Stories, News & Updates...

Stop the Presses

Wed, 22 Jun 2011 08:58:40 -0400

Early days of journalism

Journalism, by definition, is the practice of collecting and editing news for presentation through the media. Before the introduction of newspapers in the early 17th century, the only circulated publications were those issued by official branches of governments which, by nature, could hardly be considered unbiased. The ActaDiurna, for instance, encompassed official written accounts of daily events in ancient Rome. Actuarii—or the reporters of the day—were tasked by the state to collect information to be subsequently posted on a large board for everyone to read. These boards were archived for reference. The news contained anything that might have been of interest to the citizens of Rome. Topics such as war, speeches, or court proceedings were the most popular. Along with births, marriages, divorces, deaths, murders and accidents, the “actuarii” also reported unusual omens or prodigies known as “lususnaturae.” These famous,and allegedly living creatures or inanimate objects were perhaps the predecessors of sensationalist media and although in today’s world they would instantly be classified as hoaxes, in ancient Rome they may have appeared quite real. In fact, these creatures and objects permeated the landscape well past Medieval times and it was not until the seventeenth century that the growing interest in the study of nature actually began to dispel the myth of these lususnaturae. Soon thereafter, the Leviathan, the Scythian Lamb and the Unicorn became official legends. Gradually, deformities and other natural anomalies became either part of the scientific body of knowledge, or circus sideshows.

Undoubtedly, the most influential technological development in the history of mankind was the printing press. When goldsmith Johanness Gutenberg reassembled screw presses into a printing system, complete with movable types, he could not have foreseen the tremendous impact that it would have on society and the history of mankind. Born at the outset of an era that gave us indelible milestones in human history, Gutenberg was in exemplary company. Da Vinci, Copernicus, Boccaccio, Newton, Donatello, Columbus, Drake, Magellan, Botticelli, Cortez, Luther, Erasmus, and Vesalius, to name a few of the Renaissance men that changed our history.

For centuries, the question of which was the first published newspaper in history remained a subject of controversy. Some maintained that it was the “Relation allerFürnemmen und gedenckwürdigenHistorie”published in by Johann Carolus of Strasbourg. Others claimed it was the “Avisa,” published in Wolfenbuttel by Lucas Schulte. The dispute between these two newspapers—published in the German Language—was settled in 2005 when it was corroborated that Carolus had started his publication four years (1605) sooner than Schulte (1609).

The first newspaper in the English language was published in Amsterdam in 1625 and soon thereafter, newspapers spread rapidly throughout the neighboring cities and countries. However, it would be sixty five years before the first newspaper was published in North America. As such, in 1690, Benjamin Harris published a one-time edition of the “Publick Occurrences Both Forreign and Domestick” in Boston. The publication was quickly suppressed by the Government under the auspices that “…therein contained Reflections of a very high nature: As also sundry doubtful and uncertain Reports, do hereby manifest and declare their high Resentment and Disallowance of said Pamphlet, and Order that the same be Suppressed and called in...”It would not be until 1704 that the Governor of Boston would allow “The Boston News-Letter” to be published as a continuous paper to be distributed throughout the British colonies. These publications were somewhat one-sided and, naturally, heavily sanctioned. Clearly, the concept of free press remained distant at that time and the only allowable press was that in favor of the Government. Thus, the most powerful tool to reach the population was under control and carefully manipulated.

The media and its target audiences

Throughout history, there have been attempts at conveying messages of interest to the general public. In ancient times, this was referred to as the masses for lack of a better way to segment groups into specific interests. Evidently, all of their early efforts were biased in the sense that they benefited the dominant groups—whether minorities or majorities. There have been brief periods since the dawn of the 19th century when mass media actually provided us with much needed information for the purposes of planning our lives accordingly. Evidently, our culture was not one of total consumption and the massive influx of media specifically designed to affect distribution, perception, politics and socio-economic systems would not make its triumphant entrance until later in that century. The major ideological shift brought about by the 19th century changed the moral, spiritual and political fiber of the Western World. In the process, it also gave birth to the media theory, otherwise known as “the Age of Information.” What we have done with all that information ever since remains a subject of controversy to this day. One thing is certain, we went from a voracious need to be informed, to the sad reality of being manipulated for profit. I am sure we all understand capitalism, but never at the expense of truth. Once the media moguls tasted the blood of the innocent, the race was afoot for what quickly became a landmark in our American publishing industry: yellow journalism.

Yellow Journalism

When Richard Outcault introduced his character Yellow Kid into the comic strip Hogan’s Alley, he never imagined it would be immortalized in a form other than in the satirical supplement published on the first Sunday of each month. When this bald, snaggle-toothed boy with the goofy grin, who wore a yellow nightshirt and spoke in a ragged ghetto argot, became a merchandising monster, he was lured away by the Hearst’ organization…although the rights to the comic strip remained with the competing Pulitzer organization. Both newspapers ran the strip and, therefore, became known as the yellow kid papers. When William Randolph Hearst signed a declaration of war with Joseph Pulitzer, the outcome—as it is often in war—was a free-for-all barrage of sensationalized stories with little or no regard for facts or the truth. This publishing war was quickly coined “yellow journalism.” What other medium can stretch from one end of the spectrum to the other, and yet succeed admirably? Yellow media achieves this with relative ease. It is as irritating as it is irresistible; as imaginative as it is frivolous; and as aggressive as it is self-indulgent. It contains no apparent, social redeeming value and yet, its flaws are often seen as virtues. As it is the case with the erroneously labeled “reality TV,” is not the fault of the publishers, but rather their target audience.

The marvelous characteristic of sensationalism is the fact that it triggers two major reactions in people: fear and anxiety. At times, it combines the two and leads to other physical problems. Unlike other reactions to fear—such as the autonomic response to noises in the dark, physical attack, animals, insects, etc.—sensationalism causes a gradual stressful stimulus of the brain that usually leads to anxiety. A mild distorted perception of reality that although not quite as serious as a pseudo-hallucination, it remains closely related to the bogeyman effect. Whether you call it “cuco,” “hombre de la bolsa,” “Abu RiglMaslukha,” “le croque-mitaine,” “Der schwarze Mann,” or “Dokebi,” it is the international mysterious figure that some folks use to scare their children into behaving. In adulthood, our sensory cortex replaced this tad bit of folklore with what appears to be the truth in reporting and assimilates the information that ultimately will come to rest somewhere between the Hippocampus and the Amygdala for a while before being deposited into the infamous Hypothalamus of our brain. The same part that activates “fight or flight” responses. Clearly, we will not get up from our chair and neither run nor attack anyone as a response to the news…nor should we. But in a roundabout way, our brain acts the part while trying to control the rest of the motor functions. Essentially, it replaces the physical activity (fight or run away) with similar amounts of internal anxiety. In extreme cases, the rush of adrenaline and other chemicals that prepare our bodies to get away from perceived danger can be overwhelming…even as you sit in your chair in front of the TV. Yellow journalism was specifically designed to create this type of reaction and it has succeeded admirably since its introduction early in the 20th century.

