pizza

The American Pizza Trade Deficit.

COMMENTARY, , , , , , , , , ,

By: Chris Warren.

The news media has been covering the American election process 24×7, with way more attention to Donald Trump than is necessary. In particular, they talk a lot about how Trump is going to ruin the world. He isn’t, but that’s another blog article. Quietly buried in the side stories is something with the potential to be far more ruinous than any politician: An American pizza chain wants to expand into Italy.

I absolutely do not comprehend other nations’ fascination with American chain restaurant food. Even my friends from other countries can’t get enough of it. My buddy from the Philippines begs me to take him to…Olive Garden? My other friend who came here from India thinks Red Lobster is America’s greatest contribution to culinary culture. I’m not kidding.

The rest of the world may not believe it, but we actually do have “real” food in the United States. So why would someone come all the way over here and ask for Pizza Hut? It’s a real WTF? moment. My Filipino friend was not dissuaded when I explained to him that in the United States, Olive Garden is more famous as the punchline of a joke than it is as a place for authentic Italian food.

So I was not surprised to hear that Domino’s Pizza is entering the Italian market. And by “Italian” I mean the adjective referring to the geographical country, not the food genre. Anyone who has ever eaten Domino’s Pizza will understand why I need to make that distinction.

All indicators say that the Italians will fall for the pizza scam. American chain restaurant food is a big deal in Europe, so I’m told. When Dunkin’ Donuts opened its first franchise in Sweden, the locals went nuts over it and even waited in long lines for their 400 calories (give or take) of sugary, grease-fried, carbohydrated American goodness. They give us IKEA, we give them diabetes.

A Domino’s Pizza in Italy is a whole different level of crass. Yes, it bothers me that they think it’s authentic “American food.” Uncle Pete’s Pizza in Naperville, Illinois, was one of my regular stops when I was a teenager and is still there to this day. It’s been in the same location for over thirty years, and they have never gotten any greedy ideas about expanding or selling out. It is a chain with one single link. You cannot get anything like it, anywhere else.

Originality is the hallmark of any culture, and Uncle Pete’s is just one original in a huge gallery of masterpieces. Every American neighborhood used to have its own version of Uncle Pete’s until corporate pizza drove them to extinction. Now the world is being overrun with low end industrial grade grub being passed off as down home American fare.

If you want to see the Mona Lisa, then you have to go to the Louvre in Paris. No one considers a print of the Mona Lisa to be the real deal, nor would anyone travel a great distance and wait in line to see one. Yet with food it seems everyone is willing to accept a much lower standard. Bad counterfeits are not only tolerated, they are celebrated. In a way I can’t blame the restaurant chains as they are only giving the customers what they want, or more accurately, what they are willing to settle for.

It’s puzzling, but if Italians want Domino’s Pizza, then who am I to tell them what to like? I must point out that it’s not authentically American any more than freakin’ Olive Garden is authentically Italian. I just don’t understand why the nation that gave us the Mona Lisa and real pizza would settle for a cheap knockoff when they already know what it means to be an original.

edwin armstrong

The Hollow Vindication of Edwin Armstrong.

COMMENTARY, , , , , , , , , , , ,

By Chris Warren.

History is littered with biographies of brilliant geniuses who let their personal struggles ruin them. The storyline is an old bit: Unable to handle success, they become a party to their own undoing. A twist on this story are the geniuses who kept their personal conduct  on the straight and narrow but were ruined by others. Edwin Armstrong is such a person. His story teaches that great people often have poor coping skills and do not surround themselves with other great people.

Edwin Armstrong (1890-1954) is not an everyday name but we all benefit from his contributions, every day. He was an early radio pioneer who developed regenerative and superheterodyne receivers. The technical details of these inventions are not the point of this article, but trust me when I say that all our lives are better because of them. Edwin Armstrong also invented FM radio. Yes, the same FM radio that’s in your car and home and everywhere.

