Mensa is a microcosm that reflects the other 98% of society. We display all the same attributes, running the gamut from ambition to apathy. So it should come as no surprise that trends among the population as a whole are mirrored in Mensa. But what should cause astonishment is the apparent willingness of Mensa as a society to accept the stifling of free and open intellectual debate, because if there is one thing most Mensans are, it is opinionated. And the more intelligent one is, the stronger the opinion.
In this day and age of Political Correctness, we have all experienced what I sometimes refer to as the "normalizing" of society. By that I mean that nothing is allowed to be exceptional, either for the good or bad. But, just as nature abhors a vacuum, the intelligent mind abhors blandness. Unfortunately, that is just what is happening to us.
We have seen it in the Mensa Bulletin. Those responsible should simply put a banner on the cover: "All the pap that's fit to print!" because there is certainly no controversy or contention allowed in its pages. Which, to me, is controversial.
The reason is easy enough to understand: a desire to not offend most people. I say most, because I do note that religion, especially Christianity, will occasionally take it on the chin. And, believe it or not, I think that is perfectly acceptable. What is not acceptable is the flip side of the coin — the unwillingness to take on all the insensitive controversies of society.
When was the last time you saw any publication take on the subject of Homosexuality? No matter your feelings on it, it is still a topic of considerable socio-political controversy. The concomitant topics of same-sex marriages, as well as AIDS, should be debated and be debatable, if for no other reason than that there are widely divergent, strongly held opinions about them. For example, why is AIDS not tracked like any other sexually transmitted disease? Why does it, and it alone, enjoy political protection? And does this protection create a health risk for the rest of the population?
Any
of those questions should be the subject of free and open debate,
providing the opportunity for intellectual stimulation and growth.
However, instead of debate we get calls for "tolerance"
and should one dare ignore said call, the scarlet "H" of
"homophobe" is ever-present.
The same problems exist for any form of debate about "Affirmative Action." The most vehement condemners of race or gender-based discrimination refuse to debate the merits of a government policy that is blatantly discriminatory — against white males. The only statements you ever hear brook no argument: that minorities and women need the assist, that it is important for reasons of diversity, and, ironically, that such discrimination is only fair. Debate on this subject is not allowed —if you do not agree with this policy, the scarlet "R" (Racist) or "S" (Sexist) awaits.
The same treatment exists for most subjects of controversy in today's
world. Even when the policy makes no sense, the defenders of diversity
are there to enforce it. Take for example ethnic profiling at ports of
entry to the US, as well as at airports throughout the country. You would
think common sense would allow for the concept that, if you are constantly
being threatened by Middle Eastern males, you would concentrate your security
efforts toward that 
group.
However, as we all know, enforcement policies specifically prohibit giving
that group any extra attention. Instead, there are searches of wheelchair-bound
grannies, blonde Scandinavians, and babies' diapers, while those who fit
the profile are allowed to board unchecked. This is insanity, but those
who protest at the gate are detained, and any public attempt at debating
the policy will again bring out the scarlet "R."
Just as profiling serves a valid purpose in law enforcement, it has always served a purpose in the movies. In the old days, if you needed to have a mobster, it was usually an Italian. If you needed a member of the IRA, you got a fair-skinned redhead who spoke with a heavy brogue. The good guys wore white hats, etc. This convention allowed the audience to know who the protagonists were, and allowed the filmmaker to establish the plot early on. At least it used to. In these days of Offensensitivity (with thanks to Bloom County creator Berke Breathed), even that practice has become subject to protest and lawsuit.
The last movie derived from a Tom Clancy novel, The Sum of All Fears, is a case in point. Although it was filmed before 9/11, it had been politically sanitized, even with Clancy as executive producer. The book's plot entailed a lost Israeli nuclear bomb being found by Arabs and eventually being detonated in America by Arab fundamentalist terrorists. The movie dumped the Middle East Arabs and replaced them with white European Neo-Nazis. Why the changes? Only one reason comes to my mind — political correctness. No other reason fits such a plot change. The Arab community had started making unhappy noises about the movie when it was first announced as being racist, but that Clancy would cave to such pressures astounds me, especially as the fears of the day so neatly dovetailed into the book's storyline.
There are innumerable such topics for discussion out there, topics that would enable strong argument and opinion to erupt into intellectual and philosophical debate of the first order. What better place for such brainstorming than in the national magazine of American Mensa?
I wish I knew, because I sure haven't seen much of that in the Bulletin. Instead, just what do we get?
Well, in the current issue, out of 56 total pages, we get two pages for
topical discussion, the "2% Solution" pages. I almost said serious
discussion, but that is not the case this month. 
We
have four letters pages, which may or may not have anything of a profound
nature on them. And we have "Wordplay," a monthly entertaining
use of the mind … sometimes. "SuppleMentally" gets two
pages for science McNuggets™. But, other than that?
Nothing. A column from the chairman. RG announcements. SIGs news. International Mensa news. This month, statements from the various candidates for the AMC and IML boards. A blurb for the Boutique. Etc., etc., etc. In other words, the usual.
It should be noted that, out of the 50,000 members American Mensa has, only an average of 23 respond to the "Question of the Month." Such apathy should be a flare, warning that there is something wrong. Apparently, no one sees it … or no one cares. After all, why go to the expense of serving up filet mignon when you can dole out Hamburger Helper®?
The other publication out of National, Interloc, used to contain some food for thought, but a few years (and editors) ago it became a reflection of the Bulletin, no longer even pretending to solicit opinions about anything. What was once a forum for the officers of Mensa became the AMC version of a newsletter. An inoffensive one. Little flavor, and no seasoning.
Sorry, but that isn't enough for me. One reason I agreed to write this article is that Going Forward has much of what I consider is missing from the National pubs: strong opinions openly stated, under the author's byline, free for discussion, dissection, dissension and digestion. Meat and potatoes, with crisp veggies on the side. My kind of smorgasbord!
Let the Bulletin emulate this publication, and you will see member interest climb. More interest will mean more letters and responses in the Bulletin, more members voting in the elections, and more attention from minds seeking the stimulation of interesting complexities mixed with straightforward solutions.
I just can't believe there are that many mental vegans in Mensa.
I prefer something I can sink my teeth into, something I can savor, and enjoy the subtle flavors and textures. Something genuine, not a processed imitation.
For me, it's steak over tofu … any time!
J.T. Moran has been a member of Mensa and Space Coast Area Mensa since February 1992. He has served two terms as LocSec, co-chaired an RG, served as Registrar on two other RGs, and, in J.T.'s words "been privileged to edit his local group's newsletter, The SCAM, since 1999." He has written a monthly opinion column for The SCAM since January 1993, a column that continues to this day, usually about U.S. politics. J.T. says that although he has not "addressed Mensa politics since [his] days as LocSec, with the exception of the rare editorial … there is little difference between the two."