The Freedom of the Press Conundrum

American journalist A. J. Liebling stated that “freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one.” He did not miss it by much. In fact, today’s media is a mixture of illusions and deception design to shield contemporary reality and instead feed us corporate agendas. Frankly, I am surprised we have not reached the pinnacle of “reality media” as a means to rival that other popular cash cow that permeates our airwaves. But we are not that far. As it should be expected, the media is controlled by a conglomerate of highly profitable enterprises with enormous influence on the American way of life (from shopping to politics). It’s somewhat of a plutocracy. Every single member of the broadcast media is owned by a larger corporation (example: General Electric owns NBC; The Walt Disney Co owns ABC; AOL-Time Warner owns CNN; Viacom owns CBS; and The News Corporation Ltd owns Fox) and these corporations have interlocking Board members (such as Allied Signal, American Express, Anheuser-Busch, Bank America, Kellogg, and Philip Morris, to name a few) who help them manipulate the media to the benefit of their controlling interests. The same applies to print media where even the corporations that own broadcast media are part of the print media Boards (such as General Electric). So, how truthful is the media? As truthful as they want to be and when they deem it necessary for the purpose of their own agendas. For instance, will these plutocrats allow themselves to crucify cigarettes, food additives, or the potential pitfalls of alcohol consumption? Not in a million years. The only time they would is when special interest groups push hard enough to force them to report. As Americans, we hold capitalism sacred. That is why we live here. That is what most of us signed up for at the outset. However, unbiased reporting should be endemic to freedom of the press. It is not THAT you are free to print whatever you wish, as much as it is that you SHOULD be unbiased about printing or broadcasting the truth. In the case of the media, there should be a socially redeeming value. The truth works well for most of us.

The media as a political numbing tool

While riding this plutocratic train, the same corporations sway political perception as required by their stockholders. Evidently, since they are the only game in town, we have little choice but to read whatever they print or broadcast. As such, the political battle lines between the two controlling parties in our nation, drawn nearly a century ago, are deeply entrenched in sensationalism. Therefore, whatever is being reported, should be taken with a grain of salt (for those who are not quite clear on the significance of this phrase, it comes from the Latin "cum granosalis", and it is often used to show that intelligence and personal judgment are needed.) We already know that the views are going to be either conservative or liberal. The only component missing would be which side you choose to believe, even partially. Frankly, the orchestrated efforts to sell something to the taxpayers through the media are so successful, that even emerging grassroots movements such as the Tea Party are packaged and delivered to the people as “a bunch of crazies trying to play politics.” True, some of the representatives that the movement has selected may sound a bit out of touch with Washington politics, but that is just a matter of learning the game. We can hardly argue with their quest for limited federal government; individual freedoms; personal responsibility; free markets; and returning political power to the states and the people. Those are historical platforms from where our founding fathers launched this country of ours and if we took a minute to look back, the place has gotten progressively worse in the past three decades. In my humble opinion, unless we revert to the genesis of our foundation as a nation, we may end up forgoing the Republic altogether. In lieu of what? God only knows. The truth is that the media has managed to create a show out of electing representatives. In fact, the entire process has turned into a farcical play in several acts. One that takes us from comedy to satire, from satire to tragedy and from tragedy to history…all carefully packaged and delivered to us now in full three-dimensional splendor, sponsored by some of your favorite tooth paste, shampoo or oil companies. And the candidates presented to us as a remedy to all our maladies are no better than the illness. When your candidate has to raise enough money for television ads so that he/she can expose the weaknesses of their opponents, particularly during a recession, then we are most certainly throwing our money at the wrong cause. Perhaps we like it that way. Or perhaps we are numbed by it. If radical changes came as a result of these “fundraisers,” it would be great. But as Led Zeppelin told us in the mid-70s, “the song remains the same.”

Global impact

It is a well-known fact that most nations have labored intensively to emulate our trends. In spite of the perception—implied or state--that the “ugly American” does not know how or what to eat or drink (much less dress appropriately) the world continues to imitate our trends and styles. They want to dress like us, talk like us, act like us, and even think like us. Whatever is being manufactured elsewhere, it has to be sold to a large consumer base in order to make a profit. Ours is the largest in history. The one item that we neither manufacture nor produce, but rather exploit marvelously is the media. And this trend has also carried its allure from the domestic exploitation for personal gain to the global market…much for the same reasons. The one component that other countries add to the mix is blatantly open corruption. Essentially, not only the material being reported is yellow and sensationalist, but it is dominated by corruption. A double-whammy that preys on people far more ignorant and innocent than us and at a much higher price. The trend started by Hearst and Pulitzer is now commonplace in most other countries. Worse, the level of these publications rivals and often surpasses Supermarket tabloids in America. While on the subject, given the latest upswing of yellow journalism in our country, we ought to finally label the Enquirer, Star, Weekly World News and Sun as bona-fide newspapers. I see very little difference between the impact that any of these tabloids intend to deliver versus that of the Post or the Times.

Sensationalizing War

The only time in recent memory where our networks reached—or I should write, came close to—unanimous broadcast consensus was during the tragic events of 9/11. Ever since, reporting of our global efforts to prevent similar events from happening “on our home soil” have been largely portrayed in the form of a perpetual bashing of one Administration or the redeeming values of the next. In reality, the struggle against terrorism is, and will continue to be, a generational issue that no Administration (regardless of how trendy an election may be) could claim. First and foremost, it would be divisive and un-American to do so. The efforts being carried out currently—and whatever the outcome—are the result of decades-long processes and procedures (including trial and error) the end of which is nowhere in sight. The massive amount of intelligence, analysis, and processing that is required to properly tackle the task at hand involves hundreds of thousands of Americans and Allies working around the clock to solve problems that we may not even be aware exist and may well be extremely close to home. These dedicated civil servants could not care less which party takes credit for the few, publicly-disclosed (a huge mistake) operatives. What they do care about is success…not even victory, mind you. Victory has no place in modern day terrorist warfare. It is down to the level of success that we achieve to protect our people and prevent future similar incidents. Terrorists make Hitler seem like a worthy adversary. At the very least, in WWII we could identify our enemy…and we were ONE nation, not the ruling political party. We believed in ourselves. Citizens as well as soldiers had made the conscious, individual commitment to the team effort and we rallied behind our Commanders in Chief because the cause was evident. Neither FDR nor Truman ever taunted the intelligence of citizens with thespian-like speeches because Victory was in the hearts of the American people, not in the words of the politicians. But today, the yellow media capitalizes on that heartfelt energy that characterized the American people since time immemorial and feverishly labors to divide us into two dominating political fronts…at the expense of the truth.

The way forward

There is more than enough evidence to support the sad reality that the media has taken control of most of our senses. The political machine in our country capitalizes on this modern mean of disseminating information and creates illusions that tend to become realities through branding. Effectively, we elect representatives into the highest offices on appearances and appeal, rather than on platforms. Where once we were able to instill in our children a sense of selective analysis as a logical path to reach the truth of the matter, we are now forced to dig parental trenches and put up strong arguments as a means to debunk sensationalism and media frenzy. In today’s rapid-firing neurological imagery products are audio-visually introduced into our senses at incredible speeds and with such colorful appeal that we instantly forget that once they were produced in our own country by our own people. The thought process that could lead us to economic recovery and self-sufficiency no longer enters our reasoning. Instead, we are told and retold that widgets are manufactured overseas at much lower wages which, in turn, allows us to consume them at home at a cheaper prices. In the meantime, our historical landmarks of the technological revolution are becoming dust in the wind. We now “import” cars from Detroit as a fad…and we like the conceptualization of becoming a would-be foreign manufacturer in our own land. A state of Michigan that once was the source of American pride. And as we ride this roller coaster of music, images and sounds being fed to us by the media giants, we start believing that reality shows actually are real; that our turning over our Republic to China is perfectly logical since they are the only ones lending us money; that all issues can be resolved by inflating our Government to impossible proportions; that health reform must be forced upon us and that our States must be forced into submission for the sake of the greater good. It is perhaps too late for us to open our eyes because they are intently focused on the 52” monitor that “we just got for Christmas”…or perhaps the media has reached a saturation point where their reality no longer makes sense and it will cancel itself so that we may start thinking clearly.

