Thursday, February 28, 2008

And Then Some News

Of all the essays I have written (well over 300 now), this is, perhaps, the most important one. Not only does it point the finger at men for the trouble that relationships have, but far more important than that, it clearly and specifically discusses the essential elements of good relationships. If this essay doesn’t stir the stew of conversation, whisk the meringue of discussion, and whip the batter of debate, nothing probably will.

Share your And Then Some Story about troubled relationships. Have you discovered other essential elements of good relationships not discussed in this essay? Have you discovered techniques or methods that have helped you overcome relationship problems? Are the problems discussed in this essay familiar to you? See the specifics about sharing your And Then Some Story in the section that follows the excerpt below.


Saturday Essay - March 1, 2008
The Message Men Don't Want to Hear
by Richard L. Weaver II

Excerpt:

Men can point the finger at others, hold them responsible, blame, condemn or find fault with them, but, in the end, they are the ones. They are responsible. It is what they do or don’t do, what they feel or don’t feel, and how they choose to communicate or not that makes the difference in relationships. They can say, “Well that’s just the way I am, deal!” or “I’m a male, what more do I need to say?” or “You knew what I was like when you married me, why did you marry me?”
-------------------------

Share your 'And Then Some Story'

And Then Some Publishing wants to hear your story. An important part of the And Then Some philosophy revolves around you and how you interpret the concepts and ideas. Saturday Essays on our blog and our book of essays are just guidelines to and our impressions of the And Then Some philosophy; they are not hard and fast rules or concepts embedded in cement. Every individual interprets life differently just as everyone interprets And Then Some just a little differently. In the end, everyone has the same goal, however...And Then Some --- Give more, Get more, Want more from life!

We are compiling your stories for a special And Then Some book built from your experiences. Also, some stories will be chosen to be posted on our blog.


The only way this feature can work is if you, the believer in And Then Some... submits a story. We're starting from ground zero and we need your stories!

Please... Submit and share your story... please. Be the first And Then Some Fan Story to be featured on our blog!

Click here to submit and share your And Then Some story!

And Then Some - C U Saturday!!

Saturday, February 23, 2008

Making sense of political rhetoric: What are the keys?

by Richard L. Weaver II

One question I am constantly asked is, “Because you are in the speech-communication discipline, don’t you just love all the political rhetoric in the presidential campaigns?” To phrase it a bit differently, “Because you majored in speech, don’t you just love speeches?” The answer is “No,” no matter how the question is phrased, and I’ll tell you why. The main reason is that most speeches are boring. And, with respect to political rhetoric more specifically, so much of it cannot be believed or trusted. The real question is, “How do you make sense of all the political rhetoric?”

There is no way I can adequately do justice to that question in a short essay (although I’m going to try), let me recommend an excellent book that handles the question in less than 200 pages. Brooks Jackson and Kathleen Hall Jamieson have written a book, unSpun: Finding facts in a world of disinformation (Random House, 2007) that helps tell fact from fiction. In reviewing the book, Mara Liasson, NPR national political correspondent, wrote that these authors “have written a citizen’s guide to avoiding the malarkey of partisan politics.” “With this book,” it states on the back, “and a healthy dose of skepticism, anyone can cut through the haze of biased media reportage to be a savvier consumer and a better- informed citizen.”

As an important point of credibility, it must be noted that Jackson and Jamieson are the founders of the acclaimed website FactCheck.org, which is one of Time magazine’s “25 websites you can’t live without.”

The key to understanding political rhetoric is to understand that we live in a world of “spin,” which is a polite word for deception. “Spinners mislead by means that range from subtle omissions to outright lies,” write Jackson and Jamieson, “Spin paints a false picture of reality by bending facts, mischaracterizing the words of others, ignoring or denying critical evidence, or just ‘spinning a yarn’—by making things up” (p. ix).

It is not news that politicians purposely fill voters’ heads with disinformation about both their opponents and about their own policies. There are a number of techniques they use to deceive, and applying any of these techniques to the rhetoric you hear will serve as an introduction—a beginning place—for your analysis and evaluation.