One unusual Armstrong accomplishment was proving the capabilities of a device he did not invent. The Audion tube (later to become the vacuum tube found in old electronics) was invented by Lee DeForest but it was Edwin Armstrong who did all the subsequent research that led to the practical uses of the tube. DeForest did not even understand his own invention!

“Courts don’t do what’s fair. They do what’s legal.”

But Edwin Armstrong is most known for inventing FM radio, and that’s where his life took a horrible turn. After years of hard work and spending a lot of his own money to build FM radio into something practical and useful, the tables were turned on him when the Radio Corporation of America (RCA) successfully lobbied the Federal Communications Commission to move the FM radio band to a different range of frequencies to make room for television, which was a nascent medium. At the stroke of a pen, all existing FM receivers and transmitters were rendered obsolete. RCA then claimed that they, not Armstrong, had the patent rights to FM radio. A huge court case followed.

By any measure of fairness, Edwin Armstrong got royally screwed. But as my very wise & street smart father once told me, the courts don’t do what’s fair. They do what’s legal. Armstrong spent most of his career in litigation defending his patents and lost nearly every case he was involved with. One of his close associates stated that Armstrong spent more time dealing with his legal issues than he did actually researching radio.

edwin armstrong

Edwin Armstrong’s extensive personal and professional troubles ended on January 31, 1954 when he committed suicide by jumping out the window of his New York apartment. Decades of business related acrimony and legal strife was too much for him.

The epilogue to this story is where the lesson lies. Edwin Armstrong eventually won his lawsuit with RCA. The court vindicated him as the true father of FM radio, but there was no “making him whole” in the legal sense because by then he was dead. His heirs collected a monetary settlement in the millions, but riches mean nothing to a dead man, and they mean barely more than nothing to the surviving family. Unlike celebrity deaths willfully caused by a wild lifestyle and substance abuse (which might be considered a form of suicide), Armstrong badly wanted to live the serene life of a scientist and was battered by forces outside himself.

We can’t control everything that happens to us, we can only control how we react to it. It’s unfortunate that Edwin Armstrong, for all his technical prowess, could not master this common and very effective psychological defense mechanism.

The simple conclusion is that Edwin Armstrong is solely responsible for the decision to end his life. But these things are never that simple. Suicide never happens in a vacuum, and never happens for no reason. David Sarnoff, the president of RCA and the face of most of Armstrong’s legal problems, reportedly stated that he “did not kill Armstrong.”

Armstrong was killed by his inability to choose good people to do business with and his inability to find a better way to deal with the trouble that seems to follow extraordinary geniuses no matter how hard they try to live an ordinary life.

pope francis

Pope Francis Preaches From The Wrong Side Of The Morality Border.

COMMENTARY, , , , , , , , , , , ,

By: Chris Warren.

Pope Francis has done a lot to bring a message of decency and peace to a world that seriously needs it. This blog has said nice things about His Holiness before, and nothing has happened since then to change that sentiment. Still, respect is not blind, nor open-ended. Pope Francis may be infallible in Church matters but for all other things he’s just another guy with an opinion like the rest of us. That’s why l was disappointed and even a little offended when during a visit to Mexico Pope Francis was critical, or more accurately, hypocritical, towards American immigration policy.

Aided and abetted by the Pope, the political left wants to make the issue much more complicated than it really is, but the bottom line goal of building a wall along the US-Mexico border is for the United States to control who comes and goes. It’s not “racist” or “xenophobic” to build a border wall any more than it’s “racist” or “xenophobic” to have a locking door on your house.

A country without a border is not really a country. Pope Francis should know, because there is a very large, centuries-old wall surrounding the Vatican. The Vatican is recognized as an independent sovereign nation where (surprise!) legal immigration is almost impossible. Tourists are welcome to visit, but they better be back on the other side of the gate at closing time. If Francis has a problem with walls & barriers, then he can start by tearing down the one around his own patch of dirt.

