Ronald E. Yates's Blog, page 43

Top 50 Oxymora: A List for Writers

In my ongoing posts about writing and the English language, here is another handout I shared with my students at the University of Illinois during my tenure there as a professor and dean. I hope you will find it useful.

An oxymoron is a figure of speech that combines two seemingly contradictory or opposite ideas to create a particular rhetorical or poetic effect and reveal a more profound truth. Generally, the ideas will come as two separate words placed side by side. The most common type of oxymoron is an adjective followed by a noun.

Oxymora (that’s the plural of oxymoron) are sometimes useful literary devices for writers. They are okay to use occasionally, but don’t overdo it! If you have read Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet you might recall this line which is a classic example of using an oxymoron in literature:

“Good night, good night! Parting is such sweet sorrow
That I shall say good night till it be morrow.”

 Here is a list I used to give my journalism students at the University of Illinois. It is by no means exhaustive. This list is by no means comprehensive or complete. There are many more floating around out there. Enjoy!

Orderly confusionMinor crisisConfirmed rumorDeafening silenceKnown secretAct naturallyFound missingResident alienAdvanced BASICGenuine imitationAirline FoodGood griefSame differenceAlmost exactlyGovernment organizationSanitary landfillAlone togetherLegally drunkSilent screamLiving deadSmall crowdBusiness ethicsSoft rockButt-HeadMilitary IntelligenceSoftware documentationNew classicSweet sorrowChildproof“Now, then …”Synthetic natural gasPassive aggressionTaped liveClearly misunderstoodPeace forceExtinct LifeTemporary tax increaseComputer jockPlastic glassesTerribly pleasedComputer securityPolitical scienceTight slacksDefinite maybePretty uglyTwelve-ounce pound cakeDiet ice creamWorking vacationExact estimateMicrosoft Works

50 Tips on How to Write Good (Ahem)

As promised Saturday, here is another handout I used to give to my students when I was teaching journalism at the University of Illinois. I hope you find it useful.  The contents of this post are an alphabetical arrangement of two lists that have been circulating among writers and editors for many years. In case you have missed out all this time, I’m sharing here the wit and wisdom of the late New York Times language maven William Safire and advertising executive and copywriter Frank LaPosta Visco.

1. A writer must not shift your point of view.
2. Always pick on the correct idiom.
3. Analogies in writing are like feathers on a snake.
4. Always be sure to finish what
5. Avoid alliteration. Always.
6. Avoid archaec spellings.
7. Avoid clichés like the plague. (They’re old hat.)
8. Avoid trendy locutions that sound flaky.
9. Be more or less specific.
10. Comparisons are as bad as clichés.
11. Contractions aren’t necessary.
12. Do not use hyperbole; not one in a million can do it effectively.
13. Don’t indulge in sesquipedalian lexicological constructions.
14. Don’t never use no double negatives.
15. Don’t overuse exclamation marks!!
16. Don’t repeat yourself, or say again what you have said before.
17. Don’t use commas, that, are not, necessary.
18. Don’t be redundant; don’t use more words than necessary; it’s highly superfluous.
19. Eliminate quotations. As Ralph Waldo Emerson once said, “I hate quotations. Tell me what you know.”
20. Employ the vernacular.
21. Eschew ampersands & abbreviations, etc.
22. Eschew obfuscation.
23. Even if a mixed metaphor sings, it should be derailed.

24. Everyone should be careful to use a singular pronoun with singular nouns in their writing.
25. Exaggeration is a billion times worse than understatement.
26. Foreign words and phrases are not apropos.
27. Go around the barn at high noon to avoid colloquialisms.
28. Hopefully, you will use words correctly, irregardless of how others use them.
29. If any word is improper at the end of a sentence, a linking verb is.
30. If you reread your work, you can find on rereading a great deal of repetition can be avoided by rereading and editing.
31. It behooves you to avoid archaic expressions.
32. It is wrong to ever split an infinitive.
33. Never use a big word when a diminutive alternative would suffice.
34. No sentence fragments.
35. One should never generalize.
36. One-word sentences? Eliminate.
37. Parenthetical remarks (however relevant) are unnecessary.
38. Parenthetical words however must be enclosed in commas.

39. Place pronouns as close as possible, especially in long sentences, as of ten or more words, to their antecedents.
40. Placing a comma between subject and predicate, is not correct.
41. Poofread carefully to see if you any words out.
42. Prepositions are not words to end sentences with.
43. Profanity sucks.
44. Subject and verb always has to agree.
45. Take the bull by the hand and avoid mixing metaphors.
46. The adverb always follows the verb.
47. The passive voice is to be avoided.
48. Understatement is always best.
49. Use the apostrophe in it’s proper place and omit it when its not needed.
50. Use youre spell chekker to avoid mispeling and to catch typograhpical errers.
51. Who needs rhetorical questions?
52. Writing carefully, dangling participles must be avoided.

Oh, and let me add one tip: If your article consists of a list and the title refers to the number of items in the list, count the number of items in the list carefully. Hmmm. Did I forget something?

Respecting the Language: 80 Do’s and Don’ts

(When I was teaching journalism at the University of Illinois, I used to give this handout on Respecting the Language: 80 Do’s and Don’ts to the Reporting 400 class I taught. Students told me they found it helpful. Here it is for those of you who write or who are contemplating writing. The list, by no means complete, nevertheless contains words often misused by writers. What follows are a few of the worst offenders, with explanations for avoiding these common grammatical and syntactical traps. I hope you find it useful)