The first technique is to recognize claims that are too dramatic. This often occurs when you hear statistics used. To believe statistics, you must know who generated the numbers and how, the credibility of the source from which they were drawn, how current they are, and whether or not they are designed to tell what is happening right now or reveal information that shows a trend. Since it is seldom you get enough information to make even a cursory analysis and evaluation of the statistics politicians bandy about, it is better to remain skeptical. The problem, of course, is that you want to believe the statistics of the politicians you support.

The second technique Jackson and Jamieson label “the dangling comparative.” As an example, they cite George W. Bush’s 2004 TV campaign ads which used the line, “[John] Kerry supported higher taxes over 350 times.” The obvious conclusion would be that Kerry had voted to raise taxes an alarming number of times, but that is not the case. Bush counted every vote Kerry had cast against a proposed tax cut—which meant voting to leave taxes unchanged. Also, to get the figure 350 he padded the count by including the procedural votes on the same bills. In Bush’s mind, a vote for cutting taxes became a vote for “higher taxes,” but as an example of “the dangling comparative,” he left unanswered the question, “Higher than what?”

The words “larger,” “better,” “faster,” “higher,” and “more” when used to compare two things—left dangling without a statement of what’s being compared—is called a dangling comparative.

The third technique is “the superlative swindle,” or the use of adjectives or adverbs that elevate a situation or circumstance to its highest or extreme degree—superior to all others. The point is to be on the lookout for claims such as “biggest in history” or “smallest ever.” Just as succumbing to the other techniques, being convinced by superlatives can lead you to make shallow political decisions.

The “Pay You Tuesday” con is the fourth technique. Politicians will promise you anything today—especially something you desire a great deal—if you will just vote for him or her. The con is that you won’t have to pay for whatever it is until Tuesday—if ever. You can’t promise new social programs without mentioning the future costs to taxpayers. You can’t promise reduced taxes without mentioning future deficits or program cuts. Pay on Tuesday means your kids will pay.

The fifth technique is the blame game. People who find their own position weak or indefensible often attack. Casting blame is always a clue that the attacker may need a closer look than the person being blamed. Bush blamed greedy lawyers as a major factor in the rising cost of health care—a claim that was disputed by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the Government Accountability Office (GAO). Liberals blame “big oil companies” when gasoline prices shoot up; conservatives blame liberals for being “soft on crime.” The incumbent president is always blamed when the economy goes soft or the stock market tanks. When you hear people casting blame, take a close look at their facts.

“Glittering Generalities” is the sixth technique. These are attractive sounding, but vague terms. The words “middle class” are just such words, and you are unlikely to find a candidate who isn’t for the middle class. Why? Because, in America, so few people think of themselves as lower-class or upper-class. One candidate will proclaim that he or she will “fight for America’s middle class,” while another will promise to “target tax cuts to the middle class.” Think about it: how does a candidate define “middle class”? Other glittering generalities—and there are many—include “affordable housing,” a “right to privacy,” “family values,” or “dignity,” “honor,” “freedom,” “integrity,” and “justice.” When you hear them, ask what is meant.

The list of deceptive techniques, of course, could go on and on, but these are some common ones. Rather than just finding examples of the techniques in use, which shouldn’t take long, it is more important to listen closely to what is being said, be skeptical of what you hear, and be critical and evaluative whether the candidate is your own or an opponent. Spin or no spin, this is politics!

______________________________________________________________________________

See “The Politics of Rhetoric v. Reality” by eriposte at the website “the left coaster” at http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/011878.php The essay there is dated Sunday, February 3, 2008, and details the experience when the reality of politics overwhelms the promise of rhetoric.

Check out the website “Rhetorica” at http://www.rhetorica.net/ The essay there is entitled “Rhetoric: Press-Politics Journal.”