Colonization of America: the birth of American English?

Tue, 5 Apr 2011 09:16:59 -0400

Many of us ponder on the genesis of our American English. Was it simply a degeneration of Middle English as spoken in the old world and passed down to us by the Pilgrims? The poetic familiarization of our ancestry with the Plymouth settlers should only apply to those whose names--and hopefully families--are associated with the actual passengers in the vessel’s manifest. The rest of us have an obligation to seek further historical logic as to the numerous influences that have morphed our de-facto language (remember that we do not have an official language) from Late Middle English into what we speak today. In order to do this, we must forgo folklore and let history speak to us. The fact is, had any of the super powers of the time been more organized or challenged the sea power of the British, our entire history could have been told to us in either Spanish or French. Naturally, our de facto language today would have morphed into American Spanish or American French. One thing is certain, we would still be free.

Four decades before the Mayflower delivered its small group of English separatists and strangers from Plymouth to Plymouth, King James I had granted approval for what was by then a growing settlement in Jamestown, Virginia. Fifteen years prior to that, ruthless sailor and explorer Pedro Menendez de Aviles had established the first permanent European colony in the continent at St. Augustine, Florida. In reality, he was sent by the King of Spain to decimate the nearby French settlement of Fort Caroline that Rene Goulaine de Laudeonniere had built in 1564 as a refuge for the Huguenots (known to us as Calvinists, or the Protestant Reformed Church of France). French Protestants had attempted colonization for nearly a decade prior to that time. However, their quest for a new land where to practice their faith freely was doomed from the start in the name of religion…and the King of Spain was quite serious about his pursuit of heretics.

In terms of colonization, almost 130 years before the Mayflower arrived in Massachusetts, starting with the historical and no less accidental landing of Columbus in the Bahamas, our territory served as host to a number of temporary settlements, explorations and accidental visits from a myriad of explorers. There is, of course, that once forgotten and now revived Norse explorer who established a settlement in Vinland and which some associate with having established settlement in Waquoit Bay in Massachusetts. Of course, if in the days prior to Columbus’ journeys many did not believe that the world was a sphere (in spite of what Pythagoras had taught us in the 6th Century BC) who are we to believe that Leif Ericson would have the audacity to reach into his ancestor’s sea fearing strength and travel West into the new world? Along these lines, let us allow ourselves to factor Mr. Ericson’s bold journey into the mix. That would make the first European settlement in our continent approximately 650 years before the Mayflower even set course for the mouth of the Hudson.

The timeline below covers the period between the generally-accepted discovery of the continent and what some consider as the symbolic genesis of the North American history: the Pilgrims.

The mystical, poetic nature of the Mayflower, therefore, appears to be solidly anchored in religion and folklore. Although not all the travelers in this milestone journey were spiritually aroused by the idea of practicing faith (hence references to them as “strangers”) most of them did embrace the concept of freedom from the crown. Endemic to most pilgrimages are considerable distances traveled against implausible odds to reach a place of worship. In modern times, we have adapted this pilgrimage—and its accompanying worship—to popular culture. Case in point: the pilgrimage to Graceland. But, do we truly intend to attach the origins of our beloved United States to a foreign Government? Worse…a foreign crown? A closer look at the Mayflower Compact tells us that although seeking religious heaven in a new land, the Pilgrims still refer to themselves as the loyal subjects of King James I. Hardly conducive to independence sentiments as we know them today. If anything, the folkloric meaning of the Plymouth Colony revolves around the early autumn of 1621 when 53 “surviving” Pilgrims that had come on board the Mayflower celebrated their harvest, in the old English custom. We have, therefore, elected to remember this as the First Thanksgiving. The fact that the religious day of thanksgiving and the harvest festival evolved into a single event was a matter of political and calendar considerations. Essentially, the true symbolic significance of this annual holiday is the celebration of abundance and family spread across America. Its genesis, in fact, is a decree signed by President Washington in 1789. But not all Presidents thought of it as it is considered today. Two hundred and forty two years after the “first thanksgiving” gathering at Plymouth, Abraham Lincoln began the tradition of an annual national Thanksgiving in 1863. Ever since, it has become the symbol from which millions of immigrants have learned "Americanism." But, should this not be Anglicanism? Why not Wampanoagism? Well, we will not go that route at the risk of starting a subject discussion that could take us well into the next millennium.

The truth of this matter is that the settling of our country is far more colorful and rich than just the Mayflower losing its course and landing in Massachusetts, instead of its intended target of the mouth of the Hudson. As most of us know—from the moment we are able to read and write—the Pilgrim’s miscalculations resulted in the famous Mayflower Compact…possibly the first foray into independence. If they would have landed within the London Virginia Company territory, all hopes for self-government would have vanished and then the mystical genesis of our Americanism would have been rooted in Jamestown. As it should be perhaps? Especially for those who advocate the Brits as our ancestors…in spite of our forefathers having given their lives to gain independence from them. For the rest of us, our history begins with the Declaration of Independence. And for a handful of us, it began with the crucial outcome of the war of 1812.

But let us go back to the Americanism of the English Language. The three dominant nations who vied for control of the new world left an indelible mark in our history. From language to customs, many of the traits that the original settlers brought from the old world morphed into what we now call Americanism. Great Britain, France and Spain divided the new world and although in those days no one imagined neither how vast nor how powerful our country would become, the map below clearly demonstrates the logic behind this theory.

By the time Columbus landed in the Bahamas, the North American continent already had more than 250 native languages and dialects. Their grammar was as complex as Russian or Latin. Unfortunately, except for the tribes throughout the Yucatan peninsula, none had a writing system. Language families such as Iroquoian, Muskogean, Siouan, and Athabaskan were all spoken. In terms of language families, the American continent easily and vastly outnumbered Europeans, who only had two: Proto and Indo As the first settlements began to take root throughout the East coast of the North American continent, 15th Century English language began its intertwining process with the local environment. By the time the thirteen colonies became the United States of America, there were clear indications of the transition into American English. In fact, long before the colonies declared their independence, English was already heavily influenced by French (mostly in and around New Orleans); Spanish (mostly in Florida and what is now Texas, New Mexico and California); German (mostly in the area of Pennsylvania and New York); and West African languages throughout the lower Southern region of the colonies, for obvious reasons. There are thousands of words in the American English language that point to each of these languages as an influence. And each of these contributed to the transformation of British into American English, including variations of speeches throughout the colonies.

Essentially, the colonization of America was the beginning of the true melting pot that most sociologists speak of in the present tense. The Italians, Irish, Germans and Asian cultures came later in our history and by then the morphing of the English language was virtually complete, with the exception of natural and constantly occurring vernacular words and phrases. Of all the predominant languages spoken at the time of the colonization of our America, we selected English due mostly to geographical reasons. The thirteen colonies were settled as close to trade and defense sea routes as possible. While the French focused heavily on exploration, the British appeared to be more structured in their approach. No less structured than the Spanish, albeit they focused on the Southwestern territories and the entire Southern Hemisphere. In fact, pound for pound, the Spanish were far more refined as settlers and explorers than the French and British combined. The first capitol city in what is now the United States was established in 1598 by Juan de Onate in Espanola, New Mexico. However, the first group of defectors from the crown were descendants of the British settlers and because to the victors go the spoils, we adopted English as the foundation of our language...and any and all morphing thereafter.