What offends me is that Pope Francis stood on the Mexico side literally a few feet from the border and wagged his finger in admonishment at the United States because of American attitudes towards the very controversial but yet very legitimate issue of illegal immigration. And again, I must stress that it’s “controversial” only because the liberal left makes it so.

It was almost as if His Holiness did not want to see that the United States cheerfully takes in millions of legal immigrants every year. As a religious (not political) figure, he has a little more wiggle room to say things. Yet, wiggle room is not a license to forego discretion and context. He knows damn well the USA is more generous and giving than any nation on Earth. When there is any kind of humanitarian crisis or natural disaster anywhere on the globe, no one calls the Vatican for help. They call the United States, and rightly so: The entire world knows Americans can always be depended on to come through.

When Pope Francis visited the United States last fall, I was personally uplifted and encouraged by his being here and he said many words of comfort that touched millions of Americans. Of greater import is what he did not say. I would like to know why he did not go to the American side of the border and give a morality sermon towards Mexico about all the drugs and problems they send over here. Why didn’t he insist that Mexico fix all the internal social dysfunction that motivates illegal border crossings in the first place? Why didn’t Pope Francis tell Mexico, “The Americans have been very, very kind to you. Stop taking advantage of them!”?

I’m not going to be too rough on Pope Francis. In spite of my disagreements with his approach to some issues, I do think he’s a great man and a net-positive for Roman Catholics and the world. But standing literally within earshot of a nation’s border and criticizing that nation’s political process (which, by the way, is the most free and democratic in the world) is in extremely poor taste.

As a Christian and an American, I forgive Pope Francis for his offense. I hope he visits the USA again soon and takes some time to see for himself that a wall may define a country’s physical border, but not the spiritual limits of its generosity and goodwill.

michael spark

High School Swimmer Michael Spark Places First In Character.

COMMENTARY, , , , , , , , , , , ,

By Chris Warren.

A favorite recurring topics here at Twenty First Summer is young people displaying an amazing understanding of personal honor, maturity, and respect for others that reaches decades beyond the few years they’ve been around. I’m blessed to have people like this in my own life and it makes my heart cheer to be reminded that it’s not just me who is the lucky one. High school swimmer Michael Spark is that reminder.

Michael Spark and Rich Fortels are high school athletes on competing swim teams. In a major conference meet, Spark came in second to Fortels, but when Fortels was disqualified because he did not turn his swimmer’s cap inside out to hide a club logo (per high school sports rules), the first place win was given to Michael Spark. Fortels’ coach appealed the referee’s call, and lost.

You heard that right. Rich Fortels, who broke a 14 year old record and finished the race more than two seconds faster than Micheal Spark, was kicked out over a swim cap, or more specifically, the logo on a swim cap!

“He beat me fair and square. He beat me because he trained harder than me.”

Spark could have kept his award and spent the rest of his life telling everyone he was a champion swimmer in high school. And technically, according to the rules, he would have been correct in that belief.

Michael Spark is a sportsman, not a lawyer. He had enough respect for himself and his competitor to see that winning because of a technicality was nothing to be proud of, so he later personally gave his gold medal to Fortels and congratulated him on his win.

Rules may be rules, but a rule is not automatically fair just because it is a rule. Michael Spark knew a printed logo on a swim cap gave Fortels no competitive advantage. He knew Fortels was the better swimmer, and even admitted so. “He beat me fair and square. He beat me because he trained harder than me,” Spark stated, “He out swam me. He beat me on that day and that race.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAtf_c5bOKc&spfreload=10

Everyone who was at the pool that day knew who the better swimmer was. The referee, coaches, and even the governing body that ultimately decided against Fortels’ appeal knew who the better swimmer was. And most importantly, Michael Spark, the kid who had the most to gain and lose by this entire affair, knew who the better swimmer was. And it wasn’t him.