Accept, Except. ACCEPT: To receive or approve. EXCEPT: to omit or to object to, as a verb; with exclusion, as a preposition.Affect, Effect. Generally AFFECT is the verb; EFFECT is the noun. “The letter did not AFFECT the outcome.” But the “letter had a significant EFFECT.” AFFECT means to influence. EFFECT as a verb means to cause or bring about. Thus: “It is almost impossible to EFFECT change.”After and Following. As a preposition, AFTER is preferred. “He answered questions AFTER his speech.”Afterward, Afterwards. Use AFTERWARD. The dictionary allows the use of AFTERWARDS only as a second form. The same applies to TOWARD and TOWARDS.Aggravate and Irritate. The preferred meaning of AGGRAVATE is to make worse or intensify. IRRITATE means to displease. Allude, Elude. You ALLUDE to (or mention) a book. You ELUDE (or escape) a pursuer.All right.  That’s the way to spell it. The dictionary may list ALRIGHT as a legitimate word but it is not acceptable in standard usage. Annual. Don’t use first with it. If it’s the first time, it can’t be ANNUAL.Anxious, Eager. ANXIOUS means worried; EAGER means desirous. Usually a person is EAGER to begin a vacation, not ANXIOUS.Apt, Liable, Likely. Preferred meaning of APT is appropriate–an APT remark. LIABLE means accountable; LIKELY means probably.At, In. AT refers to a point, so it’s better to say: He died IN the hospital.Averse, Adverse. If you don’t like something, you are AVERSE (or opposed) to it. ADVERSE is an adjective: ADVERSE (bad) weather, ADVERSE conditions.Bad, Badly. Don’t say: The boy had a BAD earache. Or: The man was injured BADLY. (Is there a “good” earache or injury?) Make it a SEVERE earache and injured SEVERELY. Because. Use it rather than DUE TO or OWING TO, both of which are stilted. “The game was cancelled BECAUSE of rain,” not DUE TO or OWING TO rain.Between, Among, Amongst. Something is shared BETWEEN two persons, AMONG three or more. AMONG is always better than AMONGST, which is archaic.Block, Bloc. A BLOC is a coalition of persons or a group with the same purpose or goal. Don’t call it a BLOCK, which has some 40 dictionary definitions.Burglary, Robbery, and Holdup. BURGLARY means to enter a building with intent to commit a felony. ROBBERY is to take property from a person with force or threat of force. HOLDUP is a synonym for ROBBERY or ARMED ROBBERY, but NOT for BURGLARY.Capital, Capitol. CAPITAL is the city; CAPITOL the building.Claim. Don’t use CLAIM for SAID or INSIST. CLAIM means to assert ownership: He CLAIMED his book.Collide, Strike. For there to be a COLLISION, both objects must be in motion. So, two moving cars COLLIDE, but a car STRIKES a tree.Common, Mutual. Jones and Smith have a COMMON dislike for Allen. (Allen may not even be aware of it.) Cooke and Brown have a MUTUAL dislike for each other. The feeling is reciprocal.Compose, Comprise, Include. You COMPOSE things by putting them together. Once the parts are put together, the object COMPRISES or INCLUDES or embraces the parts. Comprise is used in the active voice: A knife, fork and spoon COMPRISE the set. COMPOSE is used in the passive voice. The set is COMPOSED of knife, fork and spoon. INCLUDE, preferably, not all parts of the whole: The set INCLUDES a knife and fork.Continual, Continuous. CONTINUAL means recurring at brief intervals but never really stopping. CONTINUOUS means to occur without any interruption at all.Couple of. You need the OF. It’s never “a couple tomatoes.”Dates from. Something DATES from, not BACK to.Demolish, Destroy. They mean to do away with completely. You can’t partially DEMOLISH or DESTROY something, nor is there any need to say totally DESTROYED.Deny, Refute. DENY has two preferred meanings: (1) to withhold something and (2) simply a negative response to an accusation. REFUTE means to destroy an argument, either by reasoning alone or with evidence; a fairly close synonym for DISPROVE, but not for DENY.Different from. Things and people are different FROM each other. Don’t write that they are different THAN each other.Drown, Drowned. Don’t say someone was DROWNED unless an assailant held the victim’s head underwater. Just say the victim DROWNED.Ecology, Environment. They are NOT synonymous. ECOLOGY is the study of the relationship between organisms and their ENVIRONMENT. RIGHT : “The laboratory is studying the ECOLOGY of man and the desert.” WRONG : “Even so simple an undertaking as maintaining a lawn affects ECOLOGY. RIGHT: “Even so simple an undertaking as maintaining a lawn affects our ENVIRONMENT. Either. It means one or the other, not both. WRONG : “There were lions on either side of the door.” RIGHT : “There were lions on EACH side of the door.”Entrant and Entry. If you’re referring to a participant in a contest, ENTRANT is preferred.Farther, Further. Both can be applied to distance, but only FURTHER can be used in reference to ideas or degree. Examples: “They walked FARTHER or FURTHER into the forest. They will make a FURTHER study of the problem.Fewer, Less. Fewer applies to numbers; less to amount or bulk. You eat fewer grapes, but less meat. If you can separate items in the quantities being compared, use FEWER. If not, use LESS. WRONG : The 49ers are inferior to the Chiefs because they have LESS fast receivers. RIGHT :  The 49ers are inferior to the Chiefs because they have FEWER fast receivers. RIGHT : The 49ers are inferior to the Chiefs because they have LESS speed.Fliers, Flyers. Pilots are FLIERS. Handbills are FLYERS.Flout, Flaunt. They aren’t the same words; they mean completely different things and they’re very commonly confused. FLOUT means to mock, to scoff or to show disdain for. FLAUNT means to display ostentatiously.Funeral service. A redundant expression. A FUNERAL is a service.Get, Obtain, Secure. GET and OBTAIN are synonyms: GET or OBTAIN a book from your friend. SECURE has two preferred meanings: To make FAST, like a door; or to SECURE a loan.Heart Attack, Heart Failure. A person dies of a HEART ATTACK or HEART DISEASE, not HEART FAILURE.Head up. People don’t HEAD UP committees. They HEAD them.Hopefully. Hope. One of the most commonly misused words, in spite of what the dictionary may say. HOPEFULLY should describe the way a subject FEELS. For example: HOPEFULLY, I shall present the plan to the president. (This means I will be HOPEFUL when I do it.) But it is something else again when you attribute hope to a non-person. You may write: HOPEFULLY, the war will end soon. You may mean you HOPE the war will end soon, but it is not what you are writing. What you should write is: I HOPE the war will end soon.Imply, Infer. The speaker IMPLIES; the listener INFERS.In Advance, Prior To. Use BEFORE; it sounds more natural.It’s, Its. ITS is the possessive; IT’S is the contraction of IT IS. WRONG : What is IT’S name? RIGHT : What is ITS name? ITS name is Fido. RIGHT : IT’S the first time he’s talked tonight RIGHT : IT’S my coat.Last, Latest. LAST: There won’t be any more. LATEST: The most recent of a probable series.Lay, Lie. LAY, LAID, LAID; Transitive, taking an object. “I will LAY the book on the table.” LIE, LAY, LAIN; intransitive, no object. “The tired boy LAY on the porch yesterday.” Leave, Let. LEAVE ALONE means to depart from or cause to be in solitude. LET ALONE means to be undisturbed. WRONG : The man pulled a gun on her but Jones intervened and talked him into LEAVING HER ALONE. RIGHT: The man pulled a gun on her but Jones intervened and talked him into LETTING HER ALONE. RIGHT: “When I entered the room I saw that Jim and Mary were sleeping so I decided to LEAVE THEM ALONE.Lend, Loan as verbs. Preferred usage: LOAN applies to money; LEND, to other objects.Like, As. Don’t use LIKE for AS or AS IF. In general, use LIKE to compare with nouns and pronouns; use AS when comparing with phrases and clauses that contain a verb. WRONG : Jim blocks the linebacker LIKE he should. RIGHT: Jim blocks the linebacker AS he should. RIGHT : Jim blocks LIKE a pro. And PLEASE control the juvenile urge to use LIKE as some kind of a crutch in a sentence: “It was, LIKE, really cool” or “Then, we LIKE, went to Urbana.” Arrgghhh.Locate, Situate. A new house will be LOCATED at a certain address. Once built, it is SITUATED there. Another meaning of LOCATE is to find something for which you have been looking.Marshall, Marshal. Generally, the first form is correct only when the word is a proper noun: John MARSHALL. The second form is the verb form: Marilyn will MARSHAL her forces. And the second form is the one to use for a title: FIRE MARSHAL Stan Anderson; DEPUTY MARSHAL Wyatt Earp; FIELD MARSHAL Erwin Rommel.Media. MEDIA is the plural of MEDIUM. The MEDIA are, not is. Mean, Average, Median. Use MEAN as synonymous with AVERAGE. Each word refers to the sum of all components divided by the number of components. MEDIAN is the number that has as many components above it as below it–it is the middle value in a distribution of items, the point at which half of the items are above and half below. MEAN is the statisticians’ language for AVERAGE.Nouns. There is a growing trend toward using them as verbs. Resist it. HOST, HEADQUARTERS and AUTHOR, for example, are nouns; even though the dictionary may acknowledge they can be used as verbs. If you do, you’ll come up with a monstrosity such as: “HEADQUARTERED at his country home, John Doe HOSTED a party to celebrate the book he had just AUTHORED.” Again, Arrgghhh!Odd, Peculiar. ODD means strange or unusual; PECULIAR means distinctive to one person or one group, etc.Of, With, From. A woman is ill OF a disease, not WITH. She dies OF the disease, not FROM it.Oral, Verbal. Use ORAL when use of the mouth is central to the thought; the word emphasizes the idea of human utterance. VERBAL may apply to spoken or written words; it connotes the process of reducing ideas to writing. Usually, it’s a VERBAL contract, not an ORAL one, if it’s in writing.Over and More Than. They aren’t interchangeable. OVER refers to spatial relationships: The plane flew OVER the city. MORE THAN is used with figures: In the crowd were MORE THAN 1,000 fans. Make it MORE THAN 20 persons, not OVER. MORE THAN means in excess of; OVER means physically above.Parallel Construction. Thoughts in series in the same sentence require PARALLEL construction. WRONG : The union delivered demands for an increase of 10 percent in wages and to cut the workweek to 30 hours. RIGHT: The union delivered demands for an increase of 10 percent in wages and for a REDUCTION in the workweek to 30 hours.Part and Portion. When one is referring to a fragment of the whole, PART is preferred. PORTION more specifically means a serving of food.Peddle, Pedal. When selling something, you PEDDLE it. When riding a bicycle or similar form of locomotion, you PEDAL it. Pretense, Pretext. They’re different, but it’s a tough distinction. A PRETEXT is that which is put forward to conceal a truth. He was discharged for tardiness, but this was only a PRETEXT for general incompetence. A PRETENSE is a “false show;” a more overt act intended to conceal personal feelings. My profuse compliments were all PRETENSE.Principle, Principal. A guiding rule or basic truth is a PRINCIPLE. The first, dominant, or leading thing is PRINCIPAL. PRINCIPLE is a noun; PRINCIPAL may be a noun or an adjective.Receive, Suffer, Sustain. Make it SUFFER an injury. You can use RECEIVE, but the preferred word is SUFFER. RECEIVING and injury implies that it was a gift, which most injuries are not. The preferred meanings of SUSTAIN are to support, such as an army; or to maintain, as to SUSTAIN a drive from the 50-yard line to the opponent’s goal line.Redundancies to Avoid:Easter Sunday, Make it EASTERIncumbent Congressman. CONGRESSMAN.Owns his own home. OWNS HIS HOME.The company will close down. THE COMPANY WILL CLOSE.Jones, Smith, Johnson and Reid were all convicted. Jones, Smith, Johnson and Reid WERE CONVICTED.Jewish rabbi. Just RABBI.8 p.m. tonight. All you need is 8 TONIGHT or 8 p.m. TODAY.During the winter months. DURING THE WINTER.Both Reid and Jones were denied pardons. Reid and Jones WERE DENIED PARDONS.I am currently tired. I AM TIRED.Autopsy to determine the cause of death. AUTOPSY (that’s what an AUTOPSY does). Refuse and Reject. The official REJECTED the request, not REFUSED the request. In this usage, REFUSE needs the infinitive of another verb: The official REFUSED TO GRANT the request. Refute. (See DENY). Reluctant, Reticent. If he doesn’t want to act, he is RELUCTANT. If he doesn’t want to speak, he is RETICENT. Say, Said. The most serviceable words in the journalist’s lexicon are the forms of the verb TO SAY. Let a person SAY something, rather than DECLARE or ADMIT or POINT OUT. And NEVER let him grin, smile, frown or giggle something.Sewage, Sewerage. SEWAGE means the contents of a sewer, but the community depends upon a SEWERAGE system. Temperatures. They may get higher or lower, but they don’t get WARMER or COOLER. WRONG: TEMPERATURES are expected to warm up in the area Friday. RIGHT: TEMPERATURES are expected to RISE in the area Friday. That, Which. THAT tends to restrict the reader’s thought and direct it the way you want it to go; WHICH is nonrestrictive, introducing a bit of subsidiary information. For Example: The lawnmower THAT is in the garage needs sharpening. (Meaning, we have more than one lawnmower. The one in the garage needs sharpening.) The lawnmower, WHICH is in the garage, needs sharpening. (Meaning: Our lawnmower needs sharpening. It is in the garage.) The statue, WHICH graces our entry hall, is on loan. (Meaning: Our statue is on loan. It happens to be in the entry hall.) Note that WHICH clauses take commas, signaling they are not essential to the meaning of the sentence. Toward and Towards. Toward is preferred. Try and, Try To. Only TRY TO is correct. He will TRY TO score 20 points; not TRY AND score 20 points. The term TRY AND preceding another verb is wholly superfluous: the AND makes the second verb one of accomplishment, so why TRY? Under way, NOT Underway. But don’t say something got under way. Say it STARTED or BEGAN. Unique. Something that is unique is the only one of its kind. It can’t be VERY UNIQUE or QUITE UNIQUE or SOMEWHAT UNIQUE or RATHER UNIQUE. Don’t use it unless you really mean UNIQUE. UP. Don’t use it with a verb. WRONG : The manager said he would UP the price next week. RIGHT : The manager said he would RAISE the price next week. Who, Whom. A tough one, but generally you’re safe to use WHOM to refer to someone who has been the subject of an action. WHO is the word when the somebody has been the actor. EXAMPLE: A 20-year-old woman, to WHOM the room was rented, left the window open. A 20-year-old woman, WHO rented the room, left the window open. Who’s, Whose. Though it incorporates an apostrophe, WHO’S is NOT a possessive. It’s a contraction for WHO IS. WHOSE is the possessive. WRONG : I don’t know WHO’S coat it is. RIGHT: I don’t know WHOSE coat it is. RIGHT : Find out WHO’S there. Would. Be careful about using WOULD when constructing a conditional past tense. WRONG : If Soderholm WOULD NOT HAVE HAD an injured foot, Thompson wouldn’t have been in the lineup. RIGHT : If Soderholm HAD NOT HAD an injured foot, Thompson wouldn’t have been in the lineup.