For a highly academic (but wonderful) article entitled “On Objectivity and Politics in Rhetoric,” see Michael Calvin McGee’s essay in the American Communication Journal (Volume 4, Issue 3, Spring 2001), to be found at http://www.acjournal.org/holdings/vol4/iss3/special/mcgee.htm

______________________________________________________________________________




Contact Richard L. Weaver II

Thursday, February 21, 2008

And Then Some News

Between now and November, 2008, there will be a great deal of campaign rhetoric by the Democrats, the Republicans, and a large number of contributing agents whether in advertising, public speeches, or everyday conversations. To help readers make some sense of what they hear between now and November, And Then Some Works will publish an important essay this Saturday entitled, “Making Sense of Political Rhetoric: What Are The Keys?

Share your And Then Some Story about political rhetoric. Are you swayed by the speeches you hear? How effective are the advertisements you hear in persuading you? Do you listen to all sides of issues, or just to those sides presented by the candidate you favor? Do you think our political campaign process is fair? How do you think it should be changed? See the specifics about sharing your And Then Some Story in the section that follows the excerpt below.


Saturday Essay - February 23, 2008
Making sense of political rhetoric: What are the keys?
by Richard L. Weaver II

Excerpt:

It is not news that politicians purposely fill voters’ heads with disinformation about both their opponents and about their own policies. There are a number of techniques they use to deceive, and applying any of these techniques to the rhetoric you hear will serve as an introduction — a beginning place — for your analysis and evaluation.
-------------------------

Share your 'And Then Some Story'

And Then Some Publishing wants to hear your story. An important part of the And Then Some philosophy revolves around you and how you interpret the concepts and ideas. Saturday Essays on our blog and our book of essays are just guidelines to and our impressions of the And Then Some philosophy; they are not hard and fast rules or concepts embedded in cement. Every individual interprets life differently just as everyone interprets And Then Some just a little differently. In the end, everyone has the same goal, however...And Then Some --- Give more, Get more, Want more from life!

We are compiling your stories for a special And Then Some book built from your experiences. Also, some stories will be chosen to be posted on our blog.


The only way this feature can work is if you, the believer in And Then Some... submits a story. We're starting from ground zero and we need your stories!

Please... Submit and share your story... please. Be the first And Then Some Fan Story to be featured on our blog!

Click here to submit and share your And Then Some story!

And Then Some - C U Saturday!!

Saturday, February 16, 2008

A Testament to the Power of Speech

by Richard L. Weaver II

It is a principle I have taught for over thirty years. It is basic to speech-communication courses, and it is essential to understanding what should be the foundation of public-speaking effectiveness. In judging the success of a public-speaking effort, you must look at the substance — support, evidence, and ideas — of the speech, not just the delivery. Delivery is merely a vehicle for conveying the substance. When I learned to put delivery in its proper perspective, it was within the context of Plato’s attack on rhetoric as “mere cookery.”

Plato was critical of the idea that rhetoric should be called an art, while Aristotle argued in On Rhetoric that it was indeed an art. Plato’s perspective on rhetoric has not been uncommon throughout the ages, namely, that rhetoric is no art at all but merely practiced flattery. The “fantastical banquet” of words is “mere cookery in words”; words that are plain and to the point are all that are needed. Through the character of Socrates he concludes it is no art. He goes on at length to explain that rhetoric is merely a form of flattery, and more comparable to cookery than to medicine.

Plato’s perspective was well supported in a column entitled, “Obama is the candidate of passion rather than substance,” (The (Toledo) Blade, Jan. 13, 2008) in which Kathleen Parker
argues that “it’s easy to be seduced by a charming idea with a dazzling smile....It’s all about hope, really.”

Of course, Obama isn’t the first to depend on “grandiose prose and inspiring rhetoric” to supply his political pitch. Speech that depends on rhythm and refrain is alluring. It can make anything, even a simple chair, seem magnificent.

It is important to understand here how easily and willingly the public is seduced by the power of speech. Remember that the Nazis put enormous effort into public speaking. A. E. Frauenfeld, a Nazi Gauleiter (leader), wrote in “Die Macht der Rede” in 1937, about the power of speech, “We connect the spoken word with thoughts of the person who spoke it, with his appearance, the sound of his voice, the persuasiveness and passion with which he spoke the words....Speaking is communal; many hundreds or thousands share the enthusiasm.”

