Ronald E. Yates's Blog, page 98

The Regrettable Decline of Class and Good Taste

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?

[image error]

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 in 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.

[image error]

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.

[image error] Judi Dench
[image error] Katherine Hepburn

Great actresses of today such as Meryl Streep, Judi Dench, Kate Winslet, Emma Thompson, and Cate Blanchett 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, day care 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 its “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.

[image error]

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.

Who knows where all of this will end. I am not optimistic.

In the meantime, I think I will take my camera to my nearest Walmart and digitally bag a few troglodytes.

“Hate Speech” and Literature

Let me say right off: I do not believe in the idea of hate speech. One person’s “hate speech” is another person’s “free speech.”

In that regard, the American Civil Liberties Union and I are in 100 per cent agreement. More on the ACLU later.

In a previous post, I talked about Political Correctness in Historical Fiction novels. I argued that there can be no PC in a historical novel because if there is, the novel will be devoid of reality. PC is a 20th and 21st Century phenomenon. It didn’t exist in the 19th Century or any other prior century. So to purge a book set in the 18th or 19th Century of offensive expressions used in 18th or 19th Century America is to be dishonest.

A direct offshoot of PC is the concept of “Hate Speech.”  Just as with PC there are unofficial Hate Speech police out there who like nothing more than to be the final arbiters of what can and cannot be said publicly in America.
[image error]

Of course, that is in complete opposition to an individual’s First Amendment right to speak freely and openly about any and all topics–be it race, gender, homosexuality, abortion, gay marriage, traditional marriage, war or peace.

You may even criticize radical Islam–though, today, if you do, you are likely going to be accused of being a racist. That is when you will experience the PC Thought Police and their close relatives, the Hate Speech Gestapo, at their narrow-minded worst.

If you were to go back in time to 19th Century America or Europe you might be appalled at the terms used openly and without remorse to describe blacks, Native Americans, Hispanics, the Irish, Italians, Catholics, Jews, Asians, etc.

That was life back then. Was it right to use those terms? Of course, today we would say “No.” But using racial, ethnic and religious slurs in the past was simply the way things were.

So if you are writing a historical novel about that period do you eliminate dozens of objectionable terms and phrases to satisfy today’s PC Thought Police and the Hate Speech Gestapo?

The answer: an emphatic NO!

If you do clean up a novel about slavery and use words like “African-American” instead of the range of hurtful expressions commonly used in the 19th Century, your book not only will lack integrity, it will be a ridiculous fabrication.

Now back to the ACLU.

Rather than paraphrasing the ACLU’s position on Hate Speech I will let that organization itself explain why it says there is no such thing as Hate Speech in a nation where speech is protected by the First Amendment of our Constitution.

The Q & A that follows is taken directly from the ACLU’s website.

Q: I just can’t understand why the ACLU defends free speech for racists, sexists, homophobes and other bigots. Why tolerate the promotion of intolerance? 
 
A: Free speech rights are indivisible. Restricting the speech of one group or individual jeopardizes everyone’s rights because the same laws or regulations used to silence bigots can be used to silence you. Conversely, laws that defend free speech for bigots can be used to defend the rights of civil rights workers, anti-war protesters, lesbian and gay activists and others fighting for justice. For example, in the 1949 case of Terminiello v. Chicago, the ACLU successfully defended an ex-Catholic priest who had delivered a racist and anti-semitic speech. The precedent set in that case became the basis for the ACLU’s successful defense of civil rights demonstrators in the 1960s and ’70s. 
 
The indivisibility principle was also illustrated in the case of Neo-Nazis whose right to march in Skokie, Illinois in 1979 was successfully defended by the ACLU. At the time, then ACLU Executive Director Aryeh Neier, whose relatives died in Hitler’s concentration camps during World War II, commented: “Keeping a few Nazis off the streets of Skokie will serve Jews poorly if it means that the freedoms to speak, publish or assemble any place in the United States are thereby weakened.” 
 
Q: I have the impression that the ACLU spends more time and money defending the rights of bigots than supporting the victims of bigotry!!?? 
 
A: Not so. Only a handful of the several thousand cases litigated by the national ACLU and its affiliates every year involves offensive speech. Most of the litigation, advocacy and public education work we do preserves or advances the constitutional rights of ordinary people. But it’s important to understand that the fraction of our work that does involve people who’ve engaged in bigoted and hurtful speech is very important: 
 
Defending First Amendment rights for the enemies of civil liberties and civil rights means defending it for you and me. 
[image error]
 
Q: Aren’t some kinds of communication not protected under the First Amendment, like “fighting words?” 
 
