Living in the Present with John Prine is a memoir by Tom Piazza

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On April 14, 2020 I blogged about Remembering John Prine – a great storyteller. There is an article by Tom Piazza in the Oxford American on October 8, 2018 about that singer-songwriter titled Living in the Present with John Prine. John selected Tom to write a memoir with the same title – a 2025 book Living in the Present with John Prine. Near the end, on pages 157 to 160 his lead guitarist Jason Wilber described John’s combination of abilities:

 

“John loved performing, for sure. He had a really …I want to say he had a natural talent for it, but that, I think, underplays what I’m trying to communicate. I’ve said this before, to other people, but I feel like I stood there with John onstage for twenty-four years, and watched him do a magic trick over and over … and over. It always worked, he pulled it off every time, and I still don’t know how he did it. He had this ability to communicate on an emotional level through his writing. ‘How in hell can a person go to work in the morning, come home in the evening and have nothing to say?’ I don’t think there was a time I heard him sing that line onstage that at least one person in the audience didn’t cry out, and go ‘Whooo!’ or respond in some way, and usually lots of people. Think about that. That’s not, like, a normal thing. You know what I mean? That line is not asking you to comment in some way. It’s not saying, like, ‘Hey, everybody put your hands in the air…’ It’s a spontaneous reaction to a line that communicates something of such emotional depth and resonance that people are prompted to spontaneously cry out. And I heard that happen over and over. Almost every night.

 

So that’s just the writing part. But he also had the ability to do that as a performer, as a live in-person communicator. He just had this emotional intelligence that was off the charts. He was a genius in his way. And I know that’s not news to you. Or anyone! But that is really what struck me about being onstage with him. It’s not just that he could do a good show, and in fact, if you reduce this to technical execution of music, he was not that ‘good.’ And I mean that with complete respect. But, like, if you just wanted to measure this with scientific instruments, John’s show wasn’t good because his vocal intonation was perfect, or his guitar technique was perfect, or his guitar was perfectly in tune, or because he was making no mistakes … Quite the contrary! But it didn’t matter. Because his ability to deliver the rest of it – the emotional part – was so in the stratosphere that none of that shit mattered.   

 

And for me, as someone who spent their whole life practicing, and trying to learn how to do things exactly the way I was trying to do … It took me a long time to understand that, like, wow, John is actually doing the things that I thought … I thought I was on the path to what he was doing, but now I see he’s doing it with none of those things. It didn’t matter if he made mistakes on the guitar, or he was out of tune. In fact, when he messed up people loved him more. He would make a mistake and people would cheer! Because of a look he would make, or the way he would react to it.

 

But here’s the other part – it wasn’t only onstage. He just had this ability to communicate with people. If you only knew John superficially, you could say, ‘He’s a regular guy. Just a nice guy.’ And he was. But he was also … his emotional intelligence extended into the interpersonal. The same way he could connect with a whole room full of people, he could sit across the table from you – not that he was always connected, because sometimes he would be off in Archie comics land – but when he was there with you he could be really tuned in to you and know a lot about where you were, even maybe more than you knew.

 

He had a pretty good read on almost everybody and every situation. I think that allowed him to trust people … He could read people quickly. He had an idea of who you were and what you were about. He wouldn’t say it, he didn’t talk about it, but he knew. He was super, super smart, in his own way. Not like he knew the atomic weight of water, or whatever, but he was smart in all these other ways that really mattered. I think his talent was in some ways a mystery to him as well. He knew that he had this talent, that he was off-the-charts good at this one thing, but he didn’t necessarily understand why he was. But he knew it. And he knew he could trust it. 

 

I used to think if you work hard at something you can get as good as anybody else. But those things I just talked about, about John – writing, performing, communicating, reading people – communicating with people based on his reading of what’s happening – I could work on them until the end of time and never be nearly as good as him.”

 

A good way to get to know John is to watch ten Youtube videos of his live performances from Sessions at West 54th:

 

Sam Stone

Hello In There

Spanish Pipedream

Lake Marie

Souvenirs

All the Best

Far From Me

Six O’Clock News

In Spite of Ourselves (duet with Iris Dement)

The Jet Set (duet with Iris Dement)

 

There is another article at Country and Midwestern titled John Prine Explains the Origin of “Lake Marie”. And still another article by Clayton Edwards at American Songwriter on October 28, 2024 titled “Midwestern Mindtrips”; Why Bob Dylan Names John Prine Among His Favorite Songwriters Ever said Bob liked Lake Marie best.

 

The 2016 image of John Prine is from Wikimedia Commons.

 

 

Mayor of Nampa, Idaho dies while speaking in public

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

An article by Michael Davis at Medium on January 4, 2023 titled Why Public Speaking ISN’T Your Number One Fear claimed:

 

“No one has ever died from giving a speech.”

 

But on May 31, 2017 I blogged about thirty examples in a post titled Spouting Nonsense – Nobody ever died from public speaking. Sadly, we just had another local example.