Ronald Reagan, a former actor and baseball announcer, understood this. Not only did he speak “in warm, velvety tones that enveloped listeners and made them feel good,” but, too, writes David Gergen, a Reagan speechwriter, in Essence of Power (1984), in his speeches he evoked what America had been and could be again, using terms, stories, and images embracing liberty, heroism, honor, a love of country, and a love of God. These values went deep with Reagan who discovered them from years on the speaking circuit.

There is no doubt that there are times that call for seminal speeches when substance matters less than delivery. Lory Hough and Aine Cryts, in their online essay, “The Power of Speech,” cite Abraham Lincoln’s “Gettysburg Address” that commemorated the most devastating battle of the Civil War, or his “Emancipation Proclamation” that called for an end to slavery. They cite Franklin D. Roosevelt’s fireside chats that helped pull America out of the depression and Ronald Reagan’s speech in 1986 following the Challenger disaster that soothed a stunned nation. President George W. Bush provided one voice following the September 11 terrorist attacks. Hough and Cryts also mention Robert Kennedy’s 1968 impromptu Indianapolis announcement that Martin Luther King, Jr., had just been shot and Richard Nixon’s 1952 “Checkers” speech.

Nixon’s “Checkers” speech, according to Hough and Cryts, is “considered to be one of the most successful political speeches in history. Just chosen as Dwight D. Eisenhower’s running mate, Nixon had to clear his name from charges of having a secret campaign fund. With his wife sitting beside him, he apologized and called on people’s emotions, using these words to end his emotional appeal after explaining that a Texas supporter had sent a cocker spaniel to the family as a gift. “Our little girl Tricia, the six-year-old, named it Checkers. And you know, the kids, like all kids,” Nixon said affectionately, “loved the dog, and I just want to say this, right now, that regardless of what they say about it, we are going to keep it.”

There are times that call for the rhetoric that unites or soothes or commemorates. There are times, as well, that call for impromptu comments that explain or clarify. The bulk of a politician’s rhetoric, however, is carefully planned.

Barack Obama is a powerful speaker. Biblical cadences come naturally to him, just as if he is a great preacher. He has extraordinary rapport with ordinary Americans, and he possesses, as well, a unique ability to articulate, in a generous way, their polite but burning anger at the state and their country. Obama certainly has the potential to “unite” the American public in ways that few, if any, politicians have since Bobby Kennedy.

Obama’s appeal, however, is to the soul (hope). He preaches the politics of “not-yet-here,” and it resonates deeply with his listeners. There is no doubt that his rhetoric soars and takes flight, but it alights nowhere. There is no doubt that he declares that together we can do anything, but he doesn’t mention any of the things we can do. What is missing from his repertoire is a clear articulation of his intentions. Avoiding detailed policy prescriptions, which bore many voters, leaves him open to attacks.

To depend on delivery and high-flown language alone, to the near exclusion of any substance, is an example of what Plato complained about. Obama’s speeches are a “fantastical banquet” of words or “mere cookery in words.” It may be what Americans want, but in no way is it what Americans need. Although some may say this is a time for seminal speeches when substance matters less than delivery, but I claim, as Kathleen Parker does, “Hope is not a policy.”

“Mr. Obama isn’t just the inevitable dream candidate,” writes Parker, “He is the self-object of Oprah Nation [referring to Oprah Winfrey’s campaigning on his behalf], love child of the therapeutic generation. What he brings to the table,” Parker continues, “no one quite knows. But what he delivers to the couch is human Prozac.”

To be seduced by delivery with little or no substance is to miss what is significant, meaningful, and important. It is to be seduced by the icing and overlook the cake, to judge a book by its cover and ignore its contents, and to be persuaded by facial expressions without noticing what the speaker is saying. It is, however, a testament to the power of speech!

______________________________________________________________________________

For information on the origin and definition of rhetoric, go to the website http://www.brightrockpress.com/popsample.htm

A.F. Nariman, in an essay “Bush’s Speech, All Puff No Substance,” at a website entitled Rense.com (http://www.rense.com/general26/spche.htm) analyzes a speech George W. Bush gave on June 25, 2002, to show that it held up a vision of the promised land but revealed no steps in how to get there — a useful analogy for the “all puff no substance” discussed in the essay above.

