Straight from the Heart -- John McCain's Acceptance Speech

As usual, the pundits from various points on the political spectrum are weighing in on Senator John McCain's acceptance speech last night. Let me give you my point of view as a communicator, a speechwriter, an emotional Italian-American who is ultimately unabashed about his patriotism, and an objective admirer of McCain. I found it to be a one of the most moving, heartfelt speeches that I ever heard from a politician.
Consider all that the Senator did in his speech to remain true to himself:

1. He acknowledged an unpopular President who is a millstone around his neck, showing respect for the office of the Chief Executive without embracing the man himself.
2. He spoke about our need to serve the country.
3. He criticized his own party for their behavior while holding power over the last eight years. (There were times I wondered, "Are you actually addressing the party that chose you as their standard bearer?" It was an astonishing display of candor.)
   
4. He spoke humbly about his own particular story as a prisoner of war, and not in a self-aggrandizing way. He ultimately turned his story to the service of others, those who supported him in the Hanoi Hilton. There have been times lately that I found his references to his captivity downright cloying and even dishonorable, as when he tried to rationalize how he didn't know how many homes he owned on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno. However, he redeemed himself to me last night.)
   
5. He was comfortable with showing his own fragility as a human being, calling himself "an imperfect servant" of his country.

Was the speech effective? Apparently not to many, who said he muffed the opportunity to give specific examples of how he would work with the Democrats, or how many of his proposals were rehashed from Bush 2000. But for me, the self-deprecation and raw emotion that enveloped his vivid description of his capture and his captivity moved me. In a week of speeches that I found to be overblown, mean-spirited and divisive, it was a welcome change for me.

How Did Gov. Palin Do as a Toastmaster?

I sat there as dispassionately as possible last night as Governor Sarah Palin addressed the Republican National Committee. I wondered how I might evaluate her if I were hearing her at a Toastmaster event (disregarding the fact that most of those prepared speeches are five to seven minutes in length). I'm reading a lot of feedback today, but, predictably, they fall along partisan lines. But the focus of this blog is communication, not politics. So here are my thoughts on her speech.

OBJECTIVES CLEAR?: There were several objectives that came out of this speech:

1. Introduce herself to the public.
2. Show support for John McCain for President.
3. Address the criticisms of her background.
4. Display her values.
   

ORGANIZATION: The organization of the speech was a bit haphazard, veering from one point to another. Part of that was the scatter shot nature of her objectives. That was a lot of territory to cover in one speech. Most other political speeches tend to be more focused. For example, on the previous night, former Sen. Fred Thompson could concentrate on the differences between McCain and Obama. He did not have to speak about himself at all. Palin's goals were more wide-ranging, so harder to embrace.
CONFIDENCE and DIRECTNESS: Superb. There was nary a stumble or evidence of lack of confidence in her delivery or eye contact. There was an aspect of her speech that made me feel she was speaking to me. She is a natural.
USE OF LANGUAGE: Satisfactory at best. Part of that is due to the fact that she was addressing an eager audience with low expectations. They really wanted her to come on strong. Still, compared to what we have heard from other speakers, there was no soaring language in this speech. Also there were no clever turns of phrases. When her words were memorable, it was due more to her sarcastic and attacking tone than the wordsmithing. (Compare to a very good phrase that Bill Clinton had in his speech to the Democrats, and I paraphrase: "People around the world at one time knew us better by the power of our example than from the example of our power.")
USE OF BODY: Limited. After all, she was at a podium, and she was dependent on the TelePrompTer. But others also face that burden and handle it better than she did. For example, she did not use her hands to her advantage.
VOCAL VARIETY and TONE OF VOICE: I found her voice grating and nasal. Also, she had a quality that was a nightmare for many women, unfortunately -- when her voice rose, it became shrill. Still, she registered some differences in her voice between talking about her family, her husband, McCain and Obama.
AUDIENCE RESPONSE: Powerful, but come on! It was the most receptive audience she will ever face in her life!
OTHER FACTORS: Palin was not served well by the constant interruptions in which her family were introduced. It took the focus off of her. While the home-town crowd of the RNC may have eaten it up, it was tedious to those of us watching at home.
OBJECTIVES MET?: A strong performance in this area. She revealed herself as a viable candidate and looked strong up there. The audience in the room went crazy It was a most auspicious coming out party. However, it remains to be seen how the audience across TV Land bought her act.
WHAT DID THE EVALUATOR PARTICULARLY LIKE ABOUT THE SPEECH?: Her confidence. Her preparedness in a relatively short amount of time. The ability to use and deliver words that were obviously not her own.
WHAT RECOMMENDATIONS CAN THE EVALUATOR MAKE FOR THE FUTURE:
Palin needs to make sure the act doesn't wear thin. Speaking powerhouse Patricia Fripp warns that the greatest enemy of a speaker is sameness. Last night's performance played well to her core audience, but she has many different people to win over. She runs the risk of appear one-dimensional is she doesn't start using more inspirational language.