 

There is another article by Chris Bradford at the New York Post on March 19, 2026 titled Newly elected Idaho mayor Rick Hogaboam, 47, dies after collapsing mid-speech during town hall. And there is yet another article by Becca Longmire at People also on March 19, 2026 titled Idaho Mayor Rick Hogaboam, 47, Dies After Experiencing Medical Emergency While Speaking at Town Hall Meeting. There is a brief biography of Rick at the Office of the Mayor.

 

 

A thoughtful book by Ellen Hendriksen on How to Be Enough

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There is a thoughtful 2024 book by Ellen Hendriksen titled How to Be Enough: Self-acceptance for self-critics and perfectionists. At Google Books there is a preview through the end of Chapter 2 on page 34.

 

She divides the book into two parts, with fifteen chapters and an epilogue:

 

Part I: Introducing Perfectionism

 1] How We See Ourselves

 2] The Many Salads of Perfectionism

 3] The Beginning of Things

 

Part II: The Seven Shifts

 Shift 1: From (Self-) Criticism to Kindness

  4] Beyond the Inner Critic

 5] The Outer Critic: Us and Them

Shift 2: Coming Home to Your Life

 6] From Labels to Values

 7] Our Forgotten Baskets

Shift 3: From Rules to Flexibility

 8] Rewriting the Inner Rulebook

 9] Why We Turn Fun into a Chore

Shift 4: Mistakes: From Holding On to Letting Go

10] From ‘Failure’ to the Human Condition: Releasing Past Mistakes

11] From Exam to Experiment: Compassion for Future Mistakes

Shift 5: From Procrastination to Productivity

12] It’s Not About Time Management

Shift 6: From Comparison to Contentment

13] Hardwired but Not Haywire

Shift 7: From Control to Authenticity

14] Rolling Back Emotional Perfectionism: Being Real on the Inside

15] Rolling Back Perfectionistic Self-Preservation: Being Real on the Outside

 

Epilogue: Self-Acceptance for Self-Critics

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On page 29 there is a flowchart describing self-evaluation by a perfectionist, which I have redone in color as shown above.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And on page 88 in Chapter 5 on The Outer Critics there is a table contrasting what we say, what we really mean, and what they hear, – which I have rearranged in a color version, as is shown above.   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In Chapter 11 there are two tables showing Heart to Head Experiments, which I have shown above in color.

 

 

Excellent conversations have topics hanging from many doorknobs

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There is an interesting article by Adam Mastroianni at Experimental History on February 22, 2022 titled Good conversations have lots of doorknobs. He says:

 

“Why did some conversations unfurl and others wilt? One answer. I realized may be the clash of take–and–take vs. give-and-take.

 

Givers think that conversations unfold as a series of invitations; takers think conversations unfold as a series of declarations. When giver meets giver or taker meets taker all is well. When giver meets taker, however, giver gives, taker takes, and giver gets resentful (‘Why won’t he ask me a single question?’) while taker has a lovely time (‘She must really think I’m interesting!’) or gets annoyed (‘My job is boring, why does she keep asking me about it?). 

 

….When done well, both giving and taking create what psychologists call affordances: features of the environment that allow you to do something. Physical affordances are things like stairs and handles and benches. Conversational affordances are things like digressions and confessions and bold claims that beg for a rejoinder. Talking to another person is like rock climbing, except you are my rock wall and I am yours. If you reach up, I can grab onto your hand, and we can both hoist ourselves skyward. Maybe that’s why a really good conversation feels a bit like floating.

 

What matters most then, is not how much we give or take, but whether we offer and accept affordances. Takers can present big, graspable doorknobs (‘I kinda get creeped out when couples treat their dogs like babies’) or not (Let me tell you about the plot of the movie Must Love Dogs...). Good taking makes the other side want to take too (‘I know! My friends asked me to be the godparent to their Schnauzer, it’s so crazy’ ‘What?? Was there a ceremony?’). Similarly, some questions have doorknobs (‘Why do you think you and your brother turned out so different?’) and some don’t (‘How many of your grandparents are still living?’). But even affordance-less giving can be met with affordance-ful taking (‘I have one grandma still alive, and I think a lot about all this knowledge she has – how to raise a family, how to cope with tragedy, how to make chocolate zucchini bread – and I feel anxious about learning from her while I still can.’).”

 

I found my way to this article from page 252 in a 2024 book by Ellen Hendricksen titled How to Be Enough: Self-acceptance for self-critics and perfectionists. And there is another more recent article by Minda Zetlin at Inc. on March 23, 2025 titled People who excel at starting a conversation always do this, according to a clinical psychologist and subtitled ‘Conversational doorknobs’ can help you build the connections you need for success. She says to do these three things:

 

1) Ask an open-ended question. Then listen.

2) Choose a conversational doorknob.

3) Mention your connection, but don’t overdo it.

 

 

Elliott Kalan’s 2025 book - Joke Farming: How to Write Comedy and Other Nonsense

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There is a useful 2025 book by Elliott Kalan titled Joke Farming: How to Write Comedy and Other Nonsense. Google Books has a preview with the first 35 pages. Among other things, Elliot was head writer for The Daily Show with Jon Stewart.