For specific populist commentary on a Barack Obama speech, “Obama’s South Carolina Victory Speech,” go to the digg.com website at http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Obama_s_South_Carolina_Victory_Speech Caroline Kennedy seems to capture his allure the best when she says, “...for the first time, I believe I have found the man who could be that president [a president who inspired me the way people tell me that my father inspired them] — not just for me, but for a new generation of Americans." Rhetoric without substance can be inspiring!

______________________________________________________________________________




Contact Richard L. Weaver II

Thursday, February 14, 2008

And Then Some News

With the presidential primary campaign (in Ohio) in full swing, the purpose of the Saturday essay is to extol the virtues of speech. Using the rhetoric of Barack Obama as an example, the essay discusses the power of speech and how easily people can be inspired by rhetoric that has no substance.

Share your And Then Some Story about the power of speech. Who are the speakers who have inspired you and why? Was there a particular speech situation when you were completely affected by a speaker’s rhetoric? Have you ever given a speech that totally captivated listeners and motivated you to greater accomplishments? See the specifics about sharing your And Then Some Story in the section that follows the excerpt below.


Saturday Essay - February 16, 2008
A Testament to the Power of Speech
by Richard L. Weaver II

Excerpt:

It is a principle I have taught for over thirty years. It is basic to speech-communication courses, and it is essential to understanding what should be the foundation of public-speaking effectiveness. In judging the success of a public-speaking effort, you must look at the substance — support, evidence, and ideas — of the speech, not just the delivery. Delivery is merely a vehicle for conveying the substance. When I learned to put delivery in its proper perspective, it was within the context of Plato’s attack on rhetoric as “mere cookery.”
-------------------------

Share your 'And Then Some Story'

And Then Some Publishing wants to hear your story. An important part of the And Then Some philosophy revolves around you and how you interpret the concepts and ideas. Saturday Essays on our blog and our book of essays are just guidelines to and our impressions of the And Then Some philosophy; they are not hard and fast rules or concepts embedded in cement. Every individual interprets life differently just as everyone interprets And Then Some just a little differently. In the end, everyone has the same goal, however...And Then Some --- Give more, Get more, Want more from life!

We are compiling your stories for a special And Then Some book built from your experiences. Also, some stories will be chosen to be posted on our blog.


The only way this feature can work is if you, the believer in And Then Some... submits a story. We're starting from ground zero and we need your stories!

Please... Submit and share your story... please. Be the first And Then Some Fan Story to be featured on our blog!

Click here to submit and share your And Then Some story!

And Then Some - C U Saturday!!

Saturday, February 9, 2008

Five Reasons Why Talk Is Essential to Relationships

by Richard L. Weaver II

In the eighth edition of my textbook, Communicating Effectively (McGraw-Hill, 2007), I list the importance of talk under the heading “Essential Elements of Good Relationships.” There it is listed as the first of eight elements (verbal skills, emotional expressiveness, conversational focus, nonverbal analysis, conversational encouragement, care and appreciation, commitment, and adaptation); however, it is part of each of the other seven for without it, none of the other seven can take place.

One of the often-heard complaints that women express about their relationship partner revolves around the “he won’t talk” problem: “He just won’t open up,” or “He doesn’t communicate,” or “He never expresses his feelings,” or “He never acts like he’s listening,” or “He doesn’t respond to me when I talk to him.” Whether one classifies it as a gender bias or not, it is, essentially, a male problem: Women talk, men don’t!

Rather than examine both the genetic and social conditions that lead males to be less than verbally fluent in relationships, let’s leave it with the fact that male evolution (whether it is their cultural history or their personal background) tends to render them speechless! By avoiding these issues, we can focus on the importance of talk in relationships. There are five reasons.