The seeds of regional speech patterns were planted by a myriad of westward settlements in our continental territories. As an independent nation, we expanded in that direction, thereby establishing subdivisions of the original American English as it mixed with central and southwestern dialects. Most of which remain to this day. These lexical differences are so marked that if a person traveled from New England in a southwestern loop, crossing the upper and lower south, through the Delta South and ending in the Southwest coast of California, he or she would experience the historical influences...and perhaps even have some difficulty understanding a few of his or her own countrymen along the way.

Thus, between the onset of the American Revolution in 1776 and the culmination of the war for independence in 1812, American English became its own language. Linguistic innovators from Thomas Jefferson, through Benjamin Franklin, and all the way down to Noah Webster, have fought to establish American English on an equally-prestigious ground as British English. And the struggle continues. But one thing is certain, the rich, diverse, and ever growing American English language is a combination of cultures, dialects, and historical contributions that could never be matched by any other language. Clearly, puritan linguists will differ with this view...but not with history.

Japan’s cool and collected culture

Mon, 21 Mar 2011 14:06:34 -0400

On March 11 of this year, the largest earthquake ever recorded hit Japan with tremendous, devastating power. The resulting tsunami left a deadly swatch of devastation in its wake. All of us have seen the images of advancing waters as houses, vehicles, and anything that stood in the path of the surge were swept away like toys. On the heels of the massive destruction caused by a natural reaction came the peripheral nuclear impact to the region in the form of a partial meltdown at the Daiichi plant. An eerie reminder of the power of nature and the fragility of mankind as a resident of this living, ever-changing planet.

As the world tries to assess the magnitude and subsequent impact of such a catastrophic event, our hearts go out to the Japanese people. We feel for them as human beings and stand ready to assist, much in the way they stood by us during the catastrophic impact of Hurricane Katrina. On the face of such a devastating natural event, images show us stoic and composed demeanor on the part of Japanese citizens. Food and water are scarce. Fields can no longer be harvested. Utilities in general have been shut down. Entire neighborhoods have vanished. Roads and transportation ceased to exist. Survivors are still looking for information on missing relatives and loved ones. And yet, unlike other disasters that we have witnessed, looting, rioting, rage, public outcries, or random blaming are notoriously absent. How is that possible? Well, Japanese culture is as different as it is inspiring for a number of reasons. Their quiet mourning is expected for their culture. This is not the first catastrophic event than they have endured, nor will be the last. Thus, where proper social behavior would have otherwise failed most of us by now—as it has in recent memory--their mores remain indestructible, even if the tsunami has wiped everything else around them.

Reports of orderly, long lines of survivors waiting for rations in numerous parts of the affected areas are commonplace, as it would be in any catastrophe. But in the case of the Japanese, no one is in charge. The lines are organized and supervised by the people themselves. Shoppers are limited to a specific number of food or beverages items, and no one cheats. Systematically, they accept individual responsibility for their collective well-being, and survival is considered as a whole. Chefs at hotels deliver hot soup to all passers-by and, notably, everyone takes only one cup without getting back in line for a second pass, as it would not be fair for their fellow citizens. Emergency rescue efforts are met with spontaneous community groups who organize shelters and food distribution in support of Government operations.

This enormous sense of civility and community is endemic to the Japanese culture, particularly when facing insurmountable odds. There is no doubt that pain and anxiety afflicts the Japanese much in the way that it would any other human being. Clearly, the loss of life is sacred across-the-board. But there are ways of demonstrating this, and the Japanese way is a quiet, reserved, and controlled one.

Some nations are more socially reactive, and that includes opportunity as well. For instance, when the mayor of New Orleans ordered a crackdown on looters, 1500 police officers were forced to abandon their search-and-rescue mission to return to the streets and attempt to stop looting that had turned increasingly hostile. Looters were literally moving into heavily populated areas such as hotels, hospitals and private homes. They were using home-made floating devices to get away with food, blue jeans, tennis shoes, TV sets and guns. Thousands were feared to have drowned in America’s deadlines natural disaster in a century, and looters saw an opportunity to rob their own communities. But we are not the only country that capitalizes on catastrophes. When Chile—another allegedly civilized and powerful economy—suffered through a 8.8 magnitude earthquake, looting spread so quickly that the Government dispatched thousands of troops to ease the pillage of a region, where in reality they needed for rescue and survival. Again, household items such as TV sets, stereos and equipment—none of them vital to survival—were the object of the looters.

Japan’s culture practices stoicism and civility as the foundation of their faith, particularly in the face of adversity. Their culture understands that there is no other way but to help each other through difficult times. Religion does not play such a paramount role in Japanese culture, but their two major sources of peace are Shinto and Buddhism. The former is based on a set of practices designed to link the present with their ancient past. The latter is now synonymous with spiritualism, inner strength, higher wisdom and self control. Perhaps a combination of these two has instilled forbearance and acceptance in the minds of the Japanese people. Whatever the reason, it merits our respect and admiration.

Collective Mess

Fri, 4 Mar 2011 11:41:33 -0500

The downturn of our economy has given way to numerous issues that affect not only our activities overseas, but those that we once thought were protected at home. The near total blindness that our politicians have developed in their quest to protect ideological platforms and personal agendas have gone beyond ignoring their constituents’ needs. It has now entered the realm of contempt. Are we at all surprised that new, third and fourth political parties are threatening their historical bi-partisan games? Well, we should not be for it is very real and very close. One of the casualties of our own inability to focus on the task at hand instead of achieving historical milestones, has been the oldest—and perhaps most controversial—of our social checks and balances: collective bargaining. Evidently, this subject is entirely foreign to our industry, but it may become an imperative as soon as the new battle for political dominance hits our neighborhoods in force.

A sensational view

The media loves to use and abuse buzz words. CNN continuously repeats this phrase and carefully attaches it to Article I, Section 8 of our Constitution without the benefit of a logical explanation. Fox makes it perfectly clear that this Act, enacted in 1935, was designed to regulate interstate commerce. And, ultimately, NPR tells us that the decision and regulations of the National Labor Relations Board greatly supplement and define the provisions of the act itself. Still, it makes little sense to the general public. Simultaneously, our body of politics issues loud, emotional statements to their target audiences on the benefits or evil of labor unions and arbitration. Then, images of Wisconsin teachers begin to flash before our eyes. Banners and signs held up high. Irate educators screaming into the camera. Governors attempting to explain their position. More banners. More signs. More screaming. These rapidly moving, quasi-subliminal images have been tested and retested to prove that we rarely—if ever—truly assimilate the message itself. There is hardly time to do so. Thus, the only global message being transmitted into our sensory receptors is the gloominess of it all. The storyboard drafted in the newsrooms across the country must be very entertaining pieces, worthy of Hollywood. We know one thing: it sells.

