Ronald E. Yates's Blog, page 75

Journalism’s Dangerous Shift from Impartiality to Advocacy

Those of us who have been in the news business for more than a few years (for me it’s more than 30 years) have learned a hard truth in the past decade or so: There has been a palpable shifting of the lines between what we learned journalism ideally should be and what it has become.

Coming as I did as a neophyte into the cavernous newsroom of the Chicago Tribune back in 1969 right out of college, I had editors who made sure that I didn’t stray from accurate, evenhanded, and unbiased reporting into opinion and rumor. When I did, I heard about it from some crabby City Editor.

An even worse sin at the Tribune was the sin of omission. That occurred if you took it upon yourself NOT to report something because doing so might not coincide with YOUR interpretation of the event or your political predilection.

“The only thing worse than writing a story filled with mistakes and lies is to ignore and bury a story because it violates your viewpoints,” a Tribune editor once chided a fellow reporter. “That’s like a doctor withholding life-saving medicine from a patient he may not like.”

That happens all too often in today’s news media. For example, back in March, Attorney General Barr told President Trump in the Oval Office that his national emergency declaration was clearly lawful, and exactly what Congress intended when it passed the National Emergencies Act,  which gave presidents broad discretionary authority to identify and respond to emergent circumstances like the humanitarian and security crisis at our southern border.

What? You didn’t see it on TV or read it in your newspaper? That’s because the big three networks—ABC, NBC, and CBS—buried the story, preventing millions of viewers from learning about the Justice Department’s legal advice to the President. So did all cable networks, except for FOX.

[image error]

They preferred to push the anti-Trump narrative that the emergency declaration was somehow unlawful or beyond the parameters of the National Emergency Act—which it clearly was not.

Then there is the Joe Biden/Hunter Biden scandal, which the mainstream media has decided doesn’t warrant any reporting beyond one or two cursory and superficial stories that a couple of news outlets did three years ago. Never mind that new evidence has surfaced and continues to surface every day.

But hey, today’s big thing is impeaching the president and overturning an election in which 61 million Americans put Donald Trump in the White House.

Have any of the mainstream media reported on how much and how often House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff has lied about everything from having “proof” of Trump’s collusion with Russia to the President’s phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky?

[image error] Adam Schiff: 4 Pinocchios from Washington Post for lying

So far, only the Washington Post has done so—giving Schiff the maximum of four Pinocchios for his fabrications and deceits concerning the “dreadful” phone call. Kudos to the Post!

When I was learning how to be a reporter we were exhorted to strive for objectivity in our reporting. Of course, we knew there was no such thing as a purely objective reporter. All of us have biases and are more than likely predisposed to have prejudices one way or the other in dealing with events, sources, issues, etc.

What dismays me today is that with the enormous influence of social media and cable news shows that purport to report stories unbiasedly, the viewing public has trouble discerning between news and opinion. The strict separation between news and opinion is simply vanishing. News anchors today feel it is their duty and prerogative to sprinkle their opinions throughout every story—especially those dealing with President Trump.

Legendary newsmen that I grew up with, such as Walter Cronkite, Chet Huntley, Harry Reasoner, etc. worked assiduously to keep their sentiments out of news stories. Why? Because doing otherwise would have undermined their credibility as professional journalists. And once journalists lose their credibility, they have lost everything. When they did opine, they did so by alerting their viewers that they were about to do so.

I have heard journalists today insist that stories need interpretation and that reporters need to adapt to the “realities of 21st Century journalism.”

I beg to differ. The realities of 21st Century journalism should mirror those of 20th Century journalism. Superior journalism needs to be a watchdog on government and elected officials, and it needs to be as objective and impartial as possible.

[image error]

There is nothing wrong with explanatory journalism, but there should be no doubt where news ends and opinion begins.

Too many reporters today believe that advocating for some cause or viewpoint is equivalent to interpreting the news. It is not. Journalists are not advocates and they should never fall into that trap.

One of the first rules I learned after joining the Chicago Tribune was that I was not allowed to engage in any kind of local politics–including joining the local school board. While reporters were allowed to belong to political parties, we were not allowed to work for any candidates or to express any open support for them. We were supposed to be independent observers, otherwise, how could our reporting be trusted?

We weren’t even allowed to go on television to express our opinions about a story or issue if we were reporting or covering it.

Here’s a question for you. Are MSNBC talking heads like Rachel Madow, Joe Scarborough, Mika Brzezinski, Kirsten Powers, and Chris Matthews journalists? No, they are not. Perhaps they were at one time, but they have abandoned whatever journalistic principles they may have had to become provocative pundits or commentators. Yet we see them anchoring shows that purport to be “news” shows.

This is prima facie fraud. But they couldn’t care less about journalistic credibility because they simply are NOT journalists. They don’t pretend to be impartial. Many are committed left-wingers and they make no apologies about it. They are paid to share their left-wing biases with their like-minded audiences, in much the same way that Sean Hannity, Tucker Carlson, or Laura Ingraham are paid by the Fox Network to share their conservative opinions with their audiences.

[image error]

I have never heard Hannity, Carlson, or Ingraham claim to be impartial journalists. They are paid commentators, not reporters. One watches those shows knowing that the emphasis is not on impartiality, but on opinion.

Yet, Fox News gets slammed again and again for being biased in its news coverage. Frankly, I think Fox’s news coverage is as fair as any of the other cable networks (certainly MSNBC’s or CNN’s).