Michael Spark’s remarkable act of sportsmanship and goodwill does not change the official records. He is still the recorded meet winner. But in this story, that’s not the point.

The news media is choked with stories about bratty overindulged kids who expect an award for getting up in the morning. Quiet acts of decency seldom become a top story. That’s why this blog will continue to spread the word about amazing young people wherever they can be found. And there are a lot more of them out there doing the right thing, not expecting to be the center of attention.

Years from now when Michael Spark is an old man, he will not have to live with a nagging voice inside telling him that the records and the rules can say whatever they want, but that other kid beat his ass good. His conscience will not tease him about how the real champion with the forgotten name was over two seconds faster lost only because of some lame technicality that had absolutely nothing to do with who was the stronger athlete.

And years from now when Rich Fortels is an old man, he can show his medal to his grandchildren and tell them the incredible true story of a competitor’s spirit of fair play. He will not have to live with the bitter memory of what should have been. He will not carry the weight of resentment. He can hold his head high knowing that a selfless rival gave back the honor that some goofy rule took away.

Micheal Spark let go of an award that meant a lot to him but he gained the deepest respect of a competitor and countless strangers who heard this story.  Many of  those strangers are  parents themselves and will be praying to God that their kid would do the exact same thing if faced with a similar situation. When kids do something  so profoundly right, it ripples out like the waves in a pool, touching others and serving as a living example that character is an award in itself.

playboy

Playboy Dresses Up To Compete.

COMMENTARY, , , , , , , , , , ,

By Chris Warren.

It was barely a blip in the headlines when Playboy announced late last year that it was eliminating nudity from its eponymous magazine and website. The very first safe-for-work version is out this month. Some commentators attributed this change to new social mores among young men, namely, modern males are less tolerant of objectifying women than their fathers and grandfathers were. It’s a new age of awareness, the commentators opine, and Playboy magazine is simply being trendy just as it has for six decades. Nudity is soooo 1970s.

And for anyone dumb enough to think that neo-feminism made Playboy put something on, let me be the one to slap you back into reality, or at least try: Playboy is keeping up with the times, but not for the reasons the Politically Correct class wants us to believe.

The truth should come as a surprise to no one except ditzy feminists who are daft enough to think modern guys are tapping into their inner Oprah, and perhaps also ultraconservative Christians who think the spirit of Jesus moved across the land and erased natural male proclivity for wanting to look at boobs.

Anyone who ever took a high school marketing course knows that you can’t sell something everyone else is giving away for free. And apparently, someone over at Playboy was paying attention in their high school marketing course.

Twenty First Summer’s official position on pornography is, although it does not make the world a better place, it nonetheless is and should be protected as free speech when it is both produced and consumed by consenting adults.

I’m sorry to disappoint conservative Christians and ditzy feminists, but Playboy going clean has nothing to do with any newfound gender sensitivities or religious revival. If anything, the proliferation of pornography is greater than it ever was, thanks to the internet.

It’s not at all lost on Playboy that there is no incentive for anyone to pay money for porn anymore. As a result, those who still read Playboy really are doing it “for the articles.” Dumping the Bunnies will bring more focus on the writing. The articles always were and continue to be well written, insightful, and thoughtful. Now they will be read without the distraction of sex imagery.

Here’s another reality slap: Playboy editing out the skin is an admission that that the market demand for porn is greater than ever. A lot of guys (and I do mean a lot) who would not consume pornography if they had to buy it over the counter now have that barrier removed via the internet. And they don’t even have to pay for it! Both the embarrassment factor and the expense has been totally eliminated.

Twenty First Summer’s official position on pornography is, although it does not make the world a better place, it nonetheless is and should be protected as free speech when it is both produced and consumed by consenting adults.