First, we need to look at the importance of talk in reducing conflicts. A number of young couples pride themselves on never having a conflict. Instead of it being a matter of pride, it should be a red flag waving wildly to get attention. With no conflict couples have established no prodical for dealing with it, and there is no way to predict what will happen when it occurs, and it will occur! How will the partners react? Do they ignore it? Do they talk it out at once? How upset do they become? Do they wait until tempers have subsided, and it can be dealt with in a rational, constructive manner? Are partners willing to listen to each other? Will they talk openly and honestly to reach a solution that is agreeable to both, or will one partner insist he or she is right and bully the other to get his or her way? Talk that happens during conflicts is different than talk that occurs daily because it takes place in emotionally charged circumstances, and when guided by intense emotion it becomes less predictable and more volatile.

Second, talk is part of the responsibility — the duty — of lovers and partners. Why is it a “duty”? Because it is part of the commitment that partners make to each other when they agree to form a relationship, and it has enormous importance. Talk acknowledges the existence of the other person and gives him or her a sense of self. When your partner has spoken to you, you need to acknowledge that with more than simply a grunt or a sigh. “I agree,” or “I see what you mean,” or “Yes, I think that is an excellent observation,” are some methods of acknowledgment. And when a partner is talking, he or she needs some recognition every few seconds that you are awake, alive, interested, and paying attention. The best recognition, of course, is for you to turn and face him or her directly, put down the newspaper, remote, or turn away from your monitor, look him or her in the eye, and nod, say yes or no, and release a noise of encouragement (hmmm, or oh), as the conversation proceeds.

When you feel you are not being listened to, you feel like a piece of furniture. Being ignored is a denial of your value. Spirit is crushed.

Third, we need to understand the importance of listening as part of the “talk process.” The problem with effective listening is the time it takes to hear the other person out. Men — especially men — short circuit the communication process by interrupting, anticipating what the other person is going to say, giving advice, trying to quickly solve a problem to avoid further conversation, or completing his or her thoughts. Unqualified, complete listening is what allows one spouse to understand the other spouse’s perspective on things. What is often misunderstood when a person is cut off, is how it affects perceptions of caring and appreciation. Effective listening is one of the best ways to physically demonstrate caring and appreciating. Other ways are to give compliments and self-disclose.

Fourth, talk is important for keeping track of relationships. They evolve, partners change, and surprising and unexpected occurrences affect relationships (for better or worse), and the fact is that a relationship, at any single point in time, is different than it was at any point in the past. Communication is a tool for learning how to adapt. It is a typical “man thing” to think that once the chase is over and a bonding experience has taken place (e.g., marriage), that a relationship becomes solid, strong, secure, and safe. Nothing more needs to be done since it is now permanent, and permanence conveys a level of reliability and dependability. Unfortunately, this is not true.

Partners need to speak, listen, and negotiate not just to stay on course, but to know from day-to-day and week-to-week just what that course is. “After years of research,” says one writer on relationships, “it turns out that what makes for highly adaptive people is their capacity to adapt.” When one partner says to the other, “You know, you are not the same person I married,” that is a good thing not bad; however, if the relationship is characterized by active, ongoing, engaging talk all along, one partner will surely know that the other person is no longer the same and why such changes are not just important but essential. Growth is what keeps partners and relationships active, exciting, and vibrant. The opposite of growth is staleness, lethargy, stagnation—and, perhaps, death.

The fifth reason why talk is important is that it keeps relationship partners involved with each other. Talk is healthy and productive. In addition, it is friendly, loving, kind, and fun. That doesn’t mean there can’t be silences, but without active communication, silences tend to be boring, unhelpful, destructive, and potentially threatening. Talk needs purpose and direction, of course, or it can become rambling, chattering, or babbling about meaningless trivia. When used simply to fill silences, it becomes pointless, aimless, empty, and inconsequential.

Relationship partners must remember that the purpose of conversations is not to agree with each other — although that may be a positive and welcomed outcome — it is to learn from each other on both an intellectual and emotional level. Good talking, too, can lead to good sex since flirting, holding hands, and seducing are all part of communication-oriented foreplay. For partners to continue in a relationship, they must find mutually beneficial ways of communicating.
______________________________________________________________________________

For an excellent website that celebrates the importance of relationships, go to OfSpirit.com (Healing Body, Mind, and Spirit) at: http://www.ofspirit.com/relationships.htm At this website they list numerous links to other important articles and insights regarding relationships.