The challenge for the viewing public is to learn to discern between opinion programs and news shows. That goes for all cable and broadcast networks.

Unfortunately, with the blurring of the lines between news and opinion in the reporting process, that continues to be a near impossible task for most viewers and readers.

On the other hand, it may be that the viewing and reading public really doesn’t care if stories are slanted and biased as long as they are slanted and biased in the direction they lean, left or right.

I hope that is not the case. If professional journalists and news organizations cannot or will not provide unbiased news that helps a citizenry to make informed choices and decisions then I fear our democracy is in grave danger.

So You Want to Travel Back in Time?

This is a post I shared a couple of years ago. It deals with how much different life was in the distant and not so distant past–something that anybody who writes historical fiction needs constantly to be aware of. Enjoy!

When I taught journalism classes at the University of Illinois, I was always saddened at how little knowledge of history my students had.

I didn’t blame my students so much as I blamed their K-12 schools for sending them into the world with little if any appreciation for the past and how it shaped today’s world.

I was amazed at how many students assumed that the world they lived in today was always this way. Most thought the modern conveniences we take for granted today were always there–just made from different materials or designed differently.

When I revealed to students how different life was in 1905, most were stunned.

I pointed out that in 1905 average life expectancy in the U.S. was 47 years; that only 14 percent of the homes in the U.S. had a bathtub; that only 8 percent of the households had a telephone; that 95 percent of all births took place at home; that 20 percent of adults couldn’t read or write; that only 6 percent of all Americans  graduated from high school; that marijuana, heroin, and morphine were all available over the counter at the local corner drugstores; and that there were only 230 reported murders in the entire U.S. you could hear a pin drop.

[image error]                                          Lunchtime on a Kansas Farm 1905

Those facts alone spurred some students to learn more about life in the past.

For me, an author of action/adventure and historical novels, visiting the past is not an option. It is a requirement. How can you write a book set in the 19th or 18th Centuries without understanding what life was like for the characters you create? The answer: you can’t.

One semester, as I was teaching my class, I came across some fascinating facts about life in England during the 16th Century. I am sure it mirrored life in 1500’s France, Germany, Italy, and other European countries.

I don’t know who the author is, or when it was written, or even how accurate it is, but when I shared it with my students, eyes widened, and jaws dropped. Here it is, and to the person who wrote this, my everlasting thanks.

 

THE 1500’s IN ENGLAND

 

The next time you are washing your hands and complain because the water temperature isn’t just how you like it, think about how things used to be.

Here are some facts about the 1500s, otherwise known as the middle ages:

Most people got married in June because they took their yearly bath in May and still smelled pretty good by June. However, they were starting to smell, so brides carried a bouquet to hide the body odor. Baths consisted of a big tub filled with hot water.

The man of the house had the privilege of the clear, clean water, then all the sons and men, then the women and finally the children — last of all the babies. By then, the water was so dirty you could lose someone in it–hence the saying, “Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.”

[image error]                                               An English village ca. 1500

Houses had thatched roofs — thick straw, piled high, with no wood underneath. It was the only place for animals to get warm, so all the dogs, cats and other small animals (mice rats, and bugs) lived in the roof. When it rained, it became slippery, and sometimes the animals would slip and fall off the roof–hence the saying, “It’s raining cats and dogs.”

There was nothing to stop things from falling into the house. That posed a real problem in the bedroom where bugs and other droppings could mess up your nice clean bed. Hence, a bed with big posts and sheet hung over the top afforded some protection. That’s how canopy beds came into existence.

The floor was dirt. Only the wealthy had something other than dirt, hence the saying, “dirt poor.” The wealthy had slate floors that would get slippery in the winter when wet, so they spread thresh on the floor to help keep their footing. As the winter wore on, they kept adding more thresh until when you opened the door, it would all start slipping outside. A piece of wood was placed in the entryway–hence, a “thresh-hold.”

People cooked in the kitchen with a big kettle that always hung over the fire.  Every day they lit the fire and added things to the pot. They ate mostly vegetables and did not get much meat. They would eat the stew for dinner, leaving leftovers in the pot to get cold overnight and then start over the next day. Sometimes the stew had food in it that had been there for quite a while–hence the rhyme, “peas porridge hot, peas porridge cold, peas porridge in the pot nine days old.”

Sometimes they could obtain pork, which made them feel quite special. When visitors came over, they would hang up their bacon to show off. It was a sign of wealth that a man “could bring home the bacon.” They would cut off a little to share with guests and would all sit around and “chew the fat.”

Those with money had plates made of pewter. Food with a high acid content caused some of the lead to leach onto the food, causing lead poisoning and death. This happened most often with tomatoes, so for the next 400 years or so, tomatoes were considered poisonous.

 Most people did not have pewter plates, but had trenchers, a piece of wood with the middle scooped out like a bowl. Often trenchers were made from stale paisan bread, which was so old and hard that they could use them for quite some time. Trenchers were never washed and a lot of times worms and mold got into the wood and old bread. After eating off wormy moldy trenchers, one would get “trench mouth.”

 Bread was divided according to status. Workers got the burnt bottom of the loaf, the family got the middle, and guests got the top, or “upper crust.”

 Lead cups were used to drink ale or whiskey. The combination would sometimes knock them out for a couple of days. Someone walking along the road would take them for dead and prepare them for burial. They were laid out on the kitchen table for a couple of days, and the family would gather around and eat  and drink and wait and see if they would wake up-hence the custom of holding a “wake.”