What does it say about a society when Playboy, the magazine that inaugurated the “adult media” industry, stops producing the very product that made it famous because the product was such a success that it is now ubiquitous and free? If there ever was an example of being a victim of one’s own success, Playboy would be it

Of more importance than the easy availability of pornography are the reasons why there is such a high demand for it in the first place. Most emotionally stable men will incidentally look at porn because, well, they’re men. Call it a “crime of opportunity,” if you will. Others go through great trouble and expense pursuing a sexual fantasy through pornography to fill an unhealthy void in their real lives.

For the latter, no amount of skin will ever really satisfy their pathetic and destructive fantasies. Reality check number three: Playboy magazine is a business, and not interested in being a psychological crutch. There is no longer much profit in fulfilling unhealthy male fantasies (strip clubs notwithstanding), so Playboy is moving on. It would be great if the men whose pathos built the porn industry could themselves move on as well.

hedy lamarr

The Odd Tale Of How World War II Era Actress Hedy Lamarr Gave Us Wireless Connectivity.

COMMENTARY, , , , , , , , , , ,

By: Chris Warren.

History often takes unusual, sometimes bizarre paths back to an origin, and the farther back something happened, the less known the strange details are. For example: Ask 100 people on the street who Hedy Lamarr was and it would be surprising if even one gives a correct answer. Here’s the kicker: Hedy Lamarr invented something in 1942 that the average person today uses all the time and carries with them everywhere they go.

Hedy Lamarr was about as far from the image of a technical innovator and inventor as one could expect. As a hugely popular actress in the 1930’s and 40’s, she graced movie screens with the likes of Spencer Tracy and Clark Gabel. With such a busy filming schedule, it’s amazing that she had time to dabble in science. Yet dabble she did, and in what might have been one of those Hollywood-esque eureka! moments, Hedy Lamar invented what is now known as spread spectrum frequency transmission.

I know…I can sense my readers’ eyes glazing over. Stay with me a little longer and don’t click away from this page. Lamarr’s invention and personality is relevant to your modern life in ways you may not realize. Much more than someone who both starred in movies and changed the world with her invention, Hedy Lamarr tells a personal story that goes deeper than art and science.

It is very easy to interfere with a transmitter that sits on the same frequency all the time. In World War II this had serious implications for radio communications. All the enemy had to do was find the frequency the Allies were on was on and jam it, or they could quietly eavesdrop and collect intelligence data.

But if the transmitter constantly changes frequencies, and the receiver changes with it, then the transmission is much more secure because it never stays on any one channel for very long. It would be impossible for the enemy to follow the constant changes.

That’s basically how spread spectrum frequency transmission works. Hedy Lamarr, along with a musician neighbor, came up with a device that used something similar to paper piano rolls to change the frequencies. As long as both the transmitter and receiver had copies of the same roll, and the rolls were running exactly in sync, the system would work. The paper rolls were a 1940’s version of “software.” Lamarr was granted a patent on August 11, 1942.

hedy-lamarr

As things went, the US Navy took a pass on Hedy Lamarr’s invention until 1962 when the Cuban Missile Crisis forced the American military to up their technological game. By then the patent had expired but Lamarr’s legacy was secure. Today, cellphones, wifi, Bluetooth, remote controlled devices, security alarms, public safety communications systems…almost everything wireless uses some form of spread spectrum. The frequency hopping is controlled by computers instead of paper rolls and occurs thousands of times per second. The net result is less interference and more security.

Great discoveries often come from unusual origins. There are other examples out there, but a World War II era movie queen with no formal engineering credentials coming up with an invention that touches every moment of our modern lives is possibly the most profound.

Hedy Lamarr died in obscurity in 2000, just about when cellphones became an everyday item and well before Bluetooth or wifi. She did not live to see her invention come into common use, but I’ll bet a thoughtful mind like hers sensed she was on to something that was valuable for more than just avoiding the Nazis. Lamarr was posthumously inducted into the National Inventor’s Hall of Fame in 2014.