A quick overview

In simple terms, collective bargaining pertains to the negotiations between an employer and a group of employees for the purpose of establishing employment conditions. As expected, the outcome is—or should be—a collective agreement. The Legal Information Institute of Cornell University Law School tells us that “collective bargaining is governed by federal and state laws, administrative agency regulations, and judicial decisions.” Sounds powerful and under control, correct? Well, it is and it is not. This catchy phrase falls under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) of 1935. A time in our history where the regulation of interstate commerce (or, buying and selling products and services across state border, if you will) became a necessity. The NLRA, naturally, established a Board for the purposes of reaching, issuing and publishing decisions and regulations on the subject. As such, the Board selects the labor organization that will represent a given unit of employees in the process of collective bargaining with the Government. In the case of the Wisconsin teachers stated above, the unit would be teachers, the labor organization representing them would be the Wisconsin Education Association Council (WEAC), and the taxpayers’ representative would be the State Government. If this process appears simple in theory but complicated in practice, is because it is. Because collective bargaining and its resulting agreements are enforceable under state law, they usually end up in arbitration. This alternative to litigation sometimes works, but others it turns into an agonizing struggle since the federal courts are increasingly involved in labor disputes.

Labor Union

The involvement of labor unions dates back to the early history of our country. The pilgrims were working craftsmen. In fact, John Smith negotiated with the sponsors of the trip in London to secure more craftsmen and workers. Along these lines, the origins of guilds or unions—albeit not yet fully organized and recognized—of carpenters, cabinet makers and cobblers dates back to colonial America and many of these workers—if not all—participated in our struggle for independence. The famous Boston Tea Party was made up of carpenters dressed as Indians. If trade unions go as far back as our own independence, so do strikes. In 1794 the printers in New York went on strike demanding shorter hours and higher pay. Barely four years after the first official craft guild was recognized in 1790, the struggle between employees and employers was afoot. During the 19th Century, unions were often accused of criminal conspiracy and often subjected to prosecution. Nevertheless, as industrialization gradually replaced agricultural labor, unions grew exponentially. Economic expansion and tight labor markets were particularly fertile ground for their growth, as recessions were instrumental in their decline. The advent of mass production and huge factories gave way to the establishment of union that, unlike their intended function, sought political power. Hence, a new era was born. Unions had become a circle within a circle and by the time Samuel Gompers—greatly considered the “father” of the American Labor movement—organized the American Federation of Labor (ALF) the resulting power struggles between organized labor and management quickly grew out of control and both sides began to use unethical, illegal and brutal tactics to prove their points. In turn, the Government intervened and delivered the Wagner Act (known as the National Labor Relations Act), designed to protect both sides through…yes, you guessed it…collective bargaining.

Right to work

What if workers decided not to join a union? Well, in that case, there are right-to-work laws. These are laws that do not mandate workers to join or pay dues to a Union as a condition of employment. In 1947, the Taft-Hartley Act (otherwise known as Labor-Management Relations Act) attempted to reduce the power of organized labor in the United States through changes in the Wagner Act of 1935. After World War II, economic growth forced worker who had been affected by strikes or other labor actions to turn on the unions. Sentiments shifted from pro-labor to a more conservative, pro-business environment. Thus, whatever reasons Roosevelt gave workers to be happy about, Truman flipped to the other side of the spectrum. Now certain acts by labor were deemed unfair union practices. Close-shop agreements were abolished. Secondary pressure by unions was eliminated. And granted the President power to intervene in “national emergency” disputes. It also created the right for unions to sue…and be sued. Essentially, it restricted the power of unions to control pension and other funds. The right-to-work leveled the playing field between employees and employers while protecting our economic growth. Essentially, the right to work ended all forms of featherbedding, the most damaging of which came during the catastrophic downfall of our automobile industry.

Unions: good or evil?

Each milestone in American history has had its moments of glory and shame. The history of organized labor in America covers the whole gamut. Although such as oxymoron should rank on the top ten—along with “a fine mess,” “a just war,” “airline food,” “accurate rumors,” “assistant supervisor,” “authentic reproduction,” and “advanced beginner”—the effort to organize labor into a union had its moment in the sun…and possibly some of the darkest labor memories ever recorded. At present, it appears to be moving into oblivion. In fact, for the past forty years there has been a steady decline in both union membership and—not a minute too soon—influence. Employers are striving to keep their businesses union-free, while others (such as ALC) have elected to vest their employees with stake in the company’s future by establishing profit-sharing plans that benefit everyone. In reality, there is only one reason why unions have failed over the past half-century…they became the victims of their own success. It does not take a seasoned economist to understand that the success that unions had in raising wages and securing benefits for union workers was the cause for union-made products to become so expensive—albeit poor in quality and reliability—that sales were lost to less expensive foreign competitors, as well as non-union products. Union members should not protect their comfort zones, but rather their collective right to work and be treated fairly. If we take the case of the Wisconsin public school teachers, it is difficult to determine what exactly some of these teachers are upholding as the basis for their unfair treatment in terms of limiting their collective bargaining power. Ms. Leah Lechleiter-Luke, the 2010 Teacher of the Year, makes $55,000 in base salary and $32,000 in fringe benefits, such as health insurance, life insurance and retirement pay. Most of her colleagues in Wisconsin enjoy similar compensation packages for part-time work during the year. Most start their work around August 30 and end around June 3. According to the Department of Commerce, the average personal income for all Wisconsin workers was approximately $38,000 last year. Whatever the outcome of the vote on this subject, the Wisconsin Education Association Council’s web page opens with a gigantic sign asking citizens to “Stand Up For Workers “ and “stop the attack on Wisconsin Families.” The entire front page is dedicated to the activities that this branch of the educational union will engage in order to support their union. Not a word on the details related to the proposed cuts, how they would help the State overall, what types of compensation is being offered, or what is the collective State benefit to these reductions in an economic downturn. Of course, very little about the impact of the teacher’s reaction on the actual end-user: students.

But, as we all know, workers need protection. This is not a matter of socialism vs. capitalism. It is a matter of fair play. A workforce needs to be treated properly, compensated fairly, and empowered accordingly. These goals can be easily achieved without the need for negotiating with labor representatives. By and large, unions have lost their social appeal and ghosts of powerful bosses (like Jimmy Hoffa) flexing muscle and forcing political circumstances are almost gone. They have instead been replaced with a new wave of union bosses that, officially, are amongst the highest paid in history: William Hunter, NBA Players Association, $2.2M; Eugene Upshaw, NFL Players Association, $2.1M; Donald Fehr, MBL Players Association, $1M; Jimmy Warren, Steelworkers and ALF-CIO, $850K; Gregory Hessinger, Screen Actors Guild, $800K; to name a few. Of course, these individuals represent athletes and actors who, by comparison, make hundreds of time more money per day than their labor representatives. Their common enemies: owners and operators. Their leverage: us, the public.

Something to think about

It is very difficult to determine whether a union is helpful or damaging to the workforce. It all depends on the union, the workers, and the employers. There are some that, historically, have maintained an excellent relationship and record of performance. But whenever issues become so out of control that they affect the economic balance of a State—such as the case of the automotive industry in our country—the Government needs to get involved. In some cases, the magnitude is such that it requires not just the local government, but the Federal Government as well. If the issue is pushed up the flagpole to that level, the ramifications may include Federal bailouts and other forms of economic support. The one item that is always left out is the fact that whenever the Government enters the fray, the taxpayer clock starts ticking. In the case of Detroit’s Big Three (GM, Chrysler and Ford) the legacy costs alone were in the billions. The union had negotiated such enormous hourly compensations for its workers, that it was fairly easy to see where their “successful efforts” had taken our auto industry. The average for the Big Three was nearly double its closest competitors, and almost 70% more than all workers.