The High Cost of Speaking Up

God, how I dread these times. This political season is bound to be filled with all kinds of hard feelings that come from hard words spoken harshly. I was thinking about this when I came across a good blog entry by Laura Benjamin titled "8 Reasons Why People Don't Speak Up." She wants to express why she thinks John McCain's choice of Sarah Palin is a politically brilliant move (and I agree that it was very clever and could be a game changer in the election). But she won't for a number of reasons, such as retribution from others, being branded as politically incorrect, being branded as "different," and more.

I couldn't agree more. Over the years, I have been rebuked and accused of being "too liberal," "too conservative," "too corporate," against the defense of our country, too willing to excuse the military/industrial complex, insensitive to women, a pantie waist feminist, .... The list goes on. Hm, I have a wide range of views there. I must be a schizophrenic.

As a professional communicator, I am shocked at how resistant people are to information that doesn't fit their paradigm. A good example are the proclamations of entertainer Rush Limbaugh. I really try to listen to his program every once in a while, but within 15 minutes, I usually hear about 10 things that I know to be factually untrue. (See The Way Things Aren't on the nonpartisan website FAIR for more on the unknowing utterances of Rush.) His fans, the "ditto heads" (could they have accepted a more self-loathing term?) jump immediately to his defense, facts be damned.

And I'm not criticizing only the right side of the political spectrum. When David Souter was being considered for the Supreme Court more than 20 years ago, a co-worker said that we needed to oppose him because he had no paper trail (i.e., it wasn't clear how he stood on certain issues). I asked why that was a problem, and the co-worker responded that Souter was a threat to the right to an abortion. I pointed out that many men people behaved differently once they put on those judicial robes, and their subsequent records on the Supreme Court can be quite unpredictable. For example, Hugo Black was once a member of the Ku Klux Klan, but became a passionate defender of civil rights. Earl Warren, the poster child of judicial activism, was nominated for the job because he was an arch conservative in California. His tenure on the Court was the exact obvious of whatever was expected. So I assured my friend that his case was a hard one to make, given the absence of information.

He looked at me contemptuously and said, "Well, it's obvious that you don't care for a woman's right to choose!"

Huh? I said nothing about that issue. All I said was that Supreme Court nominees are hard to predict. But it wasn't what he wanted to hear. I guess because I wasn't with the guy, I was against him. That long-ago discussion was a harbinger of what we learned over the last several election cycles: Nuance doesn't mean much in national elections. Broad, bumper sticker slogans, whether it's "a woman's right to choose" or "my right to own a gun," play much better. (Oh, for the record, I was right about the unpredictability of David Souter. He became a key supporter of abortion rights, and a subsequent thorn in the side of the Republicans who nominated him for the bench.)

This is an important election, but every election is important. We never know the situations Presidents will face (or the situations they will get us into). We need to determine to the best of our ability whether they have the requisite judgment to make wise decisions. So we have to air all the dirty little issues that are forbidden in polite company. Does Barack Obama really have enough experience? Does getting shot down in Vietnam really qualify John McCain as Commander in Chief? Given that fully ONE THIRD of all U.S. Vice Presidents have ascended to the Oval Office, do we want Joe Biden or Sarah Palin as our possible Chief Executives? Which of these two is truly more qualified?

These are important issues. And we should be able to discuss them in our personal exchanges without resorting to name-calling, taking observations out of context to ascribing an entirely different meaning to them, or writing someone off as "out of touch" (which BOTH sides do). Until then, I don't blame us for not wanting to discuss these issues in public. The costs to our relationships, our reputations and even our self-esteem are much too high.

NETWORKING: More Than Linking In or Twittering

I cannot hammer a nail, so if you gave me power tools, I would probably be dangerous. On the other hand, I am a facile writer. But if I wasn't, all the Spell Check and Grammar Check wouldn't give me the ability to construct a sentence.

