Post-Mortem Words

Sarah Murray writes in her article, "Death Becomes Us" about different ways that people attempt to honor the dead. More specifically she speaks of traditions around the world in which the dead body is treated as sacred, but the underlying point is that this sentiment isn't even tied to religion, as in the case of her father. Even an atheist man felt the need for his ashes to be spread in a meaningful manner. After all, by all rational logic, all the ashes are nothing more than "crushed pieces of calcium phosphate".

Murray claims that in preserving part of the dead person in question, we allow ourselves to have a continuing conversation with them. There is more to this however, than keeping ashes in an urn, having a skull or finger behind glass, or even an ordinary tombstone. The way we talk with and about the dead becomes significant.

No longer a living entity, the dead are not subject to change. They are no longer fluid beings capable of fixing past mistakes, accomplishing goals, or trying out a new hairstyle. We keep them alive within our memories, and as such must choose, from a basis of available information, the qualities that most closely match how we want the person in question encapsulated. A dead relative well liked may be remembered by their good qualities, minor sins no longer relevant and utterly forgotten. To those who were hurt by the dead relative's actions however, those sins may be very significant, and shape the static image of their now-dead enemy.

This is particularly noticeable among people who were martyred. Think of the rhetoric employed when the name Jesus Christ is invoked. Or the words used when we speak about Ghandi. Or the things you'll hear when you ask about Ayatollah Khomeini (depending on who you ask).

We keep relics of the dead for the purpose of augmenting and maintaining our memories, they serve as reminders of the people who once lived. It is the way we speak about them that truly matters, for it is in how we speak about them that they are forever preserved.

A Tribute to Our Good Friend Steve

There's been a lot of hubbub lately about the death of Apple CEO and celebrity Steve Jobs. There's been just as much hubbub as his incredibly inspirational 2005 Commencement Speech at Stanford.

As a tribute to our techie hero, who brought us wonderful and revolutionary advancements in personal electronics, here is an analysis on just what makes his speech so great. After all, one of his greatest traits was his unparalleled charisma.

Transript and Video of the Full Speech

1. Compartmentalization:

There are three stories he tells. Separate stories, but they unify into one large, overreaching one. The first one talks about meager beginnings and the environment he had before his rise to fame, and adventure and glory. The second, he speaks of difficulties, the plot thickens, but there is hope! And finally, denouement. Jobs speaks of death, and of closure. The three stories on there own serve basis as well, they are personal and yet instructive. The way Mr. Jobs speaks sounds like a conversation more than it sounds like a fancy-shmancy lecture, and we respond to that.

2. Repetition:

Notice how certain things he repeats? He reminds us, "Don't settle". Twice. He talks about connecting the dots in both the first and the third story. These repetitions are blatantly obvious, nor often enough to become annoying, but still present. It is that mere slight presence of repetition that draws our attention just enough for us to remember those bits.

3. Variation

There is variation in the length and format of all of his sentences. This allows for play with rhythm and sound of words, which keeps listeners interested. Can you imagine how unforgivingly boring a speech would be if every sentence was exactly the same length and structure? They say music is a language, but language also can be quite musical.

How the New York Times Shifted Its Stance

This graphic was originally posted by a blogger Aluation. Here are two version of the same article on the recent arrests at Occupy Wallstreet in New York. The first one subtly portrays New York police as the aggressors, whereas an edit twenty minutes later shifts that accusation to the demonstrators. It is important to note that the author was changed from Colin Moynhan to Al Baker and Colin Moynhan in the second version. Al Baker, coincidentally, is the NYPD's bureau.

The difference in the two versions seems to lie mainly in intent. The sequence of events is the same in both versions: protesters go onto bridge, police arrest protesters. In the first version however, police "allow" protesters onto the bridge. Then they arrest dozens. In the second version, police arrested hundreds, after protesters "marched onto the bridge" in "a tense showdown".

The language in the second version implies that protesters breached some sort of rule, marching onto the bridge, and that there was a tense showdown between two forces. Of course the implication is since there are two forces, one must be good, and the other evil, and the police must be the good ones since the protesters were the ones to break the rule. The police were successful at the end of the day, as they arrested "hundreds" which is significantly more than the previous "dozens".

The first version had the two forces reversed, with the police being portrayed as the bad guys for their hypocrisy. The NYPD had "allowed" protesters to go onto the bridge, followed by arrests. Here the police are obviously the bad guys for betraying the protesters, for leading them into a trap.

Reasons for the change? Considering Al Baker's involvement, it would probably be fair to guess to maintain the NYPD as a healthy and just peace keeping force. What actually happened? That's unclear. Even the numbers are unclear; dozens and hundreds are very different estimates. Sure technically if you have more dozens than you have hundreds you might get the same approximation, but that's not the implication of the text.