Above all, taxpayers were ultimately responsible for all the actions across-the-board. It did not matter if you, members of your families, or your ancestors had anything at all to do with labor negotiations, or had ever set foot in Michigan. What was important to the Government was that “these three companies were just too big to fail.” With that tiny bit of logic, we opened our checkbooks, wrote additional numbers to the IRS and the Government had its bailout money. No accountability. No explanations. No apologies. Not even excuses. Business as usual. Therefore, next time we consider labor unions, let us also understand and demand accountability for long-term actions and how they may impact our overall economic balance. Let us demand as well that labor unions--particularly their highly compensated bosses--explain to the general public and in great detail, the potential consequences of their decisions. That way, if the whole deal bellies up, we would have at least participated in the intelligent, logical process that affects taxpayers long after the blunder is forgotten.

The Cerebral Language

Mon, 28 Feb 2011 09:13:49 -0500

The successful execution of any mission is always dependent on a centralized operation. In the case of military operations, this function is achieved through a carefully orchestrated effort--often executed simultaneously across great distances--where the final authority rests on a command post somewhere in the vastness of the operation itself. When we think of sending a man to the moon, the first thing that comes to mind is the famous Houston Control Center as the operational core of a mission that will culminate with the return, rather than the landing. An assembly line encompasses millions of moving parts, hundreds of pieces of heavy equipment and machinery, thousands of operators, and a centralize control console capable of monitoring, analyzing and responding to any imponderable within seconds. All of these examples have one common denominator: they require thousands of human and inanimate components (including the utilities that are needed to operate the equipment) to function. If we stop for a moment and look inwards into our own body, bringing down to scale what would amount to an extremely complex and delicate machine, all of the functions mentioned above--including self-generation of energy--are achieved by a three-pound mass of fat and protein: our brain. The nearly incomprehensible complexity of this perfect organ gives us the ability and capacity to create and reason...and yet, it is often the most ignored.

The nerve of it all

A hundred billion, regardless of the item, is an ominous amount. Although the first thing that comes to mind usually involves monetary value, the effect is the same for people, bodies of water, insects, stars, and anything that is symbolic with figures that are too large to assimilate. The perfect organ consists of these many nerve cells which coordinate our physical activity, formulate and control thought, and regulate the most amazing and near-miraculous unconscious body processes: digestion and breathing. The proper, scientific name for these cells is neurons (but we have endeared them as gray matter) and their responsibility is to gather and transmit electrochemical signals through nerve fibers (dendrites and axons) to make up what we casually refer to as white matter. The largest part of our brain is the cerebrum and the smallest is the cortex, which houses the gray matter that we mentioned above. For practical purposes, I will refer to both of these as the brain. In spite of what some scientists will maintain, there has never--nor will there ever be--a more perfect machine. Neither mechanized nor virtual. One of the many junctures where the rock of ages and the ages of rocks meet, look at each other, scratch their heads, and move on.

Hemispheric potential

It is a well-known fact that the brain is divided into two halves (or scientifically referred to as hemispheres). In turn, these are subdivided into a set of regions, or lobes. Some of these are tasked with certain, specific functions such as speech, thought, learning, emotion and movement (frontal lobes). Others handle the senses (parietal lobes); vision (occipital lobes) and hearing and memory (temporal lobes). As it is common with most scientific research, the question of whether there is actually a dominant side of the brain remains empirical and very much open for discussion. Studies appear to have determined that when a person develops a dominance towards one side of the brain, they tend to have certain characteristics and areas of interest in common. The left side, for instance, is considered as the logical side. Generalizations such as left-side thinkers preferring classical music; excel at math and algebra; don’t enjoy clowning around; like to write non-fiction; do things in a planned orderly way; are never absent minded; like to tell stories but never act them out; etc., are based on empirical studies based on psychological sample audiences. I grew up loving classical music to the point of collecting antique books on my favorite composers; I abhor math and algebra; I act and overact all my stories; I can think sitting down or standing up; I am a music critic, but I maintain that the 70s were the best for years; I am extremely organized when I want to be; and I am an artist...or so I think. One thing is certain, the left side of our brain controls the right side and vice versa. Most of us are lifelong students and have trained our brains to respond to a careful balance between the two sides. Thus, I would argue that the left side of the brain encompasses our workweek (work, routine functions, every day worries) while the right side encompasses our weekends. I like this logic better because it makes life easier and I don’t have to overanalyze my own neuron firings, random as they may be at times.

A balanced equation

When considering the brain as the perfect machine, we must not forget movement and balance. These functions have been tasked to the second largest part of the perfect machine: the cerebellum. This component is extremely important as it coordinate all muscle movement and controls our balance. As expected, it consists of grey and white matter as it transmits and receives commands to and from the brain and through the entire body. In order to achieve these functions, it uses a complex structure known as the diencephalons, which, in turn, consists of two vital components. The first one is the thalamus, which controls and relays nerve impulses emanating from the entire body and is subsequently routed to the appropriate parts of the brain for processing. The second one is the hypothalamus which hormone secretions. These, in turn, handle growth and instinctual behavior such as eating, drinking, sex, anger and reproduction. At the base of this magnificent, perfect machine is the stem. Just like in any other living thing, the stem controls basic life functions such as heart rate, breathing and blood pressure. It also regulates when you are sleepy or wide-awake. Now that I caught your attention, are you still wondering why those folks in the State of Florida still don’t have motorcycle helmet laws? I highly doubt that the thin membrane that lies between the brain and the skull (known as meninges) was designed to cushion head on collisions at speeds higher than walking.

The language neurons

While studying the causes of aphasia, an acquired language disorder that impairs the ability of the brain to process language properly or completely, German neurologist Carl Wernicke was able to hypothetically link the superior temporal lobe and the reflexive mimicking or words and syllables, as they pertained to sensory and motor images of the spoken word. For those of us who do not read the Journal of Medicine regularly, the area of the brain presently known as the Wernicke’s area--located in the rear of the left side of the brain where the temporal and parietal lobe meet is greatly responsible for our ability to read, write, and speak a language. Similarly, while studying the brain of an aphasic, deceased patient, French physician Pierre Broca discovered the speech production center of the brain. The patient had been able to understand spoken language, had no impairment of the mouth or tongue that could have affected his ability to speak, and yet he could not speak a complete sentence nor express his thoughts in writing. He could only articulate one syllable. During autopsy, he discovered a lesion in the left inferior frontal cortex, which was then corroborated in numerous patients with similar conditions. Located in the region of the frontal lobe, the Broca are of the brain works in conjunctions with the Wernicke area to coordinate language processing and speech.

Having established this connection, the field was wide open for further studies on linguistic and the mechanisms that our brain uses for processing specific types of grammatical structure such as syntax versus morphology. This extremely complex question was analyzed in extreme detail in an article published by the National Academy of Sciences entitled “Dissociating neural subsystems for grammar by contrasting word order and inflection” (Newman, Supalla, Hause, Newport and Bavelier, 2008). In their opinion, “a given language typically conveys its grammatical information in one way (e.g., English marks “who did what to whom” using word order, and German uses inflectional morphology). American Sign Language permits either device, enabling a direct within-language comparison. During functional (f)MRI, native signers viewed sentences that used only word order and sentences that included inflectional morphology. The two sentence types activated an overlapping network of brain regions, but with differential patterns. Word order sentences activated left-lateralized areas involved in working memory and lexical access, including the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, the inferior frontal gyrus, the inferior parietal lobe, and the middle temporal gyrus. In contrast, inflectional morphology sentences activated areas involved in building and analyzing combinatorial structure, including bilateral inferior frontal and anterior temporal regions as well as the basal ganglia and medial temporal/limbic areas. These findings suggest that for a given linguistic function, neural recruitment may depend upon on the cognitive resources required to process specific types of linguistic cues.” Essentially, the demands of each language construction, will activate certain neural reactions that are designed to handle specific grammatical structures. Complicated? Absolutely...but not for our brains.