   Check back Monday for another primer on writing. This one is entitled: “50 Tips on How to Write Good (Ahem)”

 

 

 

 

The Leftist Mantra: We Have to Destroy the Country to Save it

Anybody who covered the Vietnam War, as I did, became familiar with several phrases that were used to explain or clarify American involvement.

Terms like “Body Count,” “Hearts and Minds,” “Pacification,” “The light at the end of the tunnel,” come immediately to mind.

But there was another phrase that with just a few alterations seems to define what is happening in our country today. That phrase is “We had to destroy the village to save it.”

It is still used today to describe the brutal absurdities of war and the destructive extremes American forces went to annihilate the Communist Viet Cong who had taken refuge in the South Vietnamese village of Ben Tre in the Mekong Delta.

During the battle American bombs, rockets and napalm obliterated much of the town, hundreds of innocent civilians were killed, and most of the buildings were leveled. After the battle, a U.S. major allegedly justified the carnage by telling a U.S. reporter: “It became necessary to destroy the town to save it.” In other words, the only way to kill the Viet Cong enemy was to destroy everybody and everything around them.

The Village of Ben Tre after the battle

When I watch what is happening today in America’s political universe the phrase that comes to mind is this: “We have to destroy the country to save it.”

It seems to be the justification for the perpetual war the Democrat party and the leftists that control waged against former President Trump and anybody who supported his agenda.

During the Trump administration, the concept of a “loyal opposition” disappeared completely. Do Americans even remember what a loyal opposition is? I sincerely doubt it.

A loyal opposition implies that a party that doesn’t hold the presidency or a majority in the House or Senate can still oppose the actions of the sitting president and the majority party while remaining loyal to the source of the government’s power—our constitutional form of government. In other words, they will not mount a Coup d’état to overthrow the government or impeach a president they don’t like. They will wait for the next election so the electorate can vote the rascals out.

This is what we see happening now with the Republican Party. While Republicans oppose Biden’s $3.5 trillion socialist spending plan I haven’t heard anybody in the GOP yelling for Biden’s impeachment–though it certainly seems plausible that they should given Biden’s horrific performance on our southern border, his mismanagement of the economy, the worst inflation in a decade, and the catastrophic (some might say criminal) exodus from Afghanistan.

Just how does a loyal opposition work, you might ask? Here’s a prime example. During World War II the Democrat Party held the office of president and the Republican Party cooperated fully and without reservation in FDR’s war effort.

In the past, we also saw this form of loyalty play out in the Senate judiciary committee when senators from both sides often voted for a judicial candidate without the kind of political rancor we see today. For example, during Ronald Reagan’s presidency, three of his nominees were approved unanimously (Sandra Day O’Connor, 99-0; Antonin Scalia, 98-0; and Anthony Kennedy, 97-0); Ruth Bader Ginsburg was approved during the Clinton presidency by a vote of 96-3.

Let’s look at the current justices and the votes they received. Clarence Thomas was approved in 1991 by the vote of 52-48; Stephen Breyer was approved in 1994, by a vote of 87-9; John Roberts, in 2005 by a vote of 78-22; Samuel Alito, 2006, 58-42;  Sonia Sotomayor, 2009, 68-31; Elena Kagan, 2010, 63-37; Neil Gorsuch, 2017, 54-45; Eric Kavanaugh, 2018, 50-48; and Amy Coney Barrett, 2020, 52-48.