[image error]                                       Market Day English Town 1500’s

England is old and small, and they started running out of places to bury people. So they would dig up coffins and would take the bones to a “bone-house” and reuse the grave. When reopening these coffins, one out of every 25 coffins were found to have scratch marks on the inside, and they realized they had been burying people alive.

 Somebody came up with the idea of tying a string around the wrist of the corpse. They then ran the line through the coffin up through the ground and tied it to a bell. Someone would have to sit out in the graveyard all night (the “graveyard shift”) to listen for the bell. Thus, someone freshly buried could be “saved by the bell.”

As I mentioned earlier, I have no idea how accurate any of this is, but it seems to make sense to me. (Though I always thought “saved by the bell” was a boxing term in which a fighter who had been knocked to the canvas was not counted “out” if the bell ending the round sounded first).

But what do I know? I still believe in King Arthur, Sir Lancelot, Queen Guinevere, and the quest for the Holy Grail–not to mention fire breathing dragons.

A confession:  I only believe in fire breathing dragons after too much Kaw River Coffin Varnish, otherwise known as grandpappy’s corn squeezin’.

 

Welcome to the: “GRANDMOTHERS: A FORCE FOR GOOD” Blog Tour! @HealthMN1 @4WillsPub #RRBC #RWISA

Today, ForeignCorrespondent welcomes author (and grandmother) Harriet Hodgson and her new book: Force, How Grandmothers are Changing Grandchildren, Families, and Themselves.

To quote from the book’s Amazon synopsis:

“Becoming the grandmother of twins changed Harriet Hodgson and altered her life course. According to Hodgson, we live in a fast-paced, complex time, a time when too many grandchildren are victims of bullying, Internet scams, and sexual abuse. Hodgson believes that grandmothers are needed today more than any other time in history.”

Below, Harriet shares some of her favorite quotations about writing–a discipline at which she clearly excels.

[image error]

Quotes
About Writing

I love writing. I love the swirl and swing
of words as they tangle with human emotions.   
James A. Michener



The first sentence can’t be written until
the final sentence is written.   Joyce
Carol Oates



I don’t need an alarm clock. My ideas wake
me.   Ray Bradbury



The road to hell is paved with
adverbs.    Stephen King



If it sounds like writing, I rewrite
it.   Elmore Leonard



The idea is to write it so that people hear it and it slides through the brain and goes straight to the heart.   Maya Angelou



No tears in the writer, no tears in the reader.  No surprise in the writer, no surprise in the reader.   Robert Frost



[image error]Harriet Hodgson

Author Bio: 

Harriet Hodgson has been a freelance writer for 38 years, is the author of thousands of print/online articles, and 37 books. Hodgson is a member of the Association of Health Care Journalists and the Alliance of Independent Authors. She has appeared on more than 185 radio talk shows, including CBS Radio, and dozens of television stations, including CNN. 

A popular speaker, she has given presentations at public health, Alzheimer’s, bereavement, and caregiving conferences. She lives in Rochester, Minnesota with her husband, John.

Please visit www.harriethodgson.com for more information about this busy wife, mother, grandmother, caregiver, speaker, and author.

Purchase Links:

Amazon paperback   https://amzn.to/31Kklgs

Amazon eBook   https://amzn.to/31FoUt5

Barnes and Noble paperback   http://bit.ly/2N28jLY

Barnes and Noble eBook   http://bit.ly/31GeWaj

IndieBound paperback   http://bit.ly.2TBRpol

To follow along with the rest of the tour,
please visit the author’s tour
page on the 4WillsPublishing site.

If you’d like to book your own blog tour and
have your book promoted in similar grand fashion, please click HERE.  

Thanks for supporting this author and her
work!

How to Deal with a Negative Book Review

There is an old adage that says “any publicity is good publicity–even if it is bad.” Why? Because the objective is to get people talking about you and your book.

There is an old adage that says “any publicity is good publicity–even if it is bad.” Why? Because the objective is to get people talking about you and your book.

If you are like me, I don’t believe a lot of the negative reviews I see on sites like Amazon, Barnes & Noble, Goodreads, etc. In fact, I will often comb through all of a book’s reviews to see if others are saying the same negative things about a book. If they are not, I will normally rely more on positive reviews than the bad ones.

[image error]

Sometimes I will buy a book with bad reviews just to see if it’s as bad as the reviewers say it is. Often, it isn’t.

I spent most of my life as a journalist. I KNOW what it is like to have one’s work criticized mercilessly by nasty editors. The key is to look at negative comments of your work for “constructive” criticism and then be open-minded enough to use that criticism to improve your writing, your pacing, your plot, your characterization, etc.

Of course, there are those trolls who simply live to “trash” other people’s work. Those reviews are easy to spot. They will write that the book is “dumb” or “boring” or “trashy” without backing up their opinions with anything constructive. Writers need to let those criticisms go and not obsess about them.

Check out Amazon’s reviews. You will see books like War and Peace and Gone With the Wind getting one and two-star reviews or ratings.

Indeed, you will find bestsellers with lots of bad reviews. For example, the last book in the popular Hunger Games Trilogy has racked up something like 500 one-star reviews on Amazon. And John Locke has a 3-star average on his popular Saving Rachel (a Donovan Creed Crime Novel)and almost as many 1-star reviews as 5-star reviews. Despite that fact, his books are selling tens of thousands worldwide

The point is: You Can’t Please Everybody, nor should you try. You need to write what you are passionate about, tell a good story and leave the naysayers behind and eating your dust.