The Yahoo Health website entitled “Relationship Rescue” is terrific at http://health.yahoo.com/relationships/ because of all the relationship information and links.

My top recommendation is the Psychology Today “Relationships Center” website at http://psychologytoday.com/topics/relationships.html There are links there that allow you to browse their numerous excellent articles on relationships.
______________________________________________________________________________




Contact Richard L. Weaver II

Thursday, February 7, 2008

And Then Some News

Valentine's Day is celebrated on Thursday, February 14. It is the traditional day on which lovers express their love for each other. The day is most closely associated with the mutual exchange of love notes in the form of "valentines." And Then Some Works is using this day to celebrate and write about the importance of communication in the essay, “Five reasons why talk is essential to relationships.”

Do you have an interesting Valentine’s Day And Then Some story to share. Please share it with us. See the information below, “Share your And Then Some Story,” for more details.


Saturday Essay - February 09, 2008
Five Reasons Why Talk is Essential to Relationships
by Richard L. Weaver II

Excerpt from Saturday's Valentine's Day Essay:

One of the often-heard complaints that women express about their relationship partner revolves around the “he won’t talk” problem: “He just won’t open up,” or “He doesn’t communicate,” or “He never expresses his feelings,” or “He never acts like he’s listening,” or “He doesn’t respond to me when I talk to him.” Whether one classifies it as a gender bias or not, it is, essentially, a male problem: Women talk, men don’t!

THIS IS AN ESSAY ALL WOMEN WILL WANT TO DOWNLOAD, PRINT OUT, AND GIVE TO THEIR RELATIONSHIP PARTNERS NOT JUST TO SHOW THEM HOW IMPORTANT IT IS TO TALK BUT TO STIMULATE THEIR OWN CONVERSATION ABOUT ITS IMPORTANCE TO THE GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT OF THEIR OWN RELATIONSHIPS! PUT COMMUNICATION AT THE CENTER OF YOUR VALENTINE'S DAY!


-------------------------

Share your 'And Then Some Story'

And Then Some Publishing wants to hear your story. An important part of the And Then Some philosophy revolves around you and how you interpret the concepts and ideas. Saturday Essays on our blog and our book of essays are just guidelines to and our impressions of the And Then Some philosophy; they are not hard and fast rules or concepts embedded in cement. Every individual interprets life differently just as everyone interprets And Then Some just a little differently. In the end, everyone has the same goal, however...And Then Some --- Give more, Get more, Want more from life!

We are compiling your stories for a special And Then Some book built from your experiences. Also, some stories will be chosen to be posted on our blog.


The only way this feature can work is if you, the believer in And Then Some... submits a story. We're starting from ground zero and we need your stories!

Please... Submit and share your story... please. Be the first And Then Some Fan Story to be featured on our blog!

Click here to submit and share your And Then Some story!

And Then Some - C U Saturday!!

Saturday, February 2, 2008

The Super Bowl And Then Some

by Richard L. Weaver II

The hype surrounding the Super Bowl game every year is the most frenzied, adrenalized, amped-up to be found on television. There really are few other events that represent this level of hysteria. It is the most watched U.S. television broadcast of the year — 80 to 90 million Americans will watch. Also, with that many people watching, it isn’t surprising that it is the second largest U.S. food consumption day; Thanksgiving is the first. The following joke represents how the event causes some people to become completely deranged.

A man had 50-yard line tickets for the Patriot’s Super Bowl game. As he sits down, a man comes down and asks if anyone is sitting in the seat next to him. "No," he says, "The seat is empty."

"This is incredible," said the man. "Who in their right mind would have a seat like this for the Super Bowl game and not use it?"

"Well, actually, the seat belongs to me. I was supposed to come with my wife, but she passed away. This is the first game we haven't gone to together since we got married in 1949."

"Oh, I'm sorry to hear that. That's terrible. But couldn't you find someone else -- a friend or relative, or even a neighbor to take the seat?"