I was reminded by that in a recent speech by nationally known networker Peter Shankman, founder and CEO of The Geek Factory, Inc., a boutique PR firm in New York City. At a recent PRSA event in Philadelphia, Peter pointed out that if you are a lousy networker -- e.g., if you go to an event and can't meet or connect with people -- social media will not help you. As I review Peter's background, I realize that he knows of what he speaks. This is a guy who raised the money for his first agency by selling T-shirts. (He capitalized on the success of the film "Titanic." He printed a picture of the boat with the words, "It Sank! Get Over It!" What a way to make a buck, but he has an agency and I don't.)

PR Week Magazine has described Peter as “redefining the art of networking,” and that was obvious in his energetic, presentation. While he know Peter for his ability to use press relations, marketing and advertising to get his word out, he is particularly adept at connecting with people. His talk inspired me to dig a little deeper into using social media. Here are some suggestions:

1. DETERMINE YOUR OBJECTIVES - Do you want to find a job? Find customers? Find employees? Build friendships? All worthy goals. As in most communications, know your objectives.
2. IDENTIFY YOUR TARGET - Once you know who you want to reach, what do you want them to know about you? What should they do with this information? And how will they find you?
3. MEASURE HOW MUCH INFORMATION YOU WANT TO SHARE - Think about how much information you want to share. How much detail will you go into? Do you want to share private information? Decide, and then stick with it.
4. PICK YOUR STYLE, AND BE CONSISTENT WITH IT - If you want to be approachable, write in the first person. If you want to be more formal, write in the third person.Whatever style you want, project it.
5. DON'T FORGET IT'S THE WEB; THINK IN TERMS OF KEY WORDS - As in other web-based marketing, you need to use the phrases that are most relevant to your objectives and your target audience. Google searches social media, too.

I know this is high level, so I encourage you to search your various social media and check out their capabilities. I can only tell you that I have connected with long-lost friends and colleagues through the social media, and I have made new friends and contacts. I get lots of questions answered, and I share my own experiences (yeah, like I need even the slightest provocation to express my opinion on something). And then get out to some parties, shake some hands, and also connect in person.

Choices in Our Voices

Now here's a different story to consider: A Canadian woman started speaking in a new accent after suffering a stroke. It seems that there is a condition called "foreign-accent syndrome," which results from neurological events. The condition causes vocal distortions, and voila! The speaker has a new, "foreign" accent. In this lady's case, it was an accent from a region with which the patient had no real previous contact. And even though she has undergone speech therapy, the accent survives years later.

As someone who has suffered from a Philadelphia accent my whole life (yes, I use "suffer" with tongue firmly in cheek), it makes me wonder -- Do I speak the way I do because of linguistics habits? Is it due to my exposure to others? Or is it related to my brain's wiring?

Is speaking skill even tied to intelligence or brain function? I always love Orson Welles's voice and speaking ability. Was that due to his superior intellect, first evidenced as a child prodigy, later proven by his brilliant directorial debut at age 25 in Citizen Kane?

In my mind, this point is somewhat like the argument of "nature versus nurture," the question of whether heredity or environment shapes us. I have always come down on the side of nature -- i.e., our innate qualities trump our surroundings -- and I believe this is further evidence. A cerebral event reshaped this woman's brain, and her speech changed. Based on this, I feel that we all pretty much retain the voices we get, barring minor refinements from coaching. And like many other factors in our lives, we can recognize and appreciate the uniqueness of our individual voices. Gone are the days when potential broadcasters need to speak like each other. Now we can sound like ourselves, as long as we are understandable.

What do you think? Do we have diversity in our voices, our vocal patterns and our speaking styles? I'd love to hear particularly from speech pathologists and other professionals.

Diamond Days - Lessons From a Star

Last night I saw Neil Diamond in concert, and let's say it flat out - he was terrific. I must admit I went into the concert with some trepidation. I have seen Diamond perform like a parody of himself, growling through songs, sometimes "talk-singing" them like a modern day Rex Harrison. But he was in fine form last night. Including his encore, he sang energetically for two hours straight. (As an amateur singer myself, I can testify that this is no mean feat for a 67-year-old performer.) He adjusted his singing to compensate for the fact that he seems to have lost part of his low end of his vocal range - an unusual occurrence for a mature man; it's usually the high notes that go first.