Given the clear partisan trend in approving Supreme Court Justices I think we can safely say that from this day forward, Supreme Court Justices will have to go through seven levels of hell to attain a seat on the nation’s highest court. The confirmation process is no longer about who is best qualified, who has the best legal mind, who can be the best justice, but what political party he or she belongs to and whether they are liberal, judicial activists, conservative or strict constructionists.  In other words, it has evolved into a form of political combat; a kind of survival of the fittest.

Justice Kavanaugh

After the disgraceful displays of partisan politics regarding Judge Kavanaugh, if Democrats believe one of their future nominees will fly right through the confirmation process the way Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, or Kagan did they are sadly mistaken. There are long memories in the Senate and the way the last two Trump nominees have been treated means the Democrats are in for some severe retribution.

It’s a sad state of affairs.

The same can be said for the demented and frenzied opposition to President Trump, his cabinet, and his supporters, all of whom have been called the coarsest and most offensive of names—from “deplorables” and racists to Nazis and Fascists by the alleged “loyal opposition.”

The leftists and socialists that appear to be running the Democrat party are intent on turning our republic into a socialist ghetto. Never mind that socialism has failed in every country where it has been tried.

For some inane reason, there are people on the left who want to subject our highly successful capitalist republic to a form of government that eliminates incentive and profit and instead creates a system that says “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”—the highly flawed philosophy of Marxism.

Why? It’s the “we have to destroy the country to save it” argument.

During the Trump administration, the mantra was, “Get rid of President Trump at any cost—even by death if necessary.” (Yes, people on the actually said that, and some, like goofy Maxine Waters, have come close to saying it).

That’s where we are today. Keep Republicans out of the White House, the Senate, and the House, even if it means destroying our republic and rebuilding it again, preferably in the image of Karl Marx.

So villagers take heed. Watch out for the political napalm, the socialist rockets, and the leftist bombs as we approach the 2022 midterm elections. The barrage from the socialist left has only just begun, and our country just may not survive the onslaught.

 

 

Our Disastrous Decline of Shared Prudence into Social Anarchy

Most of us have received one of those emails displaying photos of so-called “Walmart People.” As you scroll down, there is a collection of pictures of Walmart shoppers wearing wild assortments of clothing covering bodies that seem fashioned from silly putty or carved from tree stumps.

There are horribly overweight women wearing skimpy shorts barely covering explosions of tattoo-blemished buttock flesh. There are men wearing pink leotards and combat boots. There are people who seem to have crawled out of a fissure in the earth–troglodytes perhaps? Or conceivably, humanoid-like creatures from another planet that crash-landed into a Goodwill warehouse?

Can any of this be real? Do people look like that? And do they go to Walmart and other places?

The answer is yes, yes, and yes. These are real people. They do look like that, and they all too often abandon their dank and murky grottos to venture into well-lit public places such as Walmart.

What happened? How did our nation spawn organisms that apparently have no concept of taste, style, or class?

Beyond these “Walmart people” I think national taste and style hit a new low when the Northwestern University women’s 2005 national championship lacrosse team showed up at the White House wearing flip flops. What does this say about respect for the nation’s highest office, let alone personal pride and class?

It says none of that matters anymore. It says if you want to go to a funeral wearing cargo shorts and a tank top it’s OK because the most important thing is not showing a modicum of respect for the deceased, but how YOU feel.

The whole concept of “class” or what it means to be classy is an unknown quality with too many people today. Nothing is left to the imagination. In movies today it has become de rigueur for the camera to pass through the bedroom door as actors and actresses engage in multiple forms of mattress gymnastics.

Remember movies when a couple would go through a door, and then the next scene would be the next day? Isn’t that enough? Can’t we leave something to the imagination for God’s sake?

Can you imagine Katherine Hepburn, Bette Davis, Audrey Hepburn, Rita Hayworth, etc. baring it all for a scene with a nude Cary Grant, Gary Cooper, James Stewart or Burt Lancaster? Wouldn’t have happened. And it’s not just because the censors in those days would not have allowed it to happen. It’s because once upon a time Americans had an appreciation for elegance and taste.

Rita Hayworth

Great actresses of today such as Meryl Streep, Judi Dench, Kate Winslet, Maggie Smith, and Emma Thompson know you don’t have to do the horizontal waltz to exude sex appeal.

They leave something to the imagination.

So why do otherwise intelligent women show up at the White House in flip-flops?

Why do “Walmart people” feel they can go shopping looking like two-legged rubbish bins?

Dare I offer my humble opinion? I fear there is very little child-rearing. Too many parents are abrogating that responsibility to schools, daycare centers, etc. The result is a nation in which millions of kids have little or no understanding of shared values, self-discipline, social responsibility, respect for others, or what we used to call “good manners.”

All of that is utterly passé. The idea for too many young girls today is to look trashy, show as much booty as they can and have a big ugly tattoo poking out above their butt crack.

When I was teaching at the University of Illinois, I couldn’t believe how many female students came to my 8 a.m. class in their pajamas. They couldn’t have cared less about how they appeared. But hey, at least they were comfortable.

I think attitudes began to change dramatically in the counterculture, hippie-fueled, “turn on, tune in, drop out” 1960s when the mantra was: “if it feels good, do it.”

Miss Manners was about as relevant back then as powdered wigs and hoop skirts.

Therefore, we can argue that it’s “generational.” OK, I agree, up to a point. Back in “the day” (and here I am dating myself), we wore tight jeans and white t-shirts with cigarette packs rolled up in the short sleeves. Some of us had “Ducktails,” and we liked to cruise around in customized cars equipped with thunderous glass pack mufflers.

But how many of us looked like those people at Walmart–or for that matter at McDonald’s, Taco Bell, Burger King, or I-Hop? Because I have seen them at those places also.

Until the 1960s people took a lot more pride in their appearance mainly because (in my case, at least) my mother would never have allowed me to walk out the door looking like a vagrant. I think too many parents today don’t provide that kind of supervision. Few teach their kids any discipline and instead infuse them with the idea that it’s not necessary to respect others, their property, or their opinions.

School teachers today tell me that when they get kids from homes like that (and that means most kids) every time they attempt to punish them the parents circle the wagons around their brats and often it’s the teacher who gets disciplined. I can’t imagine what it must be like to teach high school today.

That’s why there is such an excess of people who feel “entitled” to say and do anything they want. Think about the hordes of today’s barbarians who, like the Visa-goths and Huns who sacked Rome, are able to enter a Nieman-Marcus or Macy’s store with trash bags, strip shelves bare, and walk out with impunity.

Gang of thieves leaving Nieman-Marcus with loot

Why is this happening? Why? Because we are allowing it to happen. Because Black Lives Matter leaders say openly that what those people are doing is “not looting, but reparations.” What a ludicrous rationalization.

“These stores owe the black community,” BLM kingpins say. That’s ethical vigilantism and victim distortion. They are encouraging response to a real or imagined injustice by urging remedial cheating, lying, and theft as “payback” for past indiscretions and biases. When someone belongs to a group that is commonly treated with bias or has a history of being so treated, or when an individual feels, perhaps legitimately, that he or she is personally discriminated against or disliked because of factors such as appearance, race, social background, or past indiscretions, they feel empowered to loot and steal. Some even go so far as to attack Asians or elderly pensioners on the street–all because of their perceived victimhood.

It’s a dangerous victim mindset that creates a crippling rationalization that says stealing from a Walmart or Walgreens is okay because those allegedly aggrieved are filled with irrational and groundless hostility. There is also the fact that punishment is just about nil for this kind of unlawful activity.

The result is that significant portions of our nation are sliding dangerously into anarchy. It’s as if those violent “Purge” films, in which citizens are given one full day to commit any kind of crime they want with impunity, are no longer Hollywood fiction, but reality.

Who knows where all of this will end. I am not optimistic given the feckless and irresponsible leadership we are seeing in our cities.

 

 

Humor yesterday and in today’s cancel culture world

The other day I watched Netflix’s “Closer” Special with comedian Dave Chappelle.

Now, don’t get me wrong. Chappelle is a funny guy. I especially respect him for his “anti-PC” comedy and commentary. It takes guts to speak your mind openly in today’s politically correct and cancel-culture world where just about everybody feels entitled to be perpetually offended.

