Stand and Deliver

I was talking to Jared about public speaking. By talking, I really mean chatting, as talking seems almost too personal in real life, like you're invading someone's space. Not that chatting doesn't do that too, but chatting protocol allows you to quickly ignore the other person.

Jared pointed me to a blog entry he'd written about public speaking.

I've been doing public speaking of a sort for over ten years. I was a teaching assistant for five years, was a summer instructor for two summers, and taught for five years.

I've not really been formally trained to speak. I suspect this is a mistake on my part, but American education, as a rule, doesn't seem to emphasize rhetoric and debate, at least, not as much as British education, which is perhaps why Brits always sound more educated.

Despite this, I've learned to pick up a few things I do that have helped me. Generally, I try to be impromptu. I want to be able to lecture off the cuff without having to think too hard. One way I do this, and you have to be careful about it, is to practice as I drive. The reason you have to be careful is that talking to yourself is much like talking on a cell phone. It's easy to distract yourself from paying attention to the road.

Having said this, it's worked for me. I present a lecture while driving. As I listen to myself, I notice when I'm meandering off-topic, which is a lot. I've even gone back, after five minutes of blabbing to restart the talk I'm giving, especially if I don't like the direction it's heading.

Useful advice I'd give. Hmm, have a good story to tell. If you're giving a tech talk, it can be useful to tell an anecdote, which, on the surface of it, has nothing to do with the point you're making, but indeed, it makes the point.

I noticed that all the speakers at these tech conferences did avoid some topics. For example, we didn't have anyone talk about, say, Iraq or Bush. I suppose many alpha geek types don't care that much about politics or have been told that people in the audience want you to stay on-topic. Going off topic sometimes has some advantages as it may get people to viscerally react.

For example, there was this case against this guy who's name I don't even want to attempt spelling, for his involvement in the 9/11 attacks. He's been given life in prison with no parole. There are some, most notably the family members of the victims, who feel this is not enough.

Alas, the media has presented the face of mourning that says that the only just reaction to the murder of a loved one is to seek the death of the person who caused this, and this sense is so strong that even when mistaken identities have occurred, those reacting to the tragedy can't shake their fervent belief that someone..must..pay.

One movie that does a very good job of talking about the death penalty is Dead Man Walking. It's mostly the story of Sister Helen Prejean (Susan Sarandon) who has been asked by Matthew Poncelet (Sean Penn) to give comfort. He's been accused of murder of two weens along with his friend. He claims his friend murdered them both, and he was a bystander.

Prejean meets the parents of the girl who was killed. They tell how much they loved and missed her. Then, they discover she's there to support Poncelet, who they know has been accused of the murder, and in their minds, he is guilty. She tries to suggest that forgiveness is appropriate (i.e., the Christian thing to do) and the father rebuts saying that if he has to forgive these murderers, he'd rather give up Christianity.

At least, that's how I remember it.

But that's exactly the attitude that the media has fostered. How many local news outlets would find a parents who would say "he should live, and I forgive him (or her) for this act, but I will not do the evil on those who have committed evil". Like never. I'm not saying this is an easy reaction to make, because it isn't. For most, there's no hurt greater than losing a loved one, and no baser reaction than wanting to inflict that hurt on someone else.

I remember visiting a website that had a video short by Ava Lowery, a 15 year old who is anti-Bush, anti-Iraq. In this knockout of a video, there are scenes of the Iraqi dead. Children maimed. Houses bombed. Overlaid on these searing images is a song with lyrics approximating "Jesus loves me so".

I'd imagine, for a Christian, that this would start off as something completely offensive. As it is, many Christians feel that liberals bash them for being Christians. Even as a non-Christian, it's powerful stuff, and I'm wondering where this teenager is heading with this.

This was reminding me of some song, which starts off with a young kid who is, I believe praying, wondering about the misery of the world. Then, it heads into the main part of the song, sung by the lead singer, and he lashes out against the ills of the world, the suffering done in the name of religion, and in the end, it's back to the young kid singing again. It's riveting stuff because it's about the loss of faith, and that has to be, for someone who believes, something approaching blasphemy.

That's where I thought this video was heading, trying to rile up as much anger as possible. However, it heads in a direction I wasn't expecting. It ends with "WWJD", i.e., "What Would Jesus Do?". Admittedly, thoughts of "What Would Chuck Norris Do?" flitted through my head.

And that makes the message that much more resonant, because it suggests the actions in Iraq are not particularly "Christian", that Jesus would not advocate the killing of enemies. Again, I'm no expert, but that seem to jibe with my knowledge of Christianity.

Now, how engaged are you?

Politics, religion. They can stir the pot. I've digressed to present an example that can viscerally impact.

Admittedly, it's a bit of a cheap ploy. It's like comedians who swear. So much easier to be funny if you swear. So much easier to make people pay attention if you digress on hot-button topics.

And pauses.

That's also good.

Use it sometime.