Diamond was supported by top-notch instrumentalists and back-up singers, as well as savvy staging and lighting that was always interesting without being intrusive. Even though he recently had his first number one album of his career, "Home Before Dark," he sang very few songs from it, sticking largely with his hits. The concert was a celebration of his long and distinguished career as a songwriter/singer, delivered with fondness for his loyal audience and youthful exuberance. In short, he sounded like the Neil Diamond of old, rather than "the same old Neil Diamond."
I often gain inspiration from performers who teach me a few lessons that I can apply to my public speaking. Here is what I took away:

1. STICK TO YOUR STRENGTHS -- Generally speaking, Diamond has changed his style very little over the years, absent his awful Christmas albums and his pandering evocation of the movie "E.T." with the equally awful song, "Heartlight." You know what you get with him, and that has made him a reliable, steadfast star in the theatrical firmament. (Refer back to similar lessons in my posting on the great Tony Bennett.) Similarly, we should all find our own strengths as speakers and emphasize them. If you're a good writer, write excellent content that will give your audience phrases to remember. If you're funny, deliver your message with humor. If you're down to earth, an "everyperson," in a manner of speaking, then speak plainly rather than in a stentorian style that does not suit you.
   


2. DANCE WITH THE GIRL WHO BROUGHT YOU -- Ninety percent of the songs Diamond sang last night were his hits. He sang no more than three songs from "Home Before Dark," which were received well and politely. But when the familiar intros for his biggest hits were introduced, whether it was "Sweet Caroline," "I Am, I Said," or "Coming to America," the crowd was on their feet. Those were the songs they really wanted to hear. Similarly, as we learn which content works for us, we should repeat them unapologetically, though cognizant of the need to package it in a fresh manner.
   


3. SHOW APPRECIATION FOR YOUR AUDIENCE BY BEING PROFESSIONAL -- Many former stars have been known to sleepwalk through their performances as though the audience should be honored by their mere presence. Diamond had no opening act and sang nonstop. He also obviously prepared for this show with a tight band, by keeping his voice in shape, and knowing the order of his songs and the lyrics down cold. (Don't take that for granted; some of the aforementioned "legends" have been known to be quite sloppy in this regard, and their fans have sometimes shamefully let them get away with it.) It was obvious that the crowd felt satisfied with what they got. How about you as a speaker? Do you have your material memorized? Is your audio-visual support working, or will it be one more distraction? Do you know your stage well enough that you can use it effortlessly? This is all part of your package as a speaker.

As always, I advise that we speakers look to a variety of artists in other media for tips that will enhance our abilities as speakers. I believe that such attention to excellence can only raise the level of our profession

Experts Should Be the Sources of Our Information

Oh, how we love to skewer our experts. It makes us feel so... superior. After all, aren't we the country who loves to pick our Presidents based on how much we'd like to have a beer with them? Of course we do. On the other hand, those smart, confident guys, who look and act Presidential are just so elitist!

Just recently, Senator John McCain got all pissy because economists put down his gasoline tax abatement for the summer as a gimmick. He harrumphed that these were the same economists who missed the subprime mortgage mess and besides, "if you laid all the economists in the world end to end, they still couldn't reach a conclusion." No attribution to George Bernard Shaw for that hoary chestnut.

On the other hand, let's look at the recent cover story of FORTUNE magazine. It features Meredith Whitney, an analyst with Oppenheimer & Co., who predicted the credit meltdown a year ago. She called downturns at Citigroup, Bank of America, Lehman Brothers and United Bank of Scotland. Hence, the article's author calls her "the most influential stock analyst in America."

Now she calls for even worse trouble ahead - a big recession down the road. Who am I to believe - an obvious expert with a proven history of success or a legislator given to rehashing a century old gag?

My point is that many of us are so given to believing only what we want to believe that we disregard the people who should really know. Senator McCain was absolutely wrong in his assertion - I read of MANY economists and financial experts were scratching their heads in wonder at the huge run ups in mortgages to overextended home buyers. (Apparently, Phil Gramm was not one of them, but I digress....) And back in the 1990s, those same observers saw that the tech boom was unfounded, correctly predicting its eventual crash.

Why believe the testimonies of Government insiders about the run-up to the war in Iraq when a fat blowhard on the radio who acts as my surrogate blusters otherwise? Let's set the Wayback Machine even further back, Sherman, to the early 1980s, when Meryl Streep raised all kinds of concerns about the chemical Alar in our kids' apple juice. Her high-profile Senate testimony, caused a lot of concern and knitted brows. I grant Ms. Streep the best of intentions, but that particular case turned out to be much ado about nothing. I submit it would have not gone so far had it not been for her celebrity.