Chappelle did not back down during his “Closer” show. He defended himself against the PC mob which has decided that certain topics (homosexuality, transgenderism, gender confusion, lesbianism, the LGBTQ+ community, ethnic and racial minorities, illegal migrants, and even the criminals who loot stores in broad daylight) are off-limits.

Apparently, the only human beings that aren’t off-limits are straight white males. They can be ridiculed and called everything from Nazis to white supremacists with absolute impunity by comedians, radical politicians, and media mavens. The hatred I hear directed at people like me (yes, I am a white male) by people like AOC, Rashida Tlaib, and other members of the bigoted anti-Semitic squad is not only condoned but seems never-ending.

But that’s a topic for another post. Let’s get back to Dave Chappelle.

As comedian and actor Damon Wayans said following Chappelle’s special: “I feel like Dave freed the slaves. Comedians were slaves to PC culture. As an artist, Chappelle is Van Gogh. He cut his ear off. He’s trying to tell us it’s OK.

Dave Chappelle: The Closer. 

“I can’t speak about the content of (Dave’s) show, Wayans continued. “But, there’s a bigger conversation we need to have. Somebody needs to look us in the eye and go ‘You’re no longer free in this country. You’re not free to say what you want, you say what we want you to say. Otherwise, we will cancel you.’ That’s the discussion we need to have.”

Amen.

Having said all of that, I have to say I am not a fan of the vulgarity and gutter humor that seems to be the trademark of comedians today. I certainly haven’t seen all of Dave Chappelle’s performances, but the “Closer” show was permeated with enough F-bombs, bodily fluids, and other corporeal jokes to last me for a while.

People who are much smarter than me who analyze these sorts of things say comedians fill their routines with obscenities because they are holding a figurative mirror up to society. The fact is, we live in a vulgar world. Comedians have discovered they can get laughs going for the lowest common denominator and there are plenty of those in today’s audiences.

And that brings me to the real reason I am posting about this today.

I remember when comedy was very funny, even hilarious, without the crude humor. I remember when you could listen to or watch a vast array of comedians who could keep an audience laughing for an hour or more without uttering a single f-bomb or swear word.

They used wit, satire, wordplay, irony, farce, slapstick, parody, hyperbole, deadpan, anecdote, self-deprecation, ethnic, and good old observation to get laughs. And it worked!

I guess I’m dating myself here, but here is a list of some of those classic “clean” comedians. It came to me via e-mail, so in the interest of full disclosure, I didn’t compile it.

That note said that according to a UC Berkeley professor who studies humor in America, it’s a little-known fact that while Jews constitute only about 2 percent of the U.S. population, there was a time when they comprised about 50 percent of the famous comedians.

It went on to ask if you remembered some of the old “Borscht Belt” Catskill Comics of the 1940s and 1950s—many of whom got their starts doing stand-up comedy in that region of New York state.

Here’s a list of some of those classic comedians:

Shecky Greene, Red Buttons, Totie Fields, Joey Bishop, Milton Berle, Jan Murray, Danny Kaye, Henny Youngman, Buddy Hackett, Sid Caesar, Groucho Marx, Jackie Mason, Woody Allen, Lenny Bruce, George Burns, Allan Sherman, Jerry Lewis, Carl Reiner, Shelley Berman, Gene Wilder, George Jessel, Alan King, Mel Brooks, Phil Silvers, Jack Carter, Rodney Dangerfield, Don Rickles, Jack Benny, Mansel Rubenstein, and so many others.

[image error] Henny Youngman, king of the one-liners

There was not one single swear word in their comedy.

Take a look:

I just got back from a pleasure trip.  I took my mother-in-law to the airport.Do you know what it means to come home at night to a woman who’ll give you a little love, a little affection, a little tenderness? It means you’re in the wrong house, that’s what it means.A man is hit by a car while crossing a street in Beverly Hills. A woman rushes to him and cradles his head in her lap, asking, “Are you comfortable?” The man answers, “I make a decent living.”I’ve been in love with the same woman for 49 years! If my wife ever finds out, she’ll kill me!What are three words a woman never wants to hear when she’s making love?  “Honey, I’m home!”I once wanted to become an atheist, but I gave up – they have no holidays.Someone stole all my credit cards, but I won’t be reporting it. The thief spends less than my wife did.We always hold hands.  If I let go, she shops.My wife and I went back to the hotel where we spent our wedding night.  Only this time I stayed in the bathroom and cried.My wife and I went to a hotel where we got a waterbed.  My wife called it the Dead Sea.She was at the beauty shop for two hours.  That was only for the estimate.  She got a mudpack and looked great for two days. Then the mud fell off.

Milton Berle interacting with the audience

The Doctor gave a man six months to live. The man couldn’t pay his bill, so the doctor gave him another six months.The Doctor called Mrs. Cohen saying, “Mrs. Cohen, your check came back.”  Mrs. Cohen answered, “So did my arthritis!”Doctor: “You’ll live to be 60!”  Patient: “I am 60!”  Doctor: “See! What did I tell you?”Patient: “I have a ringing in my ears.”  Doctor: “Don’t answer it!”A drunk was in front of a judge.  The judge says, “You’ve been brought here for drinking.”  The drunk says “Okay, let’s get started.”I told the doctor I broke my leg in two places. He told me to quit going to those places.The Harvard School of Medicine did a study of why Jewish women like Chinese food so much.  The study revealed that this is due to the fact that Won Ton spelled backward is Not Now.There is a big controversy on the Jewish view of when life begins.  In Jewish tradition, the fetus is not considered viable until it graduates from medical school.Q: Why don’t Jewish mothers drink?A: Alcohol interferes with their suffering.Q: Why do Jewish mothers make great parole officers?A: They never let anyone finish a sentence!A man called his mother in Florida, “Mom, how are you?”  “Not too good,” said the mother. “I’ve been very weak.  “The son said, “Why are you so weak?”  She said, “Because I haven’t eaten in 38 days. “The son said, “That’s terrible. Why haven’t you eaten in 38 days?”  The mother answered, “Because I didn’t want my mouth to be filled with food if you should call.”A Jewish boy comes home from school and tells his mother he has a part in the play.  She asks, “What part is it?”  The boy says, “I play the part of the Jewish husband.”  The mother scowls and says, “Go back and tell the teacher you want a speaking part.”Q: How many Jewish mothers does it take to change a light bulb?A: (Sigh) “Don’t bother. I’ll sit in the dark. I don’t want to be a nuisance to anybody.”Did you hear about the bum who walked up to a Jewish mother on the street and said, “Lady, I haven’t eaten in three days.” “Force yourself,” she replied.Q: What’s the difference between a Rottweiler and a Jewish mother?A: Eventually, the Rottweiler lets go.

And finally, this old chestnut that comes about as close to a “dirty” joke that you would have heard in the Borscht Belt.

Q: Why are Jewish men circumcised?A: Because Jewish women don’t like anything that isn’t 20% off.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Some Thoughts on the Art and Craft of Writing

I was interviewed recently about the art and craft of writing in general and writing in the historical fiction genre in particular.

As a journalist for some thirty years, I interviewed thousands of people all over the world. Now that I am on the other side of the table, I am finding that being the interviewee is as different from being the interviewer as chalk and cheese.

Don’t get me wrong. I enjoy being interviewed because it obliges me to think about what I do. It’s a lot like teaching. You must be able to verbalize your skills and knowledge and present them in a compelling way to teach effectively.

That’s not always easy to do. But I thought I would share my interview with my readers. I hope you will find it useful and perhaps even enjoyable.

Q. What historical time periods interest you the most and how have you immersed yourself in a particular time?

A. Growing up in rural Kansas I was always fascinated by the state’s 19th Century history. Kansas was a pivotal state before the Civil War because it entered the union as a free state and was populated–especially in the Northeast–by abolitionists. Kansas was a terminus for the Underground Railroad.

After the Civil War, it became about as wild and violent as any state in the union. Cattle drives from Texas, wild cow towns, outlaws, legendary lawmen and fraudsters of every stripe gave Kansas a wicked reputation. At the same time, the 19th Century in America was a time of fantastic growth, invention, progress, and expansion.