A: The U.S. Supreme Court did rule in 1942, in a case called Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, that intimidating speech directed at a specific individual in a face-to-face confrontation amounts to “fighting words,” and that the person engaging in such speech can be punished if “by their very utterance [the words] inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.” Say, a white student stops a black student on campus and utters a racial slur. In that one-on-one confrontation, which could easily come to blows, the offending student could be disciplined under the “fighting words” doctrine for racial harassment. 
 
Over the past 50 years, however, the Court hasn’t found the “fighting words” doctrine applicable in any of the hate speech cases that have come before it, since the incidents involved didn’t meet the narrow criteria stated above. Ignoring that history, the folks who advocate campus speech codes try to stretch the doctrine’s application to fit words or symbols that cause discomfort, offense or emotional pain. 
Q: What about nonverbal symbols, like swastikas and burning crosses — are they constitutionally protected? 
 
A: Symbols of hate are constitutionally protected if they’re worn or displayed before a general audience in a public place — say, in a march or at a rally in a public park. But the First Amendment doesn’t protect the use of nonverbal symbols to encroach upon or desecrate, private property, such as burning a cross on someone’s lawn or spray-painting a swastika on the wall of a synagogue or dorm. 
 
Q: Aren’t speech codes on college campuses an effective way to combat bias against people of color, women, and gays? 
 
A: Historically, defamation laws or codes have proven ineffective at best and counter-productive at worst. For one thing, depending on how they’re interpreted and enforced, they can actually work against the interests of the people they were ostensibly created to protect. Why? Because the ultimate power to decide what speech is offensive and to whom rests with the authorities — the government or a college administration — not with those, who are the alleged victims of hate speech. 
 
In Great Britain, for example, a Racial Relations Act was adopted in 1965 to outlaw racist defamation. But throughout its existence, the Act has largely been used to persecute activists of color, trade unionists, and anti-nuclear protesters, while the racists — often white members of Parliament — have gone unpunished
[image error]
 
Similarly, under a speech code in effect at the University of Michigan for 18 months, white students in 20 cases charged black students with offensive speech. One of the cases resulted in the punishment of a black student for using the term “white trash” in conversation with a white student. The code was struck down as unconstitutional in 1989 and, to date, the ACLU has brought successful legal challenges against speech codes at the Universities of Connecticut, Michigan, and Wisconsin. 
These examples demonstrate that speech codes don’t serve the interests of persecuted groups. The First Amendment does. As one African American educator observed: “I have always felt like a minority person that we have to protect the rights of all because if we infringe on the rights of any persons, we’ll be next.” 
 
Q: But don’t speech codes send a strong message to campus bigots, telling them their views are unacceptable? 
 
A: Bigoted speech is symptomatic of a huge problem in our country; it is not the problem itself. Everybody, when they come to college, brings with them the values, biases, and assumptions they learned while growing up in society, so it’s unrealistic to think that punishing speech is going to rid campuses of the attitudes that gave rise to the speech in the first place. Banning bigoted speech won’t end bigotry, even if it might chill some of the crudest expressions. The mindset that produced the speech lives on and may even reassert itself in more virulent forms. 
 
Speech codes, by simply deterring students from saying out loud what they will continue to think in private, merely drive biases underground where they can’t be addressed. In 1990, when Brown University expelled a student for shouting racist epithets one night on the campus, the institution accomplished nothing in the way of exposing the bankruptcy of racist ideas. 
 
As a former Dean at the University of Illinois, I was often amazed at the number of people who disagreed with the ACLU’s position on Hate Speech.
[image error]
 
Their remedy in dealing with so-called Hate Speech was to advocate some form of punishment for the offender–firing a non-tenured instructor, expelling a student, censoring a tenured-professor or administrator.

About the only thing missing, I used to think, where the ducking stools once used in Salem, Mass, or the public humiliation of the pillory and stocks on the university quadrangle.

In any case, literature and other forms of creative endeavor should never be restricted by those who believe THEY are the final arbiters of what can and cannot be said, written or shown.

If that ever happens, then our Constitution’s will begin with the 2d Amendment–because the First Amendment will be but a distant memory.