[image error]

Having said all of that, it is a blow to the ego to see a bad review of one’s work pop up on Amazon and elsewhere. It’s like a punch in the gut. It makes you angry. You want to find out where the author of that bad review lives and set their house on fire or beat them senseless with a baseball bat.

Don’t. Instead, focus on the GOOD reviews your book as received. And have a sense of humor about it all.

If you are like me, I don’t believe a lot of the negative reviews I see on sites like Amazon, Barnes & Noble, Goodreads, etc.  In fact, I will often comb through all of a book’s reviews to see if others are saying the same negative things about a book. If they are not, I will normally rely more on positive reviews than the bad ones.

Sometimes I will buy a book with bad reviews
just to see if it’s as bad as the reviewers say it is. Often, it isn’t.

I spent most of my life as a journalist. I KNOW what it is like to have one’s work criticized mercilessly by nasty editors. The key is to look at negative comments of your work for “constructive” criticism and then be open-minded enough to use that criticism to improve your writing, your pacing, your plot, your characterization, etc.

Of course, there are those trolls who simply live to “trash” other people’s work. Those reviews are easy to spot. They will write that the book is “dumb” or “boring” or “trashy” without backing up their opinions with anything constructive. Writers need to let those criticisms go and not obsess about them.

[image error]

All authors get bad reviews (more on that
later). Don’t take it personally. The criticism is about your ideas and the way
you presented them, not about you as a person. Most sophisticated readers can
distinguish a rant from a genuine review.

Sometimes if a book gets a bad review, other
readers who disagree will challenge that reviewer’s conclusion. That can set
off a useful discussion of the book and actually cause readers to buy the book
just to see who is right.

Don’t forget, you didn’t write your book to
generate reviews. You wrote it to appeal to readers. You had a story to tell, a
point to get across, a desire to inform and even educate readers. Reviews–good
or bad– are simply marketing tools.

True, good reviews may feed your ego, cause intellectual indigestion and lead you to believe you are the next Hemmingway, J. K. Rowling or Ursula K. Le Guin. My advice: deflate your ego and remain planted on terra firma.

If the reviews you are reading seem to be an excessive distraction and are causing you to alter the way you write or the way you present a story, you may want to stop reading reviews altogether–even the good ones.

You need to believe in yourself, not in what some snarky reviewer says. Look for constructive criticism and avoid the malicious rants.

Work to get more reviews. Good reviews often
will invalidate bad ones and on sites like Amazon, will shove the negative reviews
down the page.

Finally, take what the late Elmore Leonard
said about writing to heart: “If it sounds like writing….rewrite it. I can’t
allow what we learned in English composition to disrupt the sound and rhythm of
the narrative.”

(Next Week: Dealing with Rejection Letters from Publishers & Agents)

EAST MEETS WEST–AND FINDS ‘DECADENCE’

Occasionally I reprint stories I wrote while working as a foreign correspondent for the Chicago Tribune. Here is one I wrote from Bangkok, Thailand in 1985. It examines the attitudes some Asian countries have toward Western (read “American”) culture—specifically, its music, its films, and what some consider its promiscuous lifestyle. Not much has changed since I filed this story thirty-four years ago.

BANGKOK, Thailand–Two months ago, at the peak of its popularity, the hit song “One Night in Bangkok” (see link at end of story) was banned by the government here. The reason: It was seen as a Western perversion of Thai culture.

Last week in an impassioned speech, Singapore’s deputy prime minister deplored the influx of “Western decadence” and warned his nation’s parliament that Asia was being “engulfed and overwhelmed by dangerous waves of undesirable Western influences.”

Even in Japan, which more than any other Asian nation has embraced and emulated Western culture, Japanese politicians and sociologists have lamented the erosion of traditional Japanese values under a “mushroom cloud of American music, movies, and adolescent mayhem.”

Other Asian nations–from South Korea, which has in the past banned American rock music, to Taiwan, which has refused to allow controversial American and European films and books to be circulated–have begun looking more critically at imported Western ideas, culture and even fashion as their traditional societies are altered by high technology and cross-cultural communication.

Everything from declining family and human relations to rising divorce and crime rates is being blamed on unhealthy Western “permissiveness” in an increasingly shrill denunciation of the West.

[image error]

Ironically, this is happening at a time when economic and cultural contact between Asia and the rest of the world has never been greater.

Critics of American and European influences are calling for a return to something they call “Asian values”–a catchall term that seems to encompass everything from Confucian ethics to an Asian version of the Boy Scout oath.

“Asian values,” explained Ong Teng Cheong, Singapore’s deputy prime minister, “are the ethical and moral concepts of Asians, the spirit of thriftiness and diligence.

“Moral and ethical values and proper human relations are the pillars of society,” Ong said. “Asian values emphasize the personal moral character and a person’s responsibility to society and the nation.”

Not everyone in Asia seems ready to accept that definition, however. Nor do they agree with governments that seem overly concerned about Western influences.

“Confucianism and other so-called Asian values essentially work against the trend toward democracy,” said Singapore parliamentarian Chiam See Tong. “People are taught not to speak up and to obey the orders of their superiors.

“One suspects that, by ‘Asian values,’ what is really meant is old conservative Chinese ideas of obedience to authority and not headlong opposition with the government, like in the West,” he added.

According to Vichai Prasertporn, a professor of political science at a Bangkok university, “What these governments that are crying for the return to Asian values are really saying is, ‘Sit down, shut up and follow orders.’