For some, such as Native Americans, this growth was not a pleasant experience, and in some cases, it was quite deadly. For others, the possibilities seemed limitless. Prosperity seemed restricted only by one’s determination and effort.

Q.  Introduce us briefly to the main characters in Book 1 of the Finding Billy Battles trilogy.

A. William Fitzroy Raglan Battles is the main character in the trilogy. We meet Billy Battles through his great-grandson who meets him when he is 98 years old and living in an old soldiers’ home in Leavenworth, Kansas. The great-grandson inherits Billy’s journals and other belongings. Then, following his great-grandfather’s request, he produces three books that reveal Billy’s fantastic life.

The book begins with Billy introducing himself. We learn that his father is killed during the Civil War. He is reared by his widowed mother, Hannelore, a second-generation German-American woman who has to be both mother and father to her only son, rears him.

It is a tall order, but Billy grows up properly and is seemingly on the right path. His mother, a hardy and resilient woman, makes a decent living as a dressmaker in Lawrence, Kansas. An ardent believer in the value of a good education, she insists that Billy attend the newly minted University of Kansas in Lawrence. She is a powerful influence in his life, as are several other people he meets along the way.

There is Luther Longley, an African-American former army scout who Billy and his mother meet at Ft. Dodge in 1866. He escorts them the 300 miles to Lawrence and winds up being a close friend to both Billy and his mother.

There is Horace Hawes, publisher and Editor of the Lawrence Union newspaper who takes Billy with him to start a new paper in Dodge City. There is Ben Minot, a typesetter and former Northern Army Sharpshooter, who still carries a mini ball in his body from the war and a load of antipathy toward The Confederacy.

There is Signore Antonio DiFranco; the Italian political exile Billy meets in Dodge City. There is Mallie McNab, the girl Billy meets, falls in love with, marries and with whom he hopes to live out his life. There is Charley Higgins, Billy’s first cousin, who sometimes treads just south of the law, but who is also Billy’s most faithful compadre.

Dodge City, Ks ca. 1878

Then there is the Bledsoe family–particularly Nate Bledsoe who blames Billy for the deaths of his mother and brother and who swears vengeance.

Book one of the trilogy ends with Billy on a steamship in 1894 heading for French Indo-China and other points in the Orient where one adventure (and misadventure) after another awaits him.

Book 2, The Improbable Journeys of Billy Battles, begins with Billy aboard the S.S. China headed for Saigon from San Francisco. Aboard the S.S. China Billy meets the mysterious Widow Katharina Schreiber, a woman who propels Billy into a series of calamities and dubious situations. She may or may not be a good influence on him.

He also meets a passel of shady characters as well as some old friends from his days in Kansas, etc. Events conspire to embroil him in a variety of disputes, conflicts and struggles in places like French Indochina and the Spanish-American War in The Philippines–events with which a Kansas sand cutter is hardly equipped to deal.

How does he handle these adventures in the “mysterious East?” You will have to read Book #2 to find out!

Q. What drew you to write this story

A.I was intrigued by the idea of a 19th Century Kansas boy forced to deal with a string of tragedies and misadventures who eventually makes his way to the Far East in search of himself.

How would he handle himself in such strange places as French Indochina, the Spanish-controlled Philippines, Hong Kong, Singapore, etc.? I spent most of my career as a foreign correspondent in Asia and I often wondered what it would have been like to have been in that part of the world in the 19th Century. This book gives me (and my readers) an opportunity to find out.

Q. On what are you currently working?

A. I finished The Lost Years of Billy Battles, Book #3 of the trilogy, in 2018. As Book 3 of the Finding Billy Battles trilogy begins we know where Billy is. He is in Chicago with his wife, the former Baroness Katharina von Schreiber living a sedate and comfortable life after years of adventure and tragedy. That changes with a single telephone call that yanks Billy and Katharina back into a life of turmoil and danger.

Persuaded by a powerful old friend to go undercover for the U.S. government the two find themselves in Mexico during the height of the violent 1910-1920 revolution. There they encounter assorted German spies, Mexican revolutionaries, devious political operatives, and other malefactors. Caught in the middle of the 1914 American invasion of Veracruz, they must find a way out while keeping their real identities secret.

After managing to extract themselves from danger, disaster strikes. It is a tragedy Billy is all too familiar with and one that will send him plummeting into a painful abyss of despair and agony. Consequently, Billy vanishes leaving family and friends to wonder what happened to him. Where is he? Is he dead or alive? What provoked his disappearance? In Book 3 of the Finding Billy Battles Trilogy, those questions are answered, and the mystery behind Billy’s disappearance is finally revealed.

Q. Is there ever a time when you feel like your work is truly finished and complete?

A.I don’t know if that ever happens. I do know that at some point, YOU MUST LET IT GO! Writing a book is a bit like rearing a child. Eventually, after you have imbued the child with as much of your worldly experience and wisdom as he or she can grasp and absorb you have to allow your creation to encounter the world. It’s the same with books. Writers can fiddle with plots, characters, endings, and beginnings ad nauseam and never feel the book is finished. My advice. JUST FINISH THE DAMNED BOOK! Get over it and get the book out into the public domain. Readers will let you know if you have finished the book–and if they like it.

Q.  What is the most significant misconception beginning writers have about being published? 

A. Probably that once you get a publishing contract, you are going to become a millionaire. I have published two books before Billy Battles with traditional publishers, and I am still on the hunt for my first million. The J. K. Rowling’s of the world are anomalies. However, thank God they do exist because it keeps the rest of us working our tails off in pursuit of that elusive kind of success. I do believe many writers write for the sheer joy we get from telling a good story–at least I do. The $$ is less of an incentive.

Q. What would I like readers to gain from reading my book(s)? 

A. Because the Finding Billy Battles trilogy is historical fiction and is set in the 19th century and early 20th century, I would like readers to get a sense of the time and place of the story. I would like them to have an appreciation of the way people lived, how they thought, and how they dealt with both adversity and triumph in a very different era. Finally, I would like readers to finish the trilogy and think to themselves: “Damn, I didn’t want that story to end!”

Q.  Do you have some final words for readers or writers?

A. For Readers: Please DON’T STOP READING! Those of us who love telling stories need you. And when you read a book, don’t be shy. Write a review on Amazon, Goodreads, Barnes & Noble, etc. and let us know what you liked and didn’t like about a book. I value the reviews I get from Amazon Verified Purchase customers more than I do from professional or editorial reviewers. After all, customers spent money on the book and that gives them the right to tell the author what they think.

A. For Writers: Keep Writing. The world needs good storytellers today more than ever. I know that many who write are frustrated by letters of rejection from agents and publishers. Don’t be discouraged. If you can’t get a book before the reading public going the traditional publishing route, consider self or indie publishing. Publish on Demand (POD) books are everywhere these days and so are e-books. Writers today don’t have to feel a rejection letter the last word in their aspiration to publish. You have options to reach readers that didn’t exist 10 or even five years ago.

I must be honest, however. Many self-published books are not well done. The writing may be poor quality; the covers are often inferior, and the proofreading and editing are shoddy. Frankly, some books should never have made it off the printing press or into an e-file. However, there are enough gems coming from self-published authors to offset the marginal efforts.

Q. What advice do you have for beginners?

A. Give yourself time to learn the craft of writing. How do you do that? Read, read, and read. If you want to write well, read well. Learn from the best; imitate, and by that, I don’t mean plagiarize. Listen to the words! You don’t have to spend thousands of dollars on writing seminars, conferences, etc. Gifted writing can’t be taught. It must be learned. And we learn from doing it; from experience.

Writing is a discipline that you can learn at any age. Unlike ballet or basketball or modeling, becoming an author is not something that if you missed doing at 16, 18, or 20, you could never do again. You are NEVER too old to begin writing!

I recall interviewing Pulitzer and Nobel Prize-winning author Pearl S. Buck once. It was late fall, 1971, and at the time she was living in Vermont. We were talking on the phone, and suddenly she began describing her backyard and what she said was the first snow of the season.

Pearl S. Buck

“You should see this, Ron. From my office window, I am watching a leisurely shower of white crystals floating, drifting, and landing softly onto a carpet of jade. I wish you could see it.”