 

So You Want to Travel Back in Time?

 

When I taught a class in foreign correspondence 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 simply 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 (less than 110 years ago) most were stunned.




[image error]


Lunchtime on a Kansas Farm 1905




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 homes 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.


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


For me, an author of historical novels, visiting the past is not an option. It is a requirement. How can you write a novel 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 1500’s, 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 of flowers 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 nice 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 actually lose someone in it–hence the saying, “Don’t throw the baby out with the bath water.”

 
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.”




[image error]


English Town 1500’s



 
There was nothing to stop things from falling into the house. This posed a real problem in the bedroom where bugs and other droppings could really 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 paysan 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 string 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.

 

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 second book in a trilogy of novels, 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

Writing for Nonreaders in the Post-Print Era

Today, I am reposting a post I wrote while I was the Dean of the College of Media at the University of Illinois. At the time I taught classes in journalism and shared this with my students. It still resonates with me even though I wrote it seven years ago. Please enjoy and feel free to comment.

Recently a professor (I won’t say who) created an outline for a new course called: “Writing for Nonreaders in the Post-Print Era.”

The course carried the following description:

“As print takes its place alongside smoke signals, cuneiform, and hollering, there has emerged a new literary age, one in which writers no longer need to feel encumbered by the paper cuts, reading, and excessive use of words traditionally associated with the writing trade. Writing for Nonreaders in the Postprint Era focuses on the creation of short-form prose that is not intended to be reproduced on pulp fibers.

“Instant messaging. Tweeting. Blogging. Facebook & Google+ updates. Pinning. These 21st-century literary genres are defining a new “Lost Generation” of minimalists who would much rather watch Modern Family on their iPhones than toil over long-winded articles and short stories.

[image error]

Students will acquire the tools needed to make their tweets glimmer with a complete lack of forethought, their Facebook updates ring with self-importance, and their blog entries shimmer with literary pithiness. All without the restraints of writing in complete sentences. w00t! w00t! 

Throughout the course, a further paring down of the Hemingway/Stein school of minimalism will be emphasized, limiting the superfluous use of nouns, verbs, adverbs, adjectives, conjunctions, gerunds, and other literary pitfalls.”

Prerequisites

Students must have completed at least two of the following.:

ENG: 232WR—Advanced Tweeting: The Elements of Droll

LIT: 223—Early-21st-Century Literature: 140 Characters or Less

ENG: 102—Staring Blankly at Handheld Devices While Others Are Talking

ENG: 301—Advanced Blog and Book Skimming

ENG: 231WR—Facebook Wall Alliteration and Assonance

LIT: 202—The Literary Merits of LoLcats

LIT: 209—Internet-Age Surrealistic Narcissism and Self-Absorption

There is obviously some truth at work here. When one talks to editors in the world of book publishing it is apparent that we are definitely entering the post-print era. Few students I talk with tell me they actually read a book for pleasure. It is always for a class.

When I ask students about John Steinbeck, William Faulkner, Thomas Wolfe, F. Scott Fitzgerald, Lillian Hellman, Dorothy Parker—even Earnest Hemmingway, only a few can tell me much about these authors and what they wrote. If they have read these writers at all it is because some American Literature teacher in high school assigned them to read one of their books or essays.

Take some time over a weekend to read a good book—one that tells a story, not some self-absorbed treatise on how to find your spiritual center or why you are so important, I tell students. You might actually enjoy it—and without a doubt you will learn something.

When I discuss writing with journalism students, who should have a keen interest in writing well, I tell them that the best way to learn to write well is to read good writing. They should then learn to imitate that writing—not copy or plagiarize it—but imitate it. Eventually, they will develop their own style of writing, but most important, they will become better writers simply because they have developed a life-long romance with and respect for the English language.

[image error]

So while Facebook, Google+ and My Yahoo may be places to chat and hook up; while the blogosphere is a place where tedious pontificators can congregate with little if any accountability for truth; and while twittering is the latest e-rage, they are all poor substitutes for substantive literature, fine journalism or intelligent conversation.

The university is the place where an appreciation for good literature, fine journalism and intelligent conversation should be cultivated and enjoyed. It is, after all, one of the few times when students will actually have the time to take pleasure in these things.

Once they enter the world of gainful employment, their focus will shift to one of survival, meeting deadlines and accumulating “stuff.”