The bilingual brain

One of the most relevant findings in recent neurological studies indicates that speaking two languages may delay Alzheimer’s disease. Scientists now claim that mastering a second language can stimulate the brain to the point of potentially delaying the onset of Alzheimer’s. According to Prof. Bialystok of New York University in Toronto, while the new research focuses mostly on the truly long-term bilingual speaker, scientists venture that even people who tackle a new language later in life stand to benefit from the exercise. The brunt of this study has involved babies as scientists wondered why simply speaking to infants in two languages allows them to learn both in the time it takes most babies to learn one. It is a matter of developing flexibility and enhancing our ability to multitask. As babies grow older, their brains show better “executive control” which, according to Prof. Bialystok, is the most important part of the mind. The study also included equal numbers of older patients suffering from Alzheimer’s. In the case of bilingual patients, scientists were able to identify a marked delay in the development of the disease. But is the multilingual brain safer because of language skills? Not exactly. Languages happen to be one of the functions that occur simultaneously with ordinary brain activity. A parallelism that occurs--for instance in the case of simultaneous interpreters--probably within hundreds of a Planck second delay. The brain takes in a language, analyzes the meaning, formulates an equivalent in a completely different grammatical structure and delivers it through our vocal chords almost simultaneously. Such active neuron firings exercise the brain continuously, build our cognitive reserve and possibly will help us exceed the common assumption that “we use only 10 percent of our brain capacity.”

Exercise your best judgment

Prior the introduction of treadmills, stair climbers, rowing machines, exercise bikes, and other forms of strength training equipment, we ran, walked, climbed actual stairs, rowed our boats, rode our bikes and lifted bags. The last time I checked, all of these items were still around and ready to be used. I am not a runner, but I am a walker. I have to climb the stairs to wake up my kids to take them to school, several times. I love kayaking and I personally own three very inexpensive vessels that I use almost year round. I was born atop a bicycle and will probably pass away on one. And I just finished aerating my lawn and reseeding it in its entirety, a task that included carrying my customary 50 lbs bags of the finest Kentucky grass and spreading it across several acres. If I ever find the time, I may join one of those clubs to see how it feels to do all of these things in one room, breathing everyone else’s air.

The brain, just like the rest of our body, does not require fancy, prepackaged exercises established by the psychiatric community to prove empirical assumptions. There are numerous other exercises that, just like the tasks that I pointed out above in lieu of joining a club, can be achieved within our own surroundings. Try placing your keys in a new location every six months or so. This simple exercise will force your brain to rearrange its coordinates and forgo memorized functions. Try looking at a street map and finding your way to your next destination, without the use of your GPS. This exercise would not only make full use of your sensory skills, but also enhance awareness and recognition functions. If you are pressed for time, then open the map again and try to find a shorter route. Every now and again, take a different route altogether to your most familiar destinations. Allow your brain to exercise by finding your coordinates and relocating your destination within the simple navigational guidelines that were given to us thousands of years ago: cardinal points. If that gives you a headache, the follow the Sun. We know it rises roughly in the east, tracks upwards, and set roughly west. Turn off all the lights around your house and let the moon illuminate your path. You will be amazed to learn how quickly your brain adjusts to darkness and your internal guiding system takes over in an attempt to guide the body. Learn new practical tasks. If you have never planted tomatoes, read about it and give it a shot. You have probably learned by now that you can grow them in your kitchen, hanging upside down from a planter, and they are quite good. But you have to research this further on your own. Try changing small things on a regular basis. Habitual paths. Favorite places. Literature genre. Wake up times. Favorite dishes. Anything and everything that could fight against the onset of embedded images into a brain that will undoubtedly store them, use them and reuse them in order to speed processes.

And if you do not have the time for the nonsense above, or building a jet engine from scratch is not your cup of tea, then heed the advise of experts and learn a new language. There is no age limitation for it. Actually, there is no age limitation for anything we do that is related to the perfect machine. It is all about stimulating the brain so that the continuous firing of neurons is never replaced by memorized functions. It is somewhat of a competition against our own central command post to outsmart each other. In fact, as I write this piece, I know my brain is watching and getting ready for another round.

The significance of being eloquent

Fri, 18 Feb 2011 15:30:36 -0500

The nature of our industry, languages and linguistics, represents perhaps the widest range of fields, topics, and disciplines. In fact, there is not a single subject in today’s global economy that has not been translated, gisted, interpreted or transcribed into a myriad of foreign languages for the purpose of reaching the widest audience possible. More so than the advent of the Internet, languages have effectively advanced communications throughout cultures since time immemorial. The question remains: are we being eloquent in our communications? Perhaps not as much as we should.

Sound as the foundation of all languages

So much has been written by so many about this subject that it would suffice to state that as a tool, language is perhaps the most useful in human history. I would venture to take this one step further and propose that sound is at the foundation of every language. True, when viewed from this perspective, all languages are stripped of meaning, history, or social redeeming value. However, there is a point to this concept. When most of the Western World finds irresistible humor in the clicking noises that southern Africans use as consonants, we quickly forget that the Western world also uses these (to express disapproval, for instance, we tend to “tsk! tsk!” instead of “boy, are you wrong!”) on a daily basis, although not as heavily as speakers of Hadza and Sandawe. Africans, clearly a much older civilization in all forms, capitalize on these lingual ingressive air stream mechanism (articulated with two closure points in the mouth to emit the precise sound intended for communication) to communicate. It is a faster, less exposed and more effective tool than most of our polished grammatical constructions. Take for instance the opening scene of the classic movie 2001: A Space Odyssey. The herbivorous ape-like humans communicate through sounds where pitch dictates the message being conveyed. As they quickly discover their path to becoming carnivorous, sound conveys a different meaning. The louder the shrieks, the more ominous or threatening the message. Hardly romantic or sensual, this too is a form of primitive language. Evidently, body language—which simply amounts to movement as a compliment of the sounds that we use to support a language—helps convey a more robust message. Ultimately, all languages are no more than a combination of sounds. Essentially, they all have but a few common roots that have merged and morphed over the course of human history. Whether your understanding of life begins with Adam or Lucy, their linguistic sounds have now developed into as many variations as social groups they have touched since their arrival. And what is all this talk about sound you ask? Well, it is the most critical component of eloquence.