“I do,” I said. “Thanks for showing me.”

I never forgot that conversation with the first American female Nobel laureate. She was 79 and still writing. Pearl S. Buck won the Nobel Prize in Literature for her book “The Good Earth,” about life in rural China.

Finally, writing–as difficult as it is–should also be fun. When you turn a beautiful phrase or create a vivid scene, you should feel a little flutter in your heart, a shiver in your soul. If you do, that means you have struck an evocative chord with your writing. Nothing is more rewarding than that!

Write On!

 

A Mixed Metaphor Walks into a Bar….

All of us know that English is the most inconsistent, confusing, and maddening tongue on the planet. Unlike most other languages, it is often called a “bastard” language because of its multifarious etymological and philological foundations.

English is a combination of Latin, Germanic, French, Saxon, Gallic, and Nordic tongues—to mention just a few. And while it belongs to the Indo-European family of languages, its grammatical rules are often bewildering and paradoxical—especially to non-English speakers who are learning the language. Man, do I feel sorry for those folks!

[image error]

Recently somebody sent me some interesting examples of English grammar in action and I thought to myself, ‘this is a great way to teach the idiosyncrasies and eccentricities of English grammar.’ 

Take a look and enjoy. You might even learn something.

A malapropism walks into a bar, looking for all intensive purposes like a wolf in cheap clothing, muttering epitaphs and casting dispersions on his magnificent other, who takes him for granite.

A dangling participle walks into a bar. Enjoying a cocktail and chatting with the bartender, the evening passes pleasantly.

A bar was walked into by the passive voice.

An oxymoron walked into a bar, and the silence was deafening.

Two quotation marks walk into a “bar.”

Hyperbole totally rips into this insane bar and absolutely destroys everything.

An Onomatopoeia screeches into a bar, sizzles, growls, and roars.

A question mark walks into a bar?

A non-sequitur walks into a bar. In a strong wind, even turkeys can fly.

Papyrus and Comic Sans walk into a bar. The bartender says, “Get out — we don’t serve your type.”

A mixed metaphor walks into a bar, seeing the handwriting on the wall but hoping to nip it in the bud.

A comma splice walks into a bar, it has a drink and then leaves.

Three intransitive verbs walk into a bar. They sit. They converse. They depart.

A synonym strolls into a tavern.

At the end of the day, a cliché walks into a bar — fresh as a daisy, cute as a button, and sharp as a tack.

A run-on sentence walks into a bar it starts flirting. With a cute little sentence fragment.

Falling slowly, softly falling, the chiasmus collapses to the bar floor.

A figure of speech literally walks into a bar and ends up getting figuratively hammered.

An allusion walks into a bar, despite the fact that alcohol is its Achilles heel.

The subjunctive would have walked into a bar, had it only known.

A misplaced modifier walks into a bar owned a man with a glass eye named Ralph.

The past, present, and future walked into a bar. It was tense.

A dyslexic walks into a bra.

A verb walks into a bar, sees a beautiful noun, and suggests they conjugate. The noun declines.

An Oxford comma walks into a bar, where it spends the evening watching the television getting drunk and smoking cigars.

A simile walks into a bar, as parched as a desert.

A gerund and an infinitive walk into a bar, drinking to forget.

A hyphenated word and a non-hyphenated word walk into a bar, and the bartender nearly chokes on the irony.

 

Putting Things into Perspective: Suppose You Were Born in 1900

A few commentaries have been floating around the Internet for the past several years that have attempted to add a little perspective to the many critical issues and challenges we are facing today. I have adapted the contents of a couple of those to my essay here.

Essentially what those commentaries attempted to do was to put things into some kind of perspective. The problems confronting us today may seem unique and insurmountable. But are they?

Let’s do a cursory assessment of the way things are today.

For the past two years, we have dealt with the global Covid-19 pandemic and now we are seeing the steady erosion of our rights as vaccine and mask mandates are imposed on us by federal and state governments focused on incomparable control and overreach.

We live in a nation that appears woefully divided politically, socially, ethnically, and racially, As a result, we appear to be splitting into belligerent tribes. Parents are at war with local school boards over what they see as the Marxist indoctrination of their children via the teaching of specious Critical Race Theory.

We are on the cusp of record inflation. For example, food prices across the world have risen 32.8 percent to their highest levels in a decade on the back of tightening supply conditions, according to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO).

Wholesale fuel and gas prices have jumped 250% since January, pushing the average price of gas at the pump to $3.30 per gallon—the highest it’s been in the past seven years. In California, the average price of a gallon of gas just hit $4.42—the highest it’s been since 2012. Americans who heat their homes with natural gas are facing a 100 percent increase in their heating bills from a year ago, according to the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Terrorism remains a constant threat especially since our wholesale withdrawal from Afghanistan where groups such as ISIS-K and a re-ascendant Al Qaeda will be allowed to flourish and plan attacks on Europe and the United States.

In short, our world is NOT a happy place. It is fraught with problems, antagonisms, and danger.

Now let’s try and put all of this into some kind of perspective by comparing and contrasting today’s world to the 101-year-long life of someone born in 1900. We tend to think of the past as a place where things were better, simpler, and more habitable.  But is that really the case?

Imagine that you are born in 1900. It is a time of tremendous social and economic upheaval in the United States. Everything seems fairly tolerable until you reach the age of 14. That’s when World War I begins and lasts until you are 18 years old. By the time it’s over, an estimated 37 million people worldwide will have died, including 116,708 of your fellow Americans. You are still alive, but you may have lost friends and relatives in the conflict.

Just as the war ended, the world is struck by the 1918 Spanish Flu pandemic.  By the time you’re 20, it has killed 675,000 Americans and at least 50 million people worldwide. You managed to survive the Spanish Flu, but you’re far from safe. There are still myriad other diseases and viruses out there with no cure or treatment, including polio, scarlet fever, and diphtheria. Smallpox remains rampant worldwide until the 1940s, killing some 300 million people during your lifetime.

It would be another nine years before penicillin is discovered in 1929, when you are 29—the same year that the Great Depression begins and the “Roaring Twenties” end. The Great Depression lasts 10 years. Unemployment hits 25%, global GDP drops 27%. The country nearly collapses along with the world economy. You and millions of other Americans spend countless days in long soup lines just to get something to eat.

Then, as you turn 39 and when you think things couldn’t get any worse, World War II begins in Europe. The U.S. manages to stay out of the conflict until 1941 when the Japanese attack Pearl Harbor, and America is hurled into the conflict.

When you’re 45, World War II ends. Some 80 million people have died, and of those 416,800 are Americans. It would be the deadliest war in history, killing 3% of the world’s population.

In 1946 there is a sense of hope that the carnage of World War II will usher in an era of peace and global cooperation. Unfortunately, peace doesn’t last.

When you turn 50, the Korean War begins and kills another 40,000 Americans as well as 5 million Korean deaths. The active war lasts three years. Theoretically, however, it has never ended because in 1953 a fragile armistice agreement that establishes the Korean Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) along the 38th Parallel is signed. That pact remains in effect today.

A year after the fighting in Korea ends you have just turned 54 and the Vietnam War begins between the Communist Viet Minh and the French, who colonized Indochina in the 19th century. The French are defeated by the Viet Minh in the decisive battle of Dien Bien Phu. French rule ends and under terms of the Geneva Accords Vietnam is divided at the 17th Parallel between the communist north and the nationalists in the south. It’s an uneasy arrangement and its violation will eventually bring about U.S. participation.

At the age of 57, you live through another global pandemic. The H2N2 Asian flu kills four million people worldwide and 116,000 in the United States. As with Covid-19, it originates in China.

Approaching your 62nd birthday you and millions of other Americans watch the Cuban Missile Crisis unfold. It’s a tipping point in the Cold War. The threat of nuclear war is real and life on our planet, as we know it, could well have ended. Cooler heads prevail and the ICBMs remain in their silos.

When you turn 65, U.S. Marines land on beaches near Da Nang beginning an almost 10-year-long American military involvement in the war. Some four million people will die during the war, including 58,000 Americans. During the war you watch America tear itself apart between those who support the war and those who don’t.