Reading well will be considerably more challenging. And one can only hope that they will not find themselves “Writing for Nonreaders in the Post-Print Era.”

 

“Has America Ever Been as Divided as it is Today?”

“Has America Ever Been as Divided as it is Today?”

That was the rhetorical question a television pundit recently asked during a discussion of the nation’s current malevolent political climate.

Frankly, the question surprised me. Then I looked at who posed it. She was a thirty-something talking head who had little or no historical perspective of this country.

For her, and for those who may have only vague memories of the 1960s, the answer to that question is likely “no.”

But for many of us who lived through the 1960s and early 1970s and who were on college campuses back then, the answer is a resounding “yes!”

Yes, the nation has been this deeply divided—not only this deeply divided but almost ripped in half by something called the Vietnam War; by an active, sometimes violent civil rights struggle; and by a painful generation gap that seemed all but unbridgeable.

Indeed, the social fabric of America between the years of 1961 and 1975 was about as tattered as I have ever seen it. Of course, I was not around during the Civil War (1861-1865) when the country actually was divided—politically, culturally and geographically.

But let’s focus on the 1960s, not the 1860s. The music of Bob Dylan was an anthem for the counter-culture revolution. Haight-Ashbury and Woodstock were the emblematic settings of a time when flower-power hippies, tie-dye-wearing revolutionaries, and other social-political rebels gathered to burn incense, drop acid and profess their adherence to peace and love.

[image error]

“Don’t trust anybody older than thirty,” warned leaders of the counterculture. Street revolutionaries. Meanwhile, groups called The Weather Underground, the Symbionese Liberation Army, and the Black Panthers were blowing up buildings, robbing banks, and attacking and killing police.

During one 18-month period between 1971 and 1972, there were 2,500 bombings in the United States by radical groups. The Weather Underground bombed the U.S. Capitol building in 1971, the Pentagon in 1972 and the U.S. State Department in 1975.

Some students and even some faculty on college campuses are the living by-products of this raucous and intense era—though I doubt if many of their middle class and middle aged parents who find themselves knee-deep in mortgages and college loans are eager to “fess up” to having been one of America’s ubiquitous “if it feels good, do it” flower children.

As a student at the University of Kansas and as editor of the University Daily Kansan (KU’s student newspaper) I watched demonstrators engage in running battles with Chicago cops during the 1968 Democratic convention. Heads were cracked open by police wielding cudgels, and the streets were blood-soaked. Protesters retaliated by throwing plastic bags filled with human feces at police. Reporters called those protesters “waste baggers.” The cops had other names for them.

[image error] One of 4 students killed at Kent State University

Back on campus at K.U. angry students in 1970 burned down the Student Union. It was a residual gesture aimed at showing solidarity with four Kent State University students who were killed and nine who were wounded May 4th, 1970 when Ohio National Guardsmen fired into a crowd of students who were demonstrating against President Nixon’s decision to bomb Cambodia—a move that was seen as an expansion of the Vietnam war.

Not long after that, as a Chicago Tribune reporter, I covered what seemed like the “demonstration of the week” as protesters took to the streets again and again to protest an infinite menu of social, racial, ethnic, political, environmental and economic evils.

Unlike today, when police have opted to allow protesters to destroy property, the protests I covered in Chicago were met with unflinching and deadly force. It was Mayor Richard J. Daley’s City, and he was not going to allow protesters to overturn cars and burn buildings.

I recall covering a Weather Underground demonstration on October 8, 1969, when some 300 so-called “Weathermen” rioted through Chicago’s affluent Gold Coast area. They smashed windows, overturned cars and tried to set fire to buildings. The mob rampaged four blocks until they came to police barricades.

That didn’t stop them. Foolishly, they charged the police whose numbers had swelled to more than 1,000. The police quickly counter-attacked. Unlike 1968, these protesters came prepared, many wearing motorcycle and football helmets. However, Chicago’s police were well trained and better armed. It was no contest.

Tear gas choked the streets, and when protestors gathered to counter-attack, police ran squad cars into the mob sending them flying in all directions. Thirty minutes later the rioting was finished.

Even though 28 policemen were injured in the melee, there was little doubt who had won. Six Weathermen were shot by police, and an unknown number were wounded. About seventy rioters were arrested.

Was America ever as divided as we are today? Are you kidding? How many protesters are today shot by police for attacking property?