And that my friends is the offbeat story behind one of the most important technological developments of the modern age. Perhaps unintentionally, Hedy Lamarr also taught us something about weaknesses in human nature such as doubting others’ abilities based on stereotypes and not being open to ideas from unexpected sources. Hedy Lamarr is living proof that greatness often comes from the direction we are not looking.

Revisiting Progressive Fairness.

COMMENTARY, , , , , , , , , , , ,

By: Chris Warren.

Back in February 2014 my second post on the then brand new Twenty First Summer was about fairness (click here to go to the original article). Since that time, the attitudes I expressed in that article have not changed, but a lot of world events that drive those attitudes has. It’s perfect time to revisit the concept of fairness.

“Each side will claim the other is lying. Each side has a vested interest in keeping the concept of fairness as blurry as possible,” I said back then. That part is still glaringly true. What is different is that one side is more invested in blurring the lines of fairness than the other. I’m not sure what fairness exactly is, but I do know what it isn’t.

Fairness is not taking assets from those who earned them and giving them to those who did not. Where does it say that everyone has a divine cosmic “right” to housing, a college education, childcare, and on and on…regardless of one’s ability to pay?

fairness

While we’re on the subject of fairness, it’s also worthwhile to mix in the issue of “rights” because the two concepts are closely related. We The People have a right to many things. Yet, it does not automatically follow that having a right to something means others must provide it for you: I have a right to speak my mind. Should someone else be compelled to host my blog or set me up with a podcast for free?

If it’s not fair that I should get free web hosting, then I need someone from the political left to explain why. After all, they believe fairness equals the right to make someone else pay for my medical bills, my rent, my education, and pretty much my entire lifestyle. I want to know why the same line of thinking does not conclude that my free speech should be, literally, free.

Here in the United States we have the Second Amendment of the Constitution asserting our right to bear arms. While the liberal left is busy insisting that “fairness” means taxpayer funded sex change operations for convicts and fifteen dollars an hour for people stupid enough to think shoveling french fries is a lifetime vocation (none of this is in the Constitution, by the way), they should stay true to their philosophy and demand that the government issue a gun to every citizen who wants one. After all, it’s my “right,” isn’t it? Liberal logic should have no problem with my request for a 9 millimeter semiautomatic chunk of fairness. And I want someone else to pay for it so I don’t have to.

For American Progressives, Europe has been the role model of egalitarian fairness for two generations. Like all things liberal, the European version of fairness wholly depends on taking from those who earn and giving to those who don’t. Europe is now living up to the late great British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher’s quip about running out of other people’s money.

The Euro Zone which Thatcher strongly warned against is failing, as it deserves to, and Great Britain is seriously considering hitting the eject button from the European Union, an act known as the Brexit in economics-speak. It’s a bit of historic irony when the country that didn’t want the American colonists to have independence nearly 250 years ago is now itself contemplating what without question would be a very messy economic and political divorce from the rest of Europe. I say go for it England, before all that EU fairness sucks the life out of your great and proud land.

That brings me to my last question for American liberals: If European democratic socialism is so awesome, why is it failing? More precisely, why is your version of fairness failing? I’m sure the answer will be at least as blurry and evasive as the excuses for implementing it in the first place.

If I’m Always So Busy, Why Doesn’t Anything Get Done?

COMMENTARY, , , , , , , , ,

By: Chris Warren.

It was one of those days at work when the morning starts off with not much going on, then soon after lunch the floodgates open. Yeah, go figure: An hour and a half to quitting time on a Friday and suddenly everybody wants something. It all would not be so bad if I actually cleared my to-do list. It seems the more busy I am, the less I get done.

The weird phenomenon follows me home. My house is never as clean as I want it to be. The laundry is never totally off the floor. I have a truck that needs four new shock absorbers and yard that needs tending. It’s not that I’m lazy; I spend plenty of time on household chores and no one who knows me will say under oath that I’m a couch potato. I’m always busy yet never ahead.