“Blaming the West for internal problems is nothing new in Asia,” he continued. “And certainly by banning a song about Bangkok’s nightlife, the government of Thailand is not going to ensure cultural purity. Just the opposite. ‘One Night in Bangkok’ is more popular than ever now.”

The chorus of complaints about the infusion of Western decadence and social permissiveness seems destined to achieve unprecedented decibel levels in the halls of Asian Parliaments. Everything from heavy metal and rap music to uninhibited displays of sexual activity in Hollywood films is under fire.

[image error]

Some of the more xenophobic critics are even unhappy about the continued spread of American fast-food restaurants such as McDonald’s, Kentucky Fried Chicken and Shakey’s Pizza.

“We are witnessing a current of ill wind of faddish trends pervading Western countries where the youth like to put on unkempt and outlandish dress and romp and dance in the streets,” observed Singapore parliamentarian, Tang Guan Seng.

“They (Western teenagers) even take to drugs and unbridled carnal excesses,” Tang scolded. “In their minds, there is only individual freedom but not social or national interest.

“Furthermore,” Tang said, “we in Asia simply can’t accept the Western practice of addressing parents by their first names or the pitiful banishment of elderly parents in homes for the aged.”

In Japan, where Prime Minister Yasuhiro Nakasone has recently called for a revamping of the country’s educational system to emphasize more “Japanese values,” similar complaints about American influence are often heard.

[image error]

Yet, say those who disagree with the denunciations of Western influence, countries such as Japan, Taiwan, and Singapore are undergoing dramatic changes because of their emergence as Asian superstates.

“The world is shrinking faster than ever before, and these countries are responsible for it with their manufacture and dissemination of technological gadgetry,” said Shintaro Ohu, a Tokyo businessman. “They are getting fat off this technology, yet at the same time are complaining about the changes this technology is bound to cause.”

Others agree and insist that Asian nations whose traditions are eroding in the high-speed computer age should accept the changes.

“The values and things worth saving will always be there,” said Prasertporn. “Big Macs will never replace spicy Thai shrimp soup, and I am sure Japanese teenagers who wear Boy George costumes will eventually come to see the classical beauty of a Japanese yukata (robe).”

Click on the link below to hear the song and see why it was banned in Bangkok.

https://video.search.yahoo.com/search/video?fr=ymyy-t-999&p=one+night+in+bangkok#id=1&vid=7b7f2072f783ccf3cdc3cfe5338f88bd&action=click

RAVE REVIEWS BOOK CLUB’S “SPOTLIGHT” Author Blog Tour!

Today, ForeignCorrespondent is pleased to host author John Fioravanti during his Spotlight Author Blog Tour. John’s topic today is Fear, or more precisely, Does Fear Own You?

The topic comes from John’s book, Reflections: Inspirational Quotes and Interpretations. It is just one of fifty thought-provoking essays in the book that cover a multitude of topics. The book is available in the Amazon book store, but for now, here is John’s reflection on the theme of Fear.

[image error]



The REFLECTIONS Blog Tour

By John Fioravanti

I’m grateful to my host of this sixth post of the REFLECTIONS TOUR, and to Nonnie Jules
and the #RRBC Team who arranged it all!

Reflection 40: Does Fear Own You?

“If you want to conquer fear, don’t sit home and think about it. Go out and get busy.” ~ Dale Carnegie

Dale Carnegie (1888-1955) was an American writer, lecturer
and developer of courses in self-improvement. He has always been near and dear
to my heart because his book, How to Stop Worrying and Start
Living (1948), helped me immensely in my lifelong battle against fear and
self-doubt. I purchased the book while in the throes of debilitating anxiety,
read it cover to cover, and felt myself relax a little more with each page I
read. I don’t have the book anymore. I loaned it to a student who suffered from
anxiety attacks and I never got it back. But I don’t mind – I just hope that
the book helped her as much as it helped me.

Mr. Carnegie wrote in straight-forward prose that was easy to understand. He didn’t overwhelm his readers with psycho-babble, and I remember that the deeper I got into the book, the more grateful I felt about his simple wisdom. I’m sure there is plenty of contemporary literature to help souls lost in fear and self-doubt today, but I credit Dale Carnegie with my success in battling those demons. Unfortunately, they’ve never completely left me – they do come out to play from time to time – but I know them and their tricks, and I meet them head-on with plain old common sense and strong resolve.

He begins the quote with very solid advice about how to
conquer fear, “… don’t sit home and think about
it.”  As a teenager and young man, I remember doing just that. I
would sit around my room and fret about everything in my life that I thought
wasn’t going perfectly. The more I focused on my worries, the bigger the demons
became. I was creating, in my mind, the worst possible scenarios, and
convincing myself that these were the most probable outcomes. The mind is a
wonderful thing, and one can conjure up delightful fantasies to while away the
hours; but as my experience has shown, it can also create a frightening prison
that is difficult to escape.

He exhorts us to “Go out and get busy.” There are two ways to look at this advice. First, sitting and thinking about the horror of our problems only makes them worse. We need to calm down and apply common sense. The last sentence of this quote gives us the route to follow to make that happen. Advising someone to calm down isn’t very helpful. Knowing that Carnegie wisely counsels us to get out of our heads and get busy doing something. Activity will facilitate finding a way out of our mental maze of horror to a place of relief. In a more relaxed state, we can re-engage our brains to apply common sense to the situation.