Check out any library that maintains digital or microfiche versions of newspapers and magazines of the 1960s and 1970s. The divisions today seem like minor abrasions when compared with the gaping wounds that marked America 40 or 50 years ago.

It wasn’t until the last choppers lifted off Saigon roofs on April 30, 1975, that the healing began. The war in Vietnam was over—finally, after almost 15 years of American involvement.

I had been a soldier during part of that era, and between 1974 and 1975 I was covering the fall of South Vietnam and Saigon for the Tribune. As some 200,000 Communist North Vietnamese troops marched into Saigon and a U.S. Marine CH-53 Sea Stallion chopper carried me down the Vung Tau corridor to the waiting U.S. 7th Fleet, an almost palpable sense of healing and reconciliation swept over America.

[image error]

That didn’t resolve the issues of guilt, anger, and grief many Americans felt about their nation’s abortive crusade in Vietnam. Indeed, we are still dealing with those issues more than 40 years after those choppers carried the last Americans out of Saigon. After all, more than 58,000 Americans died in that war, and another 300,000 were wounded. Vietnamese casualties on both sides were in the millions.

The yawning schisms of 40 years ago, for the most part, have been filled in by the inexorable sands of time.

I am still amazed by that healing process. As a student in the 1960s, I was sure the nation would never recover from the terrible wounds of Vietnam.  Of course, this country’s ability to heal itself is one of those things that make the U.S. so remarkable.

Americans are a resilient people. But we have short memories. And because we have short memories, we repeat many of our mistakes and sometimes open old wounds.

Most wounds leave scars. We are adept at covering up those scars, but in so doing we forget what caused the injuries in the first place.

So when a television analyst asks if America has ever been so divided as it is today, my answer is absolutely—just look for the scars. And try not to repeat the mistakes that made them.

Someone once said that good journalism is a nation talking to itself. Today, it seems that kind of journalism has been replaced by a nation screaming at itself.

Good journalism is not only a conversation about what is happening today and what may happen tomorrow, but it also should provide a translucent lens to the past. And above all, it needs to do all of those things fairly and without bias.

To paraphrase George Santayana: when we cannot see or remember the past we are condemned to repeat its mistakes—and to ask such questions as: “Has America Ever Been as Divided as it is Today?”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A Few Salient Comments about This & That

COMMENT NUMBER ONE

Whatever happened to the concept of the “loyal opposition” in America?

The notion of a loyal opposition essentially says that a person can be opposed to the actions of the government or ruling party of the day without being opposed to the U.S. Constitution or the democratic political system.

But today, the idea of a loyal opposition has been redefined to mean obstruct and resist.

Resist with physical violence against people with whom you don’t agree. Resist with violence against property. Obstruct and gridlock Congress. Resist by shutting down free speech. Resist by assassinating members of the party in power as we saw a few weeks ago when a Democrat left-wing nut job attacked several Republican lawmakers practicing on a baseball diamond, wounding Rep. Steve Scalise, a Capitol police officer, and two bystanders.

This is not what people like Thomas Jefferson had in mind when they hammered out our Constitution.[image error] While he and other founders argued that we should be reasonably tolerant of political speech, they stopped short of condoning the violent overthrow of our government or the vile and vicious attacks we see levied against our current president. It seems to me some Democrats and many others on the left would rather see the country fail than allow Donald Trump to succeed.

Like him or not, Donald Trump was elected to the office he holds by half of the country. He didn’t take it via a coup d’état. The vitriol directed at Donald Trump is unprecedented. I can’t think of a derogatory name he hasn’t been called. Then, there are the mainstream media which seem to have taken it upon themselves to destroy Trump and his presidency. Instead of their traditional role as responsible watchdogs of government, they are behaving more like rabid attack dogs. [image error]

That is not an opinion, it is based on a recent study by the Harvard Kennedy School’s Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics, and Public Policy.

Its report said that coverage of Trump has been far more negative than that of Barack Obama, George W. Bush or Bill Clinton. The Harvard scholars analyzed the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post and the main newscasts (not talk shows) of CBS, CNN, Fox, and NBC during Trump’s initial time in office. They found, to no one’s surprise, that Trump dominated news coverage in the first 100 days. And then they concluded that news coverage was solidly negative — 80 percent negative among those outlets studied, versus 20 percent positive.

The numbers for previous presidents: Barack Obama, 41 percent negative, 59 percent positive; George W. Bush, 57 percent negative, 43 percent positive; and Bill Clinton, 60 percent negative, 40 percent positive.