One of my friends points out, correctly, that I’ll drop what I’m doing to go fix a neighbor’s furnace or fix a flat tire on their car, but the exterior light I’ve been needing on the back stretch of my own property has been wishful thinking for months now. I’m easily distracted. Jumping from task to task without finishing any of them is just activity without productivity. Being busy and getting things done are not the same thing.

I get no traction cause I’m running on ice
It’s taking me twice as long
I get a bad reaction cause I’m running on ice
Where did my life go wrong?

-Billy Joel, Running On Ice

What am I whining about? Everyone is busy these days. I’m not so much complaining as expressing amazement that all the things that make life easier and less busy seem to be working against us. For example, the iPhone that is supposed to be my productivity savior is a constant distraction. Texts, emails, news updates, all day and all night. I’m sure I’m not the only guy in the world who peeks at emails while standing in the checkout line at the store, as if whatever is in my mailbox is so mortally important that it absolutely positively must have my undivided attention at that very instant.

It’s a little embarrassing to admit that all this busy is largely of my own making. It’s not because of fast internet connections that I can’t stay on task, nor is there any compelling reason why I need to check emails while waiting in line. I’m not that important. Really, I’m not. Whatever it is, it can wait. Yet I have trouble letting it wait. I’ve been sucked into the vortex of connectivity. In other words, staying in touch just because I can.

Even without the distractions that come with being hooked into the “world’s largest, fastest, most reliable network,” I would still be a busy airheaded mess. No, I can’t blame my iPhone for the laundry not being done. I could plausibly pin it on the time I spend running two blogs. Writing takes several hours per week that could be spent putting up that light I was talking about. Or cleaning the garage. Or something.

I get a lot of personal fulfillment from working on my blogs, and the benefits writing has on my mental health cannot be quantified. I also find it very easy to dabble for hours in one of my many other hobbies. There is more to life than a completely laundry-free bedroom floor, while at the same time I know that sooner or later, the laundry’s gotta get done.

The same friend who won’t let me forget about the yet-unrealized outdoor light also compliments me on how in order my life is for being as busy as I am. I think he’s being sincere, but right now I don’t have time to mull it over. I have to go crawl under my truck and deal with those shock absorbers, that is, assuming I don’t get kicked off course between here and the driveway.

etymology

The Etymology of Eleven.

COMMENTARY, , , , , , , , ,

By: Chris Warren.

I was scrolling through my daily reads and was pleasantly surprised to discover that my good blogging neighbor Hugh over at Hughes Views & News honored me on his website! In his very flattering shout out he asked, “I’m hoping (Twenty First Summer ) will write a post about why the number 11 is not pronounced onety one?” I’m certain that was not a question for which Hugh expects a real answer, but I’m going to take on the job and give him –and everyone– a real answer because etymology does not get nearly enough emphasis in modern schools. That’s unfortunate, because if it did, we’d have a much more literate population.

Answering Hugh’s question requires a little backtracking to why 11 is not expressed as “one-teen” (the same idea applies to the number 12). Today we use a number system based on 10, but in post-Roman empire Europe, the number system was based on 12. That there is no -teen suffix for the next two numbers after ten is a leftover still surviving in modern English.

In Old English, the terms enleofan and tweleofan literally meant “one and two leftover” (from ten), respectively. The words eleven and twelve are their direct descendants. The teen numbers begin the next cycle. The modern suffix -teen, by the way, has origins in various forms in several early European languages and means “more than ten”.

That’s the quickie two paragrpah answer to Hugh’s challenge. The bigger matter beyond his quip is why etymology and its cousin, linguistics, are obscure sub-specialties that even most college English departments don’t take very seriously. These topics should be regular curriculum starting in kindergarten.