The danger is a Gresham's Law of knowledge, where bad information drives out the good. I am hearing this occasionally in Toastmasters' speeches, where up-and-coming speakers are making dogmatic statements with no reference to their sources. This practice is bound to be a habit for which they will suffer when they speak in the big, bad real world. (To their credit, I am hearing other good and experienced evaluators catch these misstatements and challenge the speakers.) Certainly we are hearing it in the body politic, where there are more independent fact checkers reviewing public statements than ever before.

So for all of us who make our living communicating, along with other nascent communicators, we should all remember:

1. Respect Real Knowledge - look to the true experts in their given fields, who usually do not include actors, broadcasters and religious leaders (unless, of course, these people are discussing acting, broadcasting and theology, respectively)
2. Research - look for your facts; don't presume that you have them already.
3. Fact Check - challenge even your most cherished beliefs.
4. Have Others Review Your Work Beforehand - better to have your friends find your errors than your foes.

A Lesson In Sound Biting - Barack in Berlin

Barack Obama may be accused of criticizing America in Europe. He will have no one to blame but himself.

I read the full text of Obama's famously received speech in Berlin. As usual, it was a masterpiece of oratory, with soaring phrases and a powerful yet graceful delivery. Here are some examples:

• SPEAKING OF COURAGE: "...(T)he people of Berlin kept the flame of hope burning. The people of Berlin refused to give up. And on one fall day, hundreds of thousands of Berliners came here, to the Tiergarten, and heard the city's mayor implore the world not to give up on freedom. 'There is only one possibility,' he said. 'For us to stand together united until this battle is won...The people of Berlin have spoken. We have done our duty, and we will keep on doing our duty. People of the world: now do your duty.' People of the world, look at Berlin!"


• ON U.S. CONTRIBUTIONS TO DEFENSE: "...(J)ust as American bases built in the last century still help to defend the security of this continent, so does our country still sacrifice greatly for freedom around the globe."


• ON COOPERATION: "In this new century, Americans and Europeans alike will be required to do more, not less. Partnership and cooperation among nations is not a choice; it is the one way, the only way, to protect our common security and advance our common humanity. That is why the greatest danger of all is to allow new walls to divide us from one another."

But these are not the words I heard. Instead nearly every newscast I heard, even among the so-called liberal, drive-by media, carried this excerpt: "I know my country has not perfected itself. At times, we've struggled to keep the promise of liberty and equality for all of our people. We've made our share of mistakes, and there are times when our actions around the world have not lived up to our best intentions."

So those who wish to impugn Obama will be able to say with some small measure of legitimacy, "He went overseas and used the occasion of his speech to talk about the mistakes our country has made. Doesn't Sen. Obama love America? If he does, then why would he criticize us to others?"

If that happens, Obama will need to face up to the fact that he handed his adversaries a loaded weapon to use against him. It may be unfair, but it is a reality. I truly believe that he loves America and that he is grateful for all he has gained as a citizen, despite his humble, non elitist roots. But as someone who has felt the sting of third-party analysis, I am all too aware that messengers must parse every single word of their public statements. It is called "staying on message." Here is how I might have written the paragraph in question to defuse its potential damage:

"Like you, my country has tried to do its best to strive for the ideal of perfection. We have always fought to keep the promise of liberty and equality for all of our people. In fact, our actions have always been matched to our best intentions for you and all our fellow citizens around the world ."

Idealistic? Probably. Selective? Absolutely! But the reality is that as he marches toward the election, this is no time to be completely honest, not when foes are ready to take every utterance out of context. And that is the way all of us in external communication must prepare. The electronic media does not live on banquets of information but on sound bites. A newscast is made up of such 20-second clips. We must know our messages, state them at every opportunity, and not deviate from them.

Again, read the full text of Obama's Berlin speech, and consider whether that is the message that you received. Then let's plan to discuss this again closer to the election, along with Mrs. Obama's statement that "for the first time in my adult life I am proud of my country." That one's sure to be a crowd-pleaser!

Communicating Takeaways - How Little is "Too Much?"

The latest issue of Knowledge@Wharton - for me, a great resource for all kinds of business information - just published an article titled, "'Don't Touch My Perks': Companies That Eliminate Them Risk Employee Backlash." It starts off by discussing how Google decided to "dramatically raise" the price of its day care program, and employees WEPT when they heard the news. (I'm not sure these folks would receive too much sympathy in Detroit, but that's another story).

According to Wharton management professor Nancy Rothbard, "Once you have the perk, to take it away is seen as a violation of a psychological contract you have with your employee."