The coverage of some news organizations was so negative, according to the Harvard study, that it seems hard to argue that the coverage was anywhere near a neutral presentation of facts. Assessing the tone of news coverage, the Harvard researchers found that CNN’s Trump coverage was 93 percent negative, and 7 percent positive. The researchers found the same numbers for NBC.

Results for other media outlets were only slightly less negative. The Harvard team found that CBS coverage was 91 percent negative and 9 percent positive. New York Times coverage was 87 percent negative and 13 percent positive. Washington Post coverage was 83 percent negative and 17 percent positive. Wall Street Journal coverage was 70 percent negative and 30 percent positive. And Fox News coverage also leaned to the negative, but only slightly: 52 percent negative to 48 percent positive.

Loyal opposition? Fair & honest media? Hardly.

COMMENT NUMBER TWO

Okay. We have a president who tweets. Get over it. And accept the fact that Donald Trump is not your grandfather’s or your father’s president.

He is something unique. And that’s why half the country elected him.

I remember when Bill Clinton went on the Arsenio Hall Show in 1992 dressed as one of the sunglass-sporting Blues Brothers and played his saxophone. A lot of people thought that was demeaning to the office. I wasn’t one of them.

Of course what Clinton eventually did in the White House with a young intern named Monica Lewinski was, in my mind, a hell of a lot more demeaning to the office of President than playing the saxophone on TV or Donald Trump tweeting e-rockets at his opponents.

[image error]       Monica & Bubba

The latest of these Presidential tweets was a short video posted to his Twitter account Sunday in which he is portrayed wrestling and punching a figure whose head has been replaced by the logo for CNN.

Almost immediately some in the news media began whining and wringing their hands, charging that such displays could endanger the lives of reporters.

What? Are you kidding me?

What about a washed up potty-mouth comedienne holding the severed head of Donald Trump? What about a play in New York’s Central Park in which a man looking like Trump is assassinated by knife-wielding opponents on stage?

Oh. It’s only the American president. Who would ever see such displays as disrespectful or dangerous? Certainly not the left-leaning media.

When Donald Trump fights back against insults levied at him by sleazy talk show hosts and reporters with a discernable agenda to destroy him, he is portrayed by the media as despicable, sexist, racist, and behaving beneath the dignity of the office.

Do I dare refer you again to Bill Clinton and Monica? Dignity, indeed.

Not long after the Trump vs. CNN wrestling tweet the Committee to Protect Journalists, which ordinarily spends its time working to safeguard journalists in countries where reporters are jailed, tortured and murdered (a noble goal), issued a statement saying it is concerned that Trump’s reproaches of news organizations may have dire consequences.

“Targeting individual journalists or media outlets, on or off-line, creates a chilling effect and fosters an environment where further harassment, or even physical attack, is deemed acceptable,” Courtney Radsch, the advocacy director for the Committee, wrote in a statement Sunday, adding that Trump’s comments may embolden “autocratic leaders around the world.”

Oh, please. I don’t think despots who hate and fear a free press have been waiting for Donald Trump to show them the way to crush and massacre members of the news media.

[image error]

Reporters and talk show hosts in this country seem very willing to dish it out but they clearly can’t take it. God forbid that one of their targets (i.e. President Trump) should have the audacity to defend himself.

It is discouraging and disheartening that so many reporters today behave like wimps when somebody (read Donald Trump) criticizes and chides them for what is undoubtedly unfair coverage (Please refer to Comment Number One).

Here’s an idea. Put on your big boy and big girl pants, suck it up, and go out and do your damned job. Stop complaining, whining, and belly-aching, and try covering our duly elected president fairly and unbiasedly.

Who knows? You might actually like behaving honorably and responsibly for a change.

COMMENT NUMBER THREE

I will relinquish the remainder of my blog today to Retired U. S. Marine Col. Jeffery Powers, who wrote to the commissioner of the National Football League during the height of the players protesting the U.S. flag and the National Anthem. I thought this letter was especially relevant given our nation’s celebration of Independence Day.

Dear Commissioner Roger Goodell,

I’ve been a season pass holder at Yankee Stadium, Yale Bowl and Giants Stadium.

I missed the ’90-’91 season because I was with a battalion of Marines in Desert Storm. 14 of my brave Marines returned home with the American Flag draped across their lifeless bodies. My last conversation with one of them, Sgt. Garrett Mongrella was about how our Giants were going to the Super Bowl. He never got to see it.