You experience the so-called “cultural revolution” of the 1960s along with major shifts in American values and ideology. You have never seen the nation so divided and at war with itself. The Civil Rights movement ends decades of segregation, but the assassinations of President John F. Kennedy, his brother Robert Kennedy, and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. leave the nation in a state of prolonged depression.

When you are 68, the third influenza pandemic of the 20th century occurs. It’s called the H3N2 Hong Kong Flu and it kills almost four million people worldwide and 100,000 in the U.S.

As you turn 75, the Vietnam War ends, but the divisions created by the war in the United States remain.

When you are 81, an assassination attempt on President Ronald Reagan almost succeeds and there is a brand new virus to contend with that’s never been seen before called HIV-AIDS.  It will kill hundreds of thousands in the US alone.

Reagan assassination attempt 1981

But your century is not over—not by a long shot.

When you are 91, you witness the collapse of the Soviet Union and when you turn 95 there is a domestic bomb attack on the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in downtown Oklahoma City killing 168, including 19 children under the age of 6. Four years later when you are 99, 15 people, including the shooters, are killed in the Columbine high school massacre.

Let’s say you live to 101—long enough to see America attacked by terrorists flying four hijacked airliners. You watch two planes crash into the twin world trade center towers in New York City, while another plane crashes into the Pentagon building in Washington and the fourth plane crashes into a Pennsylvania field when passengers take over the aircraft.

That was your century—the Twentieth. During that century you lived through several “hot wars” and for 36 of those years, you lived through the “Cold War” with the constant threat of nuclear annihilation hanging over your head.

British author C.S. Lewis, discussing the peril of living when the threat of a nuclear war was on everybody’s mind, had this to say in 1948 about existence during the “atomic age.” If you substitute the words “atomic bomb” with the words “Covid-19” you will see how relevant and spot-on his essay still is.

C.S. Lewis, ca 1948

“In one way we think a great deal too much of the atomic bomb. ‘How are we to live in an atomic age?’ I am tempted to reply: Why, as you would have lived in the sixteenth century when the plague visited London almost every year, or as you would have lived in a Viking age when raiders from Scandinavia might land and cut your throat any night; or indeed, as you are already living in an age of cancer, an age of syphilis, an age of paralysis, an age of air raids, an age of railway accidents, an age of motor accidents.’

“In other words, do not let us begin by exaggerating the novelty of our situation. Believe me, dear sir or madam, you and all whom you love were already sentenced to death before the atomic bomb was invented: and quite a high percentage of us were going to die in unpleasant ways.

“We had, indeed, one very great advantage over our ancestors—anesthetics; but we have that still. It is perfectly ridiculous to go about whimpering and drawing long faces because the scientists have added one more chance of painful and premature death to a world which already bristled with such chances…and in which death itself was not a chance at all, but a certainty.

“This is the first point to be made: and the first action to be taken is to pull ourselves together. If we are all going to be destroyed by an atomic bomb, let that bomb when it comes find us doing sensible and human things—praying, working, teaching, reading, listening to music, bathing the children, playing tennis, chatting to our friends over a pint and a game of darts—not huddled together like frightened sheep and thinking about bombs. They may break our bodies (a microbe can do that) but they need not dominate our minds.”

C.S. Lewis puts things in remarkable perspective—just as someone who was born in 1900 and who lived to 2001 might have done.

What say you?

 

 

Big Brother has arrived in America and his name is Joe Biden.

President Biden declared this week that not only can U.S. Senators be harassed by demented leftists while doing their “business” in public bathrooms, but parents who protest too passionately at public school board meetings about how their children are being indoctrinated in classrooms will be investigated as “domestic terrorists” by the Department of Justice and a politically weaponized FBI, which seems to have morphed into America’s version of Nazi Germany’s Gestapo.

Attorney General Merrick Garland’s ham-fisted plan to engage federal, state, and local law enforcement to intimidate parents who protest the actions of leftist school boards is a direct assault on our First Amendment right to free speech.

Merrick Garland: Protesting Parents = Domestic Terrorists

It is nothing more than an attempt to silence constitutionally protected grievances about brainwashing children with Marxist Critical Race Theory.

In a memorandum announcing the crackdown on parents, Garland said there has been a “disturbing spike in harassment, intimidation, and threats of violence against school administrators, board members, teachers, and staff.”

Garland added that he is directing the FBI to work with each U.S. attorney and leaders “in each federal judicial district” to discuss strategies to address threats and the rise in criminal conduct toward school personnel. The memorandum did not specify what it classifies as a crime.

A DOJ press release said Garland plans to “create specialized training and guidance for local school boards and school administrators. This training will help school board members and other potential victims understand the type of behavior that constitutes threats, how to report threatening conduct to the appropriate law enforcement agencies, and how to capture and preserve evidence of threatening conduct to aid in the investigation and prosecution of these crimes.”

“Domestic Terrorists” in Action

The Biden administration’s blatant attempt to shut down protests from parents is not just at the federal level. In the hotly-contested Virginia gubernatorial race, the two candidates debated the issue last week and the incumbent Democratic Governor Terry McAuliffe agreed with Garland’s intimidation tactics.

“Parents should have no say in how their children are educated,” Virginia’s McAuliffe, argued. “I don’t think parents should be telling schools what they should and should not teach.”

Really?

His Republican challenger, Glenn Youngkin, begged to differ, as I suspect do millions upon millions of American parents.

“What we’ve seen over the course of this last 20 months is our school systems refusing to engage with parents,” Youngkin said. “In fact, in Fairfax County this past week, we watched parents so upset because there was such sexually explicit material in the library they had never seen, it was shocking. I believe parents should be in charge of their kids’ education.”

There is little doubt that Youngkin’s view is in the majority throughout the nation as parents angry about Marxist political indoctrination and overly-explicit sexual instruction provided to children as young as five engage with school boards.

More “Domestic Terrorists” in Action

Reaction to the federal government overreach has been swift and vocal.

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis lambasted Garland for “weaponizing the DOJ by using the FBI to pursue concerned parents and silence them through threats and intimidation. Florida will defend the free speech rights of its citizens and will not allow federal agents to squelch dissent.”

Republican Sen. Josh Hawley agreed, calling Garland’s plan a “dangerous abuse of power.”

“Now Joe Biden is deploying the FBI against parents who have concerns about Critical Race Theory being taught to their children,” Hawley said in the Senate earlier this week “This is a remarkable and dangerous abuse of power. I just asked the Biden DOJ to name one instance in American history when the FBI has been directed to go after parents attending school board meetings to express their views. There isn’t one. Biden’s latest offensive against parents is shocking, unprecedented, and wrong.”

Indeed. The First Amendment protects all speech unless it explicitly calls for the use of force that the speaker clearly intends and the likelihood of violence is real and imminent. Even actual “threats of violence” are not actionable unless they meet this high threshold.

In 1783 George Washington, who Garland and Biden along with their socialist and Marxist friends, clearly loathe, articulated some prophetic words about free speech.

“For if men are to be precluded from offering their sentiments on a matter, which may involve the most serious and alarming consequences, that can invite the consideration of Mankind, reason is of no use to us; the freedom of Speech may be taken away, and, dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep, to the Slaughter.”

That is apparently what Garland and Biden have in mind for angry and outspoken parents.

I predict that the DOJ and the FBI will make an example of a couple of the more vociferous and angry parents in the hopes of silencing hundreds of thousands of others.

I also predict that ploy will backfire on the Biden administration when more and more parents refuse to be gagged and silenced.

Apparently, the Biden administration wants America transformed into a police state and we seem to be heading in that direction.

Nicole Neily is one parent who is not backing down.

“It is shameful that activists are weaponizing the U.S. Department of Justice against parents,” Neily, president of Parents Defending Education, said in response to the memorandum. “This is a coordinated attempt to intimidate dissenting voices in the debates surrounding America’s underperforming K-12 education—and it will not succeed. We will not be silenced.”

John Stuart Mill may have said it best back in 1859 when he said:

“Strange it is that men should admit the validity of the arguments for free speech but object to their being ‘pushed to an extreme,’ not seeing that unless the reasons are good for an extreme case, they are not good for any case.”

Amen to that.