Here, Here. As the old song goes, little things mean a lot. I once worked for a company named Shared Medical Systems, which was acquired by Siemens of Germany. SMS grew from its three founders to a multi-billion dollar enterprise, but its earlier entrepreneurial roots led to some traditions. One was "Doughnut Day," when the company provided all employees with doughnuts on the last Wednesday of every month. It doesn't seem like much, but when a handful of people are trying to get a brand new company off the ground, it's a nice touch. And it became part of the company culture for more than 35 years. When Siemens acquired SMS, they wisely announced, "We will still have Doughnut Day." Some traditions die hard.

Wharton management Peter Cappelli points out certain perks like Doughnut Day are cheap or may even cost nothing (e.g., casual-dress days), but they don't hurt the bottom line much either, so companies should be careful in the way they handle them. "If you are taking anything away from employees, it's important to explain the need for doing it," he says. "It helps a lot if the need is something driven by factors outside the firm. The need to improve share price isn't going to satisfy a lot of people."

This is hardly a new issue. Think of the benefits that previous generations of U.S. employees used to take for granted: fully paid health insurance, fully paid health insurance upon retirement, pensions, subsidized cafeterias, even mandatory overtime pay. (Yes, overtime pay used to be written into labor contracts - a harbinger of the end of American competitiveness). For those of us in communications, the challenge is how to inform employees of such changes and helping to minimize resentment. Here are some ideas based on my own first-hand experiences:

1. COMMUNICATE CHANGES IN TERMS OF INDUSTRY TRENDS - When I was with GE, which is still a leader in human resources, we announced co-pays for health insurance. This did not go down well at first, as GE was always known as a paternalistic employer. However, GE was also among the last companies to provide completely free healthcare. So we informed employees of all the companies, especially local one, that had instituted the change before we did. It brought down the grumbling at least a little bit.
   
   
2. TIE THE NEED FOR CHANGES TO THE BUSINESS'S COMPETITIVENESS - Referring back to GE, each business unit communicates its own situation. Many during my tenure, such as turbine manufacturing and certain defense businesses, were being buffeted by changes in their respective markets. Once employees understood that such changes were needed to keep those business alive, the employees were (somewhat) more accepting.
   
   
3. EXHIBIT FAIRNESS - If it's one thing that the average employee can't stand is to see one standard for themselves and another for executives or other management. So let them know that the bosses are forgoing their bonuses, or losing their dedicated parking spaces, or paying the personal expenses on their company cars.And if such changes are NOT being shared, well, you have an additional set of issues, don't you? Better look inside your chests and see if there is still a heart there.
   

Practice Makes Perfect English

I never fail to be awed by speakers for whom English is their second language and how they can improve before my very eyes. I meet them primarily through Toastmasters, and that organization's prescribed method of learning to speak seems ideal for people who want to learn English. In fact, this year Vikas Jhingran became Toastmaster's first world champion for whom English is a second language.

I have seen fellow Toastmasters from outside the U.S. progress through each step of the program - the introductory speech (aka Icebreaker), exercises in choosing the right words, varying the voice, and more - and speak better English with each speech. Since it takes 10 speeches to earn the first designation of "Competent Communicator," you can imagine the improvements. Such success depends on certain factors:

1. MENTORING - These members need someone to review their speeches and help them with their English, including such details as pronunciation, grammar, pronunciation, and figures of speech.
   
   
2. KIND AND GENTLE EVALUATION - In traveling to other countries, I am generally treated kindly, but every so often I meet a person who takes pleasure in deriding my mangling of their language, however unintentional it is. I would never want to treat a foreign national that way here. My philosophy is that they are speaking English better than I can speak their language. It's best not only to be instructional at those moments, but treat it as an occasion for well-intentioned humor. Just today, I evaluated a Mexican woman who gave a delightful speech on her first time traveling to America. The only mistake she made was that she said, "I had nothing to eat but tuna cans." I pointed out that she may have had nothing to eat but tuna, or she may have had nothing to eat but cans of tuna. But unless she were a goat, there was no way she was eating tuna cans! She laughed, everybody laughed, and then I pointed out that this was the only mistake I could find in her English. She was justifiably proud of that, and encouraged.
   
   
3. PRACTICE, PRACTICE, PRACTICE - There is no substitute for getting up and speaking. The constant practice of wrapping the tongue around foreign vowels will lead only to progress.
   

The great entertainer Victor Borge claimed to learn English by going to the movies, and his plays on words made him a much-loved, international star. I don't know how easy that is, but I can plainly see that the constant repetition, correction and sponsorship is clearly a proven method for perfecting English in America. I encourage you who have friends who need to speak better English to try toastmasters or any method that will get them in front of an audience.