Now I watch multi-millionaire athletes who never did anything in their lives but play a game, disrespect what brave Americans fought and died for. They are essentially spitting in the faces and on the graves of real men, men who have done something for this country beside playing with a ball and believing they’re something special! They’re not! My Marines and Soldiers were!

You are complicit in this! You’ll fine players for large and small infractions, but you lack the moral courage and respect for our nation and the fallen to put an immediate stop to this. Yes, I know, it’s their 1st Amendment right to behave in such a despicable manner.                

What would happen if they came out and disrespected you or the refs publicly?

I observed a player getting a personal foul for twerking in the end zone after scoring. I guess that’s much worse than disrespecting the flag and our National  Anthem. Hmmmmm, isn’t it his 1st Amendment right to express himself like an idiot in the end zone?

Why is taunting not allowed yet taunting America is OK? You fine players for wearing 9-11 commemorative shoes yet you allow scum on the sidelines to sit, kneel or pump their pathetic fist in the air. They are so deprived with their multi-million dollar contracts for playing a freaking game!

You condone it all by your refusal to act. You’re just as wrong and disgusting as these good-for-nothings are. I hope Americans boycott any sponsor who supports that rabble you call the NFL. I hope they turn off the TV when any team that allowed this disrespect to occur, without consequence, on the sidelines. I applaud those who have not.

Legends and heroes do NOT wear shoulder pads. They wear body armor and carry rifles.

They make minimum wage and spend months and years away from their families. They don’t do it for an hour on Sunday. They do it 24/7 often with lead, not footballs, coming in their direction. They watch their brothers carted off in pieces not on a gurney to get their knee iced. They don’t even have ice! Many don’t have legs or arms.

[image error]

Some wear blue and risk their lives daily on the streets of America. They wear fire helmets and go upstairs into the fire rather than down to safety. On 9-11, hundreds vanished. They are the heroes.

I hope that your high paid protesting pretty boys and you look in that mirror when you shave tomorrow and see what you really are, legends in your own minds. You need to hit the road and take those worms with you!

Time to change the channel.

AMEN TO THAT COLONEL! AND A BIG HOO-RAH FROM A U.S. ARMY VETERAN.

 

 

 

 

 

.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Is American Journalism Dead, or in a Coma?

We are hearing a lot today about the deplorable state of American journalism. Some, including former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee and Fox pundit Sean Hannity, have even declared journalism “dead” in America.

“Journalism that I grew up with that was focused on facts, has given way to advocacy today,” Huckabee said during a recent interview.

Sadly, I think he is correct. The journalism that I grew up with and that I practiced at the Chicago Tribune from 1969 to the mid-1990s is definitely not the same journalism I see today.

[image error]

Look at these recent “stories” that made headlines worldwide:

President Trump gives Chief of Staff Reince Priebus “until July 4th to clean up White House.” Trump adviser Kellyanne Conway “is caught mocking Trump staffers.” Trump tells U.K. Prime Minister Theresa May he won’t go to Britain “until the British public supports him coming.”

What do all of these stories have in common? They’re completely unsourced. No names. No real people. Just claims that come from, in order, “two administration officials and three outside advisers familiar with the matter,” an anonymous tweeter who set up a dummy Twitter account, and “a Downing Street adviser.”

None of the stories has anyone on the record making the accusations. Instead, the “news” sites that posted the stories — Politico, the Daily Mail and the Guardian — simply make the claims and cite anonymous sources. The subjects of the anonymous slurs have no recourse whatsoever, no right to face their accusers, no way to fight back. The accusation streams out onto the internet, where it lives forever — whether it’s true or not.

Google “White House shake up, ” and you get more than forty thousand stories — every one of them false. Has there been a shake-up? No.

[image error]

This is NOT journalism. This is rumor and blather posing as journalism. The “journalists” who wrote and posted those stories should be horsewhipped and fired.

So, is journalism dead in America? Or is it simply in a coma? I hope for all our sakes that the latter is true. Because if journalism is comatose there is always the possibility it might wake up and begin behaving the way it is supposed to. Covering news honestly and fairly without fear or favor.