Hard vs. Soft

Could some languages be more gratifying to the senses than others? Many claim that there are harsh and soft languages. German, for instance, may come across as an aggressive, regimented language. French, by contrast, is often taken for a sensuous, softer language. Oddly, both of these languages have strong accentuation that fluctuates depending on emphasis. Still, the perception is that one is harsher than the other. This may be the result of numerous factors. As humans we tend to associate sounds and images. For instance, before the advent of the Internet, most of the images associated with sounds were passed down from previous generations. Therefore, if your grandparents lived through World War II, there is a greater chance that the images associated with Germanic languages were leaning towards military commands. Images of the Nazi machine at work were hardly flattering; therefore the language itself became harsher. Conquerors or occupiers—with the exception perhaps of Alexander of Macedonia—have been historically presented to us in a darker, ominous light. By contrast, the romanticism attached to conquered nations remains softer for obvious reasons. English appears to have inherited the best/worst of both worlds. As a West Germanic language with deep roots in Anglo-Frisian dialects brought into Britain by Germanic invaders, our original Old English has strong influences from two converging branches: Scandinavians and Normans. The resulting Anglo-Norman influence significantly simplified grammar and produced a more elaborate layer of words emanating from Latin-based languages. Essentially, English borrowed from other languages to create a more flexible one with a richer, enormous vocabulary. A good balance between harsh and soft, as it were.

In reality, it may have less to do with the social connotations of conquerors versus conquered and more with consonants, vowels, stressed syllables and accentuations. All of these have considerable impact on the sound of a language. Physically, the points of contact that the tongue, lips and palate must execute in order to produce the appropriate sound used to convey a message, coupled to the speed at which it is achieved can result in hard or soft sounding languages. Further to this, the environment in which these languages are used is of great influence on the delivery of the message. Thus, certain languages are more soothing than others. But, does this mean that we cannot train ourselves to make any language sound as pleasant as those that we perceive as such? Absolutely. Any language can be spoken with simplicity, eloquence and controlled pitch. We simply have to train our minds to do so.

Colloquialisms, Jargon and Slang

Colloquial use of a language has been appropriately described as unconstrained conversation. The opposite, obviously, would be formal speech. Familiar examples such as “y’all,” “gonna,” or “wanna” have transcend the boundaries of eloquence and are now applied to phrases and even entire aphorism. Evidently, every language accepts a certain percentage of colloquialism because it is essential in cross-cultural communications. Clearly, not all layers of society communicate at the same level. Because of it, we could safely assume that colloquialism incorporates jargon as a specific component of common-interest topics. And jargon is closely related to slang. The latter, however, is a departure from unconstrained conversation and it stretches boundaries even further. Although ordinarily used amongst members of a selective group, slang has a tendency to develop and infiltrate unconstrained conversation with relative ease. Therefore, it suffices to state that both, jargon as well as slang, qualify as “necessary” barriers in the sense that they have become an intricate part of cross-cultural communication and a vital component of most—if not all—languages. Can we, effectively, incorporate these two variations into the language itself and subsequently simplify speech in search of eloquence? By all means. It is all a matter of control. Even slang can be incorporated into formal speech, if it is timed and paced properly. 
Body language

Specialists in a myriad of disciplines—mostly related to will eagerly tell us that nonverbal behavior has significant psychological meaning. Brisk, erect walk conveys confidence. Patting or fondling hair conveys lack of self-confidence and insecurity. Arms crossed on chest conveys defensiveness. Hand to cheek conveys evaluation or thinking. Touching, slightly rubbing nose conveys rejection, doubt or lying. Rubbing eyes conveys doubt, disbelief. Head resting in hand, eyes downcast conveys boredom. Open palm conveys sincerity, openness, innocence. And the list goes on. Your will probably and rightfully ask: What about being late for work? Scratching an itch? Struggling with allergies? This type of psychological profiling responds to a sample audience, but not exactly the vast majority. It does, however, provide us good conversational material. Speculative though as it may be, it tends to affect a number of us. It either heightens our insecurities or makes us think of others as such. In reality, the reasons why some cultures gesticulate more than others may be intricately related to what I call the “orator syndrome.” Imagine yourself speaking to a vast target audience from a podium without microphones or any form of amplification. Your sound would carry but so far and then, in order to make yourself understood, your body would have to do the rest. As such, every posture—for lack of a better word—is usually accompanied by a sound. Aggressive body language without accompanying speech remains posture. Thus, gesticulation, eye contact and your limbs are all part of our languages. The question that remains then is: can body language contribute to eloquence? Undoubtedly.

Simplicity

Uncluttered places. Soft surfaces. Open fields. The horizon. A straight line. The truth. Concepts that speak to us about simplicity. A point of reference for all things that are easy to understand. The soothing effect of simplicity on our senses helps us deal with a vast array of issues that constantly impact our lives. Absent this concept, our senses become overburdened with unnecessary stress. In turn, our judgment is affected to the point that we may end up with an undesired outcome. More often than not, lack of simplicity in our lives tends to be a self-inflicted wound. All of us are well aware that complexity is always busy and in need of feeding. Therefore, why do we avoid simplicity? Languages, as the single, most important component of every day communications, must be clear, clean and understood. Historically, bold statements that remain embedded in our minds have been understood by every man, woman and child with total clarity. “Give me liberty or give me death,” for instance, is a straight a line as the truth itself. Thus, when we think of Patrick Henry we also think of every one of our founding fathers and the enormous odds that they had to overcome. The simplicity of the statement tells us more from the hearts of so many that gave so much on behalf of generations. That line conveys the essence of this entire article, dark though as it may appear. No orator could have spoken so much with so few words.

Eloquence

Washington, Kennedy, Nixon, Reagan. A handful of the most eloquent orators of all time. But what of Hamilton, Sorenson, Safire, and Noonan? These were some of the men and women behind the words that changed history. Powerful, carefully crafted, substantive collections of phrases that not only inspired, but also convinced us that whatever was being said was the truth. The skill of the speechwriter and the eloquence of the orator are forever intertwined—though seldom recognized—when history is at stake. Our every day life, however, does not lend itself to the intricacies of the perfectly written piece to be delivered by a professional orator. Thus, our eloquence must be created, rather than perfected. If we focus on other memorable orators that have affected our every day lives—such as our parents, professors, teachers, managers, etc.—we will realize that what inspired or lured us towards them was their uncanny ability to captivate our senses through their eloquence. There was something in them that prevented us from breaking away even for a split second for fear of missing the ultimate truth to their point. Their speech was clear, concise, crisp, delivered with great emphasis, albeit seemingly natural and easy flowing. Almost like great actors. Can any of us become eloquent? Of course. Eloquence can be learned and polished, even if we do not have speechwriters in our staff.

Simple eloquence

The first step towards achieving eloquence is to simplify our speech. The assumption that our audiences will not focus on our message unless it is drenched in grammatical complexity is erroneous. Everyone appreciates simplicity and straight talk. Eloquent speakers usually are characterized by their concise grammatical construction. This is done by design so as not to lose their audience’s attention. The adage “Give me liberty or give me death” would have lost its emphasis had it been delivered as “I would rather be dead than be subservient to the British.”

The second and equally important is the power of observation. We do not need to be an erudite to realize that eloquent speakers have a certain rhythm and cadence that assist them with their delivery. Watch them pace and control their diction and pitch. Theirs is not a monotonous speech, but rather a controlled delivery. The flow of the sound in a language is as important as the meaning itself. Modulating emphasis can affect the outcome of the message. Hence, it is important to coordinate movement and sound in an effort to maximize delivery. The balance of this equation is the rhythm of the language. The balance between strong and weak elements in the flow of the sound and silences of our speech can be as effective as when we use them in a musical instrument. After all, music is a language.

Ultimately, in this complex world of colorful rhetoric, plagued with metaphors, metonymy, idioms and chiasmus, simple eloquence should be the new standard in any language.