the claim that your recollection of events, and of the older woman, were not entirely true. So, to squash the false rumors, and to the delight of a salivating international press and royal fans, the older woman, a private individual, came forward – begrudgingly.

“At first, I thought I could hide and that it would blow over. But as the names of different women, some of whom I know, became public, I realized that to make the speculation stop, I needed to tell the truth.” ~ Sasha Walpole

Walpole said she decided to come forward because a lot of people contacted her after reading about the encounter in your book. But good thing you didn’t actually name her or inflict reputation harm.

After reading your book and watching the docuseries, I find it so incredibly odd that you labeled our First Amendment as “bonkers.”

“I’ve got so much I want to say about the First Amendment as I sort of understand it, but it is bonkers. I don’t want to start going down the First Amendment route because that’s a huge subject and one which I don’t understand because I’ve only been here a short time.”

~ Prince Harry in a 2021 interview with Dax Shepard

Now, it’s quite understandable that speech freedoms can hurt others. Words hurt. Lies hurt. Truth hurts. But as Americans, we hold these speech freedoms dear and central to our country. The Revolutionary War was a bloody, full-scale conflict that claimed countless lives and upended colonial life into a state of death and chaos. But the great risk was worth an even greater reward, and America earned independence from Britain, and not long after, the First Amendment – in addition to nine other amendments making up the Bill of Rights—was adopted in 1791.

“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.”

Since living here in our country, you have enjoyed many of the same speech freedoms you previously labeled ‘bonkers.’ Although you made those statements in 2021, you have not since retracted those words. It’s important to note, however, that you do not have to. That is your right to say those things, and though we do not agree, we respect your right to free expression.

Can you say the same?

Sincerely,

The Average American

Subscribe now

Although these words were spoken decades ago, their meaning rings true today in our current era of information warfare and social media manipulation. While the best and brightest among us hopefully play no role in the purposeful spread of false, distorted and malicious information, there is little doubt that there are those who work tirelessly to confuse vulnerable members of the public and to create a sense of panic, chaos and distrust of fellow citizens.

George Orwell, the great English novelist, once said: “The further society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.”

And if he were alive today, witnessing the distortion of language and meaning within our current social framework, he most certainly would be horrified at what he saw.

You see, Orwell wrote often about language in politics and oppressive ideology. A true man of his time, Orwell knew the very real and present danger posed from totalitarian institutions, totalitarianism of thought and the way language can be used against us by those in power, both seen and unseen.

Therefore, this is the best moment to discuss the topic of truth on which many of us do not pay attention to. Not because we do not want the truth but because the truth is too rarely perceived - and all too often manipulated.

Truth is a radical topic.

In fact, many postmodernists among us argue that a universal truth doesn’t exist. But without truth and without facts there is little meaning. There is only more confusion and more vulnerability.

Now, more than ever, and as Americans, we must come together and fight for the truth. Fight for the truth about our great nation. For we are, indeed, a nation of greatness, goodwill and opportunity.

I leave you here today with one last quote by historian and philosopher, Will Durant: “A great civilization is not conquered from without until it has destroyed itself within.”

We know the attempt to destroy us is based on lies by an enemy ironclad on America’s decline.

Only truth and pursuit of truth will thwart these lies and empower the great people of the United States of America.