The man shakes his head. "No, they're all at the funeral."

An old joke, true, but it makes the point.

The single biggest complaint I have — and it was underscored when I lived for a brief time in Australia when I went to see an “Aussie-Rules Football” game — is the model that football linesmen (guards and tackles) provide for our youth. In Australia all players on the field look much like our quarterbacks and half-backs. Here, in a society already having problems with the overweight and obese, we signal many who aspire to be football players to overeat if they want a chance — and, not only that, to eat the wrong kinds of foods.

The second complaint is the toll that playing football takes on the body — a toll, in many cases, that players must not just live with, but live in pain with for the rest of their lives. It reminds me of a second joke.

During the Super Bowl, there was another football game of note between the big animals and the little animals. The big animals were crushing little animals and at half-time, the coach made a passionate speech to rally the little animals.

At the start of the second half the big animals had the ball. The first play, the elephant got stopped for no gain. The second play, the rhino was stopped for no gain. On third down, the hippo was thrown for a 5 yard loss.

The defense huddled around the coach and he asked excitedly, "Who stopped the elephant?"

"I did," said the centipede.

"Who stopped the rhino?"

"Uh, that was me too," said the centipede.

"And how about the hippo? Who hit him for a 5 yard loss?"

"Well, that was me as well," said the centipede.

"So where were you during the first half?" demanded the coach.

"Well," said the centipede, "I was having my ankles taped."

Good joke, true, but without taped ankles the centipede knew he would live a lifetime with arthritic or broken ankles — an example of what I’m talking about.

Another complaint I have about all the Super Bowl hype is how this truly and solely U.S. celebration extols the virtues of alcohol. It is, of course, praised enthusiastically in the pre-game publicity when cameras rove numerous tailgating parties and participants raise their cans lauding the opportunity to imbibe. It is raved about in the advertisements during the game, too, when the fun people have is demonstrably improved if alcohol contributes. The humorous, contagious, and expensive advertising is even promoted well before the games when we are told how much beer companies have spent for their advertising, and how one company in particular has purchased more advertising space than all other advertisers. Even the fact that alcohol is sold at any sporting event strongly suggests — at least to this observer — that fun and consuming alcohol are one.

A final complaint is how sports contests like the Super Bowl promote gambling. With lotteries that are promoted by state governments almost a fixture in our society, one can hardly escape the omnipresence of gambling — like skin penetrated by infective larvae — in our environment. Nothing galvanizes the casual bettor like the Super Bowl. Millions of Americans will log onto their computers before 6:30 p.m. ET Sunday to either place traditional bets or engage in new forms of gambling that can’t be found at land-based sports books. It is likely that more than $450 million will be spent online alone. Innocent office pools will attract many who have never gambled before and a certain percentage of adolescents and adults who gamble on these games will eventually become addicted to the action — the rush — the thrill of sometimes winning — and will become problem or compulsive gamblers. Without treatment their lives will become progressively worse.

Who is my pick to win the 2008 Super Bowl? It can be summed up in this final joke:

A first-grade teacher explains to her class that she is a New York Giant’s fan. She asks her students to raise their hands if they are Giants fans too. Not really knowing what a Giants fan is, but wanting to be liked by their teacher, their hands fly into the air.

There is, however, one exception. Kelly has not gone along with the crowd. The teacher asks her why she has decided to be different. "Because I'm not a Giants fan" she reports.

"Then," asks the teacher," What are you?"

"I'm a New England Patriot’s fan," boasts the little girl.

The teacher asks Susie why she is a Giants fan.

"Well, my Dad and Mom are Giants fans, so I'm a Giants fan too," she responds.

"That's no reason," the teacher says. "What if your mom was a moron, and your dad was an idiot. What would you be then?"

Kelly smiles and says, "Then I'd be a Giants fan."
______________________________________________________________________________
One place to go for history, standings, scores, winners and all information on the Super Bowl is: http://www.superbowlhistory.net/
Another place that offers origins, game history, coverage, entertainment, and much more is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Bowl
______________________________________________________________________________




Contact Richard L. Weaver II