Most people learn words one by one (remember those dreaded vocabulary words in grade school?). It’s effective for what it is, but not very efficient. If instead one learns the original roots and fragments, then knowing all the words that come from them will become second nature.

etymology

Words that are related by etymology to the same root or have a commonality between languages are known as cognates. People with large vocabularies seldom attain such a high level of fluency by memorizing words one by one, as if reading a dictionary. They learn the various parts and pieces of words, then stick them together to make full words, or cognates. They may also go in reverse by reducing a cognate down to its origin to come up with a meaning.

A root term can have dozens of cognates, so it is much more effective to learn one root and extrapolate it out than learn each variation of the word individually. This is why learning cognates is stressed in foreign language courses. There is also such a thing as false cognates, but that discussion will have to wait for another day.

etymology

Now that we’ve humored Hugh and dipped our toes into the deep end of the language pool, the real question is, “How can one expand their literacy with etymology?” The answer isn’t complicated, but does require some effort and dedication.

First, do a lot of reading, preferably at or just above your reading level so you will be challenged. When you come to a word you don’t know, look it up in an etymological dictionary (yes, such a thing exists!). Take a moment to study the fragments and roots of the word as opposed to only the word as a whole. When you come across another word with the same components, try to derive the meaning based on what you know about the etymology of the term. Second, make an effort to use the new words you learn in your written and spoken interpersonal communications. Remember, context counts!

I know this all sounds tedious and slow, but with practice, you will be amazed at how fast your fluency and skill increases. The more you do it, the more seamless the process will become. The benefit is threefold: Larger vocabulary, greater reading comprehension, more effective interpersonal communications. Whether you are a high school student, a multi-degreed scholar, or a small time blogger (like me!), anyone can better themselves with etymology.

Regrettably, the day when etymology and linguistics are taught to grade schoolers is not on the horizon. Until then, I feel like one tiny little voice trying to convince others that obscure English department sub-specialties are worth the effort it takes to learn on your own.

Thanks for asking, Hugh! I hope my answer leaves you and everyone in a better place.

haircut

Getting A Haircut: Leave Your Worries On The Floor.

COMMENTARY, , , , , , , ,

I keep my hair really short because it’s practical. Being a curly-haired mophead may be cute when you’re fifteen years old (and it impresses the girls!), but as an adult whose time is more important than a well maintained mop, I find it so much easier to cut it off and eliminate the need to deal with it in the first place. A #3 on the top and a #2 on the side, please! And no sideburns. As I sat in the barber’s chair today, it occurred to me that getting a haircut is in many ways a metaphor for renewal and starting fresh.

The barber buzzed away and the clippings dropped to the floor. I started feeling better, like I was getting rid of a problem. By the time I stood up and briefly admired my new look in the mirror, I was in mood elevation mode. I walked out of there refreshed and ready. All of this because of a haircut?

Yes. Because of a haircut. Maybe I’m reading too much into it, or maybe I unconsciously tend to stop for a haircut when I’m already in a good mood anyway. Yet, I don’t think it’s a coincidence that I’ve never seen anyone leaving a barber shop with a frown on their face. Is this is why women like going to their hair dressers so much, and sometimes spend several hours there? Do they know something?

My standard haircut takes mere minutes. Guys do not linger in barber shops for hours and hours. We quickly take care of business and leave. The end result is clean cut and trimmed, with a new attitude on the side. A haircut is not just a basic personal grooming habit. It is often part of a ritual, a preparation for something bigger: A wedding, a high school prom, a new job, entering the military, going on vacation. Something good almost always follows a haircut, and even when it is not a prequel to a big event, we still have the satisfaction of feeling cleaned up and fresh as we go forward with ordinary life.

The more infrequent something is, the more special it will be. The good feeling that comes from getting a haircut might not happen if I went to the barber every week. It might not be the haircut itself but whatever comes after it that makes us subconsciously associate going to the barber with feeling a good vibe. The anticipation that something positive is about to happen oozes into our psyche; the bad attitude has been cut down and left on the floor to be swept away.