Another aspect of getting busy is doing something to resolve the problem at the heart of our anxiety. Problems don’t disappear by wishing them away. Usually, concrete action is required to resolve the issue. The solution may involve researching more information or getting advice from a more experienced person. Once a course of action is clear, and a plan is created, we’re in a position to act with a reasonable expectation of success. Sitting in isolation, fretting over a problem, and literally, worrying ourselves sick – is self-defeating.

“If you want to conquer fear…” assume the responsibility for its defeat, and act.

[image error]John Fioravanti

Author Bio:

John Fioravanti is a retired secondary school educator who completed his thirty-five-year career in the classroom in June 2008.

Throughout
his career, John focused on developing research, analysis, and essay writing
skills in his History classroom. This led to the publication of his first
non-fiction work for student use, Getting
It Right in History Class. A
Personal Journey to the Heart of Teaching is his second non-fiction work;
it attempts to crystallize the struggles, accomplishments, and setbacks
experienced in more than three decades of effort to achieve excellence in his
chosen field.

John’s
first work of fiction is Passion &
Struggle, Book One of
The Genesis Saga, and is set within
Kenneth Tam’s Equations universe (Iceberg Publishing). He claims that, after
two non-fiction books, he’s having the time of his life bringing new stories
and characters to life! Book Two is Treachery
& Triumph.

At
present, John lives in Waterloo, Ontario with Anne, his bride of forty-six
years. They have three children and three grandchildren. In December of 2013,
John and Anne founded Fiora Books
for the express purpose of publishing John’s books.

Predictions About the Future In Historical Novels

One of the more enduring activities of human beings has always been to imagine what the future will bring. We all do it, some more than others.

It’s what separates us from the rest of earth’s creatures, most of which are too consumed with daily survival to think past their last meal or their next one.

As authors of historical fiction we invent characters and put them in various bygone eras. Then we create conflict for them to deal with, people to love and to hate, obstacles to overcome, tragedy to rise above, and joyous moments to take pleasure in.

But how often do we have our characters speculate about what the world will look like in the future?

Not often, I am sure. And the reason is probably the same one I gave for earth’s “other” creatures. Our characters are often dealing with one conflict after another or just trying to survive. What the world will look like one hundred, two hundred or three hundred years is simply not within their intellectual compass.

Authors who write science fiction and specifically books about time travel think about these things all the time. I do and I don’t even write science fiction (though I do enjoy a good time travel story when I find one).

So what has all of this got to do with historical novels? you may be asking.

I think having characters wonder about the future either via dialogue or in unspoken reflection adds another dimension to the people we create in eras such as the Dark Ages, the Middle Ages, the Enlightenment or, in the case of my book, the 19th Century.

So how might we do that? Well, considering that truth is always stranger than fiction, you might examine predictions made about the future from some pretty famous and creative people.

Recently someone sent me a copy of a story that appeared in the 1911 edition of the now defunct Miami Metropolis newspaper.



[image error]


Thomas Alva Edison




The story was an interview with none other than Thomas Edison in which America’s most famous inventor made some rather astounding predictions about the future. Some were quite accurate and some were, shall we say, a bit off target.

For example, he rather amazingly predicts the e-book reader and at the same time predicts by 2011 we will be able to transmute metals and turn iron into gold. Ahem….

Here is that article in its entirety. Enjoy.

“What will the world be a hundred years hence?
 
None but a wizard dare raise the curtain and disclose the secrets of the future; and what wizard can do it with so sure a hand as Mr. Thomas Alva Edison, who has wrested so many secrets from jealous Nature? He alone of all men who live has the necessary courage and gift of foresight, and he has not shrunk from the venture.
 
Already, Mr. Edison tells us, the steam engine is emitting its last gasps. A century hence it will be as remote as antiquity as the lumbering coach of Tudor days, which took a week to travel from Yorkshire to London. In the year 2011 such railway trains as survive will be driven at incredible speed by electricity (which will also be the motive force of all the world’s machinery), generated by “hydraulic” wheels.
 
But the traveler of the future, says a writer in Answers, will largely scorn such earth crawling. He will fly through the air, swifter than any swallow, at a speed of two hundred miles an hour, in colossal machines, which will enable him to breakfast in London, transact business in Paris and eat his luncheon in Cheapside.
 
The house of the next century will be furnished from basement to attic with steel, at a sixth of the present cost — of steel so light that it will be as easy to move a sideboard as it is today to lift a drawing room chair. The baby of the twenty-first century will be rocked in a steel cradle; his father will sit in a steel chair at a steel dining table, and his mother’s boudoir will be sumptuously equipped with steel furnishings, converted by cunning varnishes to the semblance of rosewood, or mahogany, or any other wood her ladyship fancies.
 
Books of the coming century will all be printed leaves of nickel, so light to hold that the reader can enjoy a small library in a single volume. A book two inches thick will contain forty thousand pages, the equivalent of a hundred volumes; six inches in aggregate thickness, it would suffice for all the contents of the Encyclopedia Britannica. And each volume would weigh less than a pound.
 
Already Mr. Edison can produce a pound weight of these nickel leaves, more flexible than paper and ten times as durable, at a cost of five shillings. In a hundred years’ time the cost will probably be reduced to a tenth.
 
More amazing still, this American wizard sounds the death knell of gold as a precious metal. “Gold,” he says, “has even now but a few years to live. The day is near when bars of it will be as common and as cheap as bars of iron or blocks of steel.
 