Alas, that is not the way the media are behaving today. Beyond the fact that a majority of news organizations are liberal and left-leaning, they clearly have an agenda to subvert and destroy the Trump presidency at any cost. Then, there is the reality that a vast number of young journalists today are increasingly ill-equipped to do good journalism. This may be a failure of journalism schools to adequately prepare them for the rigors of superior journalistic practice. Or it may be a lack of leadership in professional newsrooms.

[image error]

As someone who has toiled in both worlds (27 years with the Chicago Tribune and 13 years at the University of Illinois–7 of those as Dean of the College of Media, which includes the Departments of Journalism, Advertising, Media and Cinema Studies and the Institute of Communications Research) I can tell you that this is a pretty accurate appraisal of some of the inmates of the academy who are teaching the next generation of journalists–if indeed there will ever be a “next” generation.

A few years ago some members of the AEJMC (Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communications), which is the umbrella organization for all accredited journalism programs in the country (about 110 at last count) squabbled for weeks about dropping the word “newspaper” from the organization’s “Newspaper Division” because many academics believe newspapers are already dead.

Never mind that many newspapers are reinventing themselves and using new technologies and delivery platforms to reach readers and advertisers. Of course, there is the fact that too many of the young minds sitting in journalism classes are being indoctrinated with the idea that technology is the driver and accurate and compelling content is some journalistic afterthought.

Regretably, I fear young journalists are being taught to be advocates for what they believe in rather than purveyors of unbiased and fair journalism.

In my classes too many students had the idea that all they had to do was sit at a computer, conduct Google searches and cull the Internet for information and then rewrite it with their individual twist of style, opinion, etc.

[image error]

The idea of actually going out and talking to people–sometimes in faraway and dangerous places–was anathema to some students. Thankfully, after telling them enough of my own war stories as a foreign correspondent, those students moved on to English Literature or Film Studies.

Of the handful that remained some have gone on to be correspondents. I hear from them on occasion and what I hear is that editors and producers are under increasing pressure to cut costs.

When I was sent abroad for my first posting in Japan back in 1974, I was told quite clearly: “Never let money stand between you and a good story. Do what you have to do to get to where the story is.” That’s how I operated for most of my career until the mid-1990s when the bean counters finally gained control of the Tribune and news gathering became much less important than keeping the bottom line fat for the stockholders.

Needless to say, those are NOT the kind of marching orders reporters receive today. I fear that the combination of money woes, lack of good old-fashioned newsroom mentoring and the infatuation with new technologies are conspiring to reduce reporting to armies of “communicators” who do no first-hand reporting.

Today, almost anybody with a computer or I-Phone can “commit journalism.” Unfortunately, that’s a lot like committing a crime–and the public is the victim.

EAST MEETS WEST–AND FINDS ‘DECADENCE’

Occasionally I reprint stories I wrote while working as a foreign correspondent. 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-two years ago.

By Ronald E. Yates

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.

[image error]

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 external 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 punk music to sex education 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 names or the pitiful settlement 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 see why this song 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

The Lost Years of Billy Battles (Book 3 of the Finding Billy Battles Trilogy)

Where in the world is Billy Battles? The answer is in The Lost Years of Billy Battles, Book Three of the Finding Billy Battles Trilogy.

Here is a little taste of what readers of the popular and highly-acclaimed trilogy will find in Book Three.

As Book Three opens we know where Billy is. He’s in Chicago with his wife, the former Baroness Katharina von Schreiber living a sedate and comfortable life after years of adventure and adversity. That changes with a single telephone call that yanks Billy and Katharina back into a life of turmoil and danger.

[image error] The former Baroness von Schreiber

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.

[image error] Veracruz ca 1914

 

 

Later Billy joins General John J. “Black Jack” Pershing on an ambitious military incursion into Mexico to track and capture Mexican revolutionary Pancho Villa after his bloody attack on Columbus, New Mexico. Tragedy soon follows, and it sends Billy plummeting into an agonizing chasm of despair and agony.

Subsequently, 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 Three of the Finding Billy Battles Trilogy, those questions are answered, and the mystery behind Billy’s disappearance is finally revealed.

The Lost Years of Billy Battles will be available in late summer 2017, Look for it at Amazon, Barnes & Noble, Goodreads, and wherever fine books are sold. If you haven’t already, subscribe to Ron’s blog at https://ronaldyatesbooks.com/category... for updates on the book’s availability.

For pre-orders of signed softcover versions of the book, contact author Ronald E. Yates at jhawker69@gmail.com.