“We are already on the verge of discovering the secret of transmuting metals, which are all substantially the same in matter, though combined in different proportions.”

Before long it will be an easy matter to convert a truck load of iron bars into as many bars of virgin gold.
 
In the magical days to come there is no reason why our great liners should not be of solid gold from stem to stern; why we should not ride in golden taxicabs, or substituted gold for steel in our drawing room suites. Only steel will be the more durable, and thus the cheaper in the long run.”
 
Golden ocean liners and cabs? I think we can all be thankful that Edison missed the boat (and the taxi) on that one.

America, the Neo-Tribal Nation

It is unsettling and sad to witness what is happening in our great country today.

Never in my lifetime—and I’m older than Methuselah in dog years—have I ever witnessed such hysteria over the occupant of the White House. No, not even during Watergate—in which a real crime WAS committed, albeit a two-bit burglary. I covered the fallout from the Watergate break in, so I know of what I speak.

What bothers me about the frenzy on the left is its capitulation to identity politics rather than to the rational and intelligent liberal ideology that used to define the Democrat party.

[image error]

What attracted me to the Democrat party when I was young and guileless was its issue-oriented, logical approach to dealing with the nation’s social and economic problems. I can still remember a time when voting for a Democrat didn’t mean you were embracing socialism and by definition, extreme loathing and disgust for anybody who was not a Democrat.

Sadly, those days are gone given the Democrat party’s wholehearted embrace of socialism and identity politics.

What do I mean by identity politics?

It means that each of us belongs to a sub-group defined by race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, etc. Let’s look at the behavior of the Democrat party in the last couple of Presidential elections. Instead of focusing on broad issues such as jobs and income growth, Democrats catered to members of different sub-groups, promising to give them power.

[image error]

Did Hillary Clinton offer the middle class (strangled by the Obama administration’s focus on the nation’s professed social ills) an agenda for which they could vote? No, she catered to sub-groups hoping that they would coalesce enough to send her to victory. It didn’t work.

In essence, the Democrats apparently want to divide us into competing tribes, each with its own agenda, its own set of grievances, and its own view of what America should look like.

The problem with that is this: if one or two tribes win, then the others lose. The result is now a country that is tearing itself apart, ripping away the very fabric of our nation, and destroying the excellent idea that makes America unique in world history.

Look at what it says on the nation’s Great Seal: “E Pluribus Unum”—Out of Many, One.”

Think about what that means. Out of many peoples, races, religions, languages, and ancestries has emerged a single people and nation.

We used to talk about America being the great melting pot—a fusion of different cultures, ethnicities, and nationalities.

That is no longer politically correct. Today we are taught there is no need to assimilate, to “become an American.” Instead, we each have our own identity: African-American, Mexican-American, Transgender, LGBT, Muslim, Evangelical, Jew, Democrat, Republican, etc.

[image error]

This is neo-tribalism, in which we are identified by what sub-group or tribe to which we belong. We are no longer “Americans.” We are something else.

That means instead of thinking about the whole and the many, we think about ourselves and what sub-group we belong to first and the country last, if at all.

It means that instead of allowing reasonable debate about issues, those who belong to a sub-group JUST WANT TO WIN. Debate is no longer a means to a solution. In their minds violence, rioting, burning, destroying property, shouting down those who don’t agree with them, and ignoring freedom of speech is the new modus operandi.

Concepts that we were once taught to respect and cherish such as freedom of speech, the rule of law, the nuclear family, patriotism, adherence to religion and belief in God are under assault by a profane and secular left.

Pulitzer Prize-winning author Marilynne Robinson has said it very well:

“At the outset, we were fortunate to have a group of people write essential documents that gave us a good deal to think about.  And I think that a lot of the higher quality of American discourse, when it has been high, is out of respect for the fact that these are valuable things that impose respect for people of other views.

“And, at this point, things have deteriorated to the point that it is morally wrong to have an attitude of presumptive respect toward someone you disagree with. That’s just bizarre, and it’s obviously not a formula for civilized society.”

I am saddened when I hear those on the left say that our Constitution is no longer germane, that our traditions are not noble, that our Bill of Rights is irrelevant, and that we do not live in an exceptional country.

I remember listening to what President John F. Kennedy said during his 1961 inauguration speech. It still resonates with me today. (Yes, I saw that speech on TV and I voted for Kennedy).

“My fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.”

I took those words to heart. I joined the U.S. Army and served four years gathering intelligence for the National Security Agency. Others joined Kennedy’s Peace Corps and went to third world countries to help people produce clean water, build decent housing, and eliminate illiteracy.

[image error]

I am proud of my service to this country. I hate seeing it ripped apart today by self-centered politicians and others who put their political party and themselves before country, who feel it is acceptable to ignore the results of a legitimate election, and who want to use any means possible to remove the candidate they didn’t vote for from office.

That is exactly what we see today when Democrats howl for Donald Trump’s political lynching—which is what an impeachment is.

The way to remove a president from office is with the ballot, not by decree, violence, or a political coup d’état.

I hope it is not too late.

Here Are 11 Skills Your Great-Grandparents Had That You Don’t

Those of us who write historical fiction are always striving to make sure our characters are part of the period in which our novels are set. A farmer in 19th Century Kansas, for example, had to know how to hunt and fish, how to forage and how to butcher livestock, pluck chickens, and shoe a horse, etc.


There were no supermarkets, no computers or online shopping, no clothing stores or malls. Yes, there were Sears and Montgomery Ward catalogs where women could order ready-made dresses and men could order pants and shirts, but ordering from them was considered an infrequent luxury.

I recently received an e-mail from Ancestry.com, the online genealogy service that asked:
 
“How old school are you? Do you think you’ve got what it takes to live in your great-grandparents’ era?”
 
I was intrigued by this question, having just completed the third book in a my Finding Billy Battles trilogy, the first of which is set in the late 19th Century American West. As someone who spent time on a farm, who hunted and fished and cleaned hundreds of chickens, rabbits, and squirrels, I figured I would be OK if I were suddenly transported to my great-grandparents’ time.

But there was more to living back then than hunting and fishing. Life was much, much harder, and so were the people.

Take a look at what Ancestry.com had to say:

Our parents and grandparents may shake their heads every time we grab our smart phones to get turn-by-turn directions or calculate the tip. But when it comes to life skills, our great-grandparents have us all beat. Here are some skills our great-grandparents had 90 years ago that most of us don’t.
 
1. Courting
While your parents and grandparents didn’t have the option to ask someone out on a date via text message, it’s highly likely that your great-grandparents didn’t have the option of dating at all. Until well into the 1920s, modern dating didn’t exist. A gentleman would court a young lady by asking her or her parents for permission to call on the family. The potential couple would have a formal visit — with at least one parent chaperone present — and the man would leave a calling card. If the parents and the young lady were impressed, he’d be invited back again, and that would be the start of their romance.
[image error]
 
2. Hunting, Fishing, and Foraging
Even city dwellers in your great-grandparents’ generation had experience hunting, fishing, and foraging for food. If your great-grandparents never lived in a rural area or lived off the land, their parents probably did. Being able to kill, catch, or find your own food was considered an essential life skill no matter where one lived, especially during the Great Depression.

3. Butchering
In this age of the boneless, skinless chicken breast, it’s unusual to have to chop up a whole chicken at home, let alone a whole cow. Despite the availability of professionally butchered and packaged meats, knowing how to cut up a side of beef or clean a rabbit from her husband’s hunting trip was an ordinary part of a housewife’s skill set in the early 20th century. This didn’t leave the men off the hook, though. After all, they were most likely the ones who would field dress any animals they killed.
 
4. Bartering
Before the era of shopping malls and convenience stores, it was more common to trade goods and services with neighbors and shop owners. Home-canned foods, hand-made furniture, and other DIY goods were currency your great-grandparents could use instead of cash.
 



[image error]


Before Clothes Dryers, There was the Sun



 
5. Haggling
Though it’d be futile for you to argue with the barista at Starbucks about the price of a cup of coffee, your great-grandparents were expert hagglers. Back when corporate chains weren’t as ubiquitous, it was a lot easier to bargain with local shop owners and merchants. Chances are your great-grandparents bought very few things from a store anyway.

6. Darning and Mending
Nowadays if a sock gets a hole in it, you buy a new pair. But your great-grandparents didn’t let anything go to waste, not even a beat-up, old sock. This went for every other article of clothing as well. Darning socks and mending clothes was just par for the course.
 
7. Corresponding by snail mail
Obviously, your great-grandparents didn’t text or email. However, even though the telephone existed, it wasn’t the preferred method of staying in touch either, especially long-distance. Hand-written letters were the way they communicated with loved ones and took care of business.
 
8. Making Lace
Tatting, the art of making lace, was a widely popular activity for young women in your great-grandparents’ generation. Elaborate lace collars, doilies, and other decorative touches were signs of sophistication. However, fashion changed and technology made lace an easy and inexpensive to buy, so their children probably didn’t pick up the skill.
 



[image error]


Tatting, the Art of Making Lace




9. Lighting a Fire Without Matches
Sure, matches have been around since the 1600s. But they were dangerous and toxic — sparking wildly out of control and emitting hazardous fumes. A more controllable, nonpoisonous match wasn’t invented until 1910. So Great-grandma and Great-grandpa had to know a thing or two about lighting a fire without matches.
 
10. Diapering With Cloth
Disposable diapers weren’t commonly available until the 1930s. Until then, cloth diapers held with safety pins were where babies did their business. Great-grandma had a lot of unpleasant laundry on her hands.
 
11. Writing With a Fountain Pen
While it’s true that your grandparents were skilled in the lost art of writing in cursive, your grandparents probably were, too. However, the invention of the ballpoint pen in the late 1930s and other advances in pen technology means that your great-grandparents were the last generation who had to refill their pens with ink.
 
Thanks to Ancestry.com for sharing this. I hope it helps you realize how easy you have it today compared to 100 years ago.`

Here is a link to Ancestry.com’s website:  http://home.ancestry.com

Just for Fun: A Story & Some Obscure & Generally Trivial Information

Today I am sharing some obscure knowledge with you, as well as a short and dubious yarn. Just what’s needed for a Blue Monday. Enjoy!

Yesterday I got my permit to carry a concealed weapon. So, today I went over to the local gun shop to get a 9mm handgun for home/personal protection. When I was ready to pay for the pistol and ammo, the cashier said, “Strip down, facing me.”

Making a mental note to complain to the government about gun control wackos in California running amok, I did just as she instructed. When the hysterical shrieking and alarms finally subsided, I found out she was referring to how I should place my credit card in the card reader!

I do not get flustered often, but this time it took me a while to get my pants back on. I’ve been asked to shop elsewhere in the future. They need to make their instructions a little clearer. I still don’t think I looked that bad! I just need to wear underwear more often.