 

Starting on page 19 he summarizes his eight steps of voice, point, premise, structure, twist, tone, wording, and audience:

 

“Here is my process, as simply as I can state it:

 

1] Identify the absurdity I’ve recognized in a subject: the seed of what’s funny about it. Then consider how this absurdity would be viewed from the perspective and frame of reference of the comedic voice for which I’m writing.  

 

2] State that absurdity in plain language in order to clarify the purpose of the joke: in other words, the point I hope the audience will take away from it.

 

3] Select a humorous way to communicate that purpose: the conceptual premise that will lead the audience toward seeing the point.

 

4] Apply a concrete structure to that premise in a first draft. Joke structures tap into familiar patterns that help to bring out the humor of the premise.

 

5] Think ‘oppositely’ to find a twist in the structure that yields another, even funnier layer to the joke. (I know, I know … structure gets two points in the process. It’s that important, though it only gets one chapter to itself.)

 

6] Finesse the joke’s tone, making sure its emotional attitude gives the audience the proper cues for how to feel about it.

 

7] Put a final polish on the wording with an eye toward brevity, clarity, and specificity, as well as capturing the voice of whoever is telling the joke.

 

8] Deliver the joke for an audience that laughs so hard you become instantly rich and famous. (Results may vary.)”

  

In his Conclusion on page 775 Elliott reiterates via questions:

 

“Structure: What part of this joke is meant to be funny?

 

Premise: What is this joke saying? How is it communicating that?

 

Voice: Who is telling this joke? Where do they come from? What do they think?

 

Tone: How does the joke feel? How sincerely does it mean what it’s saying?

 

Wording: What’s the best way to use the format tools at your disposal to make your joke as clear and funny as possible?

 

Audience: Who is the joke being told to, and how do they feel about it?”

 

And then he continues:

 

“Those elements are best utilized to answer those questions by following three basic principles:

 

Brevity: Your joke should take as little time, verbiage, or imagery as possible to be told.

 

Clarity: Your joke should be clearly understandable to your audience, and the first step toward that is making it clearly understandable to yourself.

 

Specificity: Your joke gets closer to universality the farther it gets from generality.”

 

You can listen to a 34-minutes interview with Jesse Thorn at npr Bullseye on January 30, 2026 titled Writer and Daily Show alum Elliot Kalan on the secret to writing great jokes.

 

The farming cartoon was adapted from this one at OpenClipArt.

 

 

The role of signposts in public speaking

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There is a brief article by Diane Windingland on pages 28 and 29 in the November 2020 issue of Toastmaster magazine titled Ditch the Notecards. She says:

 

“….Transitions bridge the gap between concepts, helping your speech flow smoothly from one part to the next. A transition also can be a simple signpost such as ‘first…second…third.’ Better signposting echoes previous material in your speech. So, instead of just saying, ‘Second…” it is better to say, ‘The second reason is…’ “

 

Another article by John Zimmer at Manner of Speaking on April 16, 2025 titled Signpost Your Presentation adds:

 

“Immediately after hooking your audience’s attention with a strong opening – something about which I have written in the past – tell them where you are going with the speech or presentation.

 

It is not hard to do. In fact, your signpost need only be one or two sentences.”

 

A third 5-page pdf article from the Sam M. Walton College of Business at the University of Arkansas titled Outlining Your Speech further explains that:

 

“The transition from the body of the speech to the conclusion requires a signpost, or a signal, to indicate to the audience that the speech is ending. The signpost is important, and must be clear without being cliché, so try to avoid overused phrases such as ‘In conclusion’ to signal the end of your speech.”

 

A fourth article by Antoni Lacinai on July 5, 2023 titled Signposts in Speech | A Comprehensive Guide describes how there are three types of signposts: transition, enumeration, and summary.

 

A fifth detailed article at SlideModel.com on February 16, 2026 titled Presentation Techniques You Didn’t Know Existed (Until Now) describes how:

 

“….Signposting is the practice of guiding the audience’s attention by indicating where the presentation is headed and why each segment matters. Most presentations fail not because the content is weak but because listeners cannot map new information on what came before. Signposting solves this by creating orientation points throughout the session.   

 

Effective signposting uses short verbal cues rather than long explanations. Phrases like ‘Now that we’ve established the context’ or ‘This leads us to the next factor’ serve as transitions that mentally prepare the audience. These cues reduce uncertainty; they signal continuity and prevent listeners from wondering whether the topic has shifted or expanded without warning.

 

The strength of signposting lies in its subtlety. When overused, it becomes repetitive. When used sparingly, it reinforces logical order. Signposting is particularly important in technical presentations, financial reviews, and educational settings where concepts build upon one another. It also supports oral presentation techniques in practice: clear speech is not only about pronunciation but also about keeping listeners oriented.”

 

There is a 1-1/2 minute YouTube video at T. J. Walker Success on March 14, 2019 titled What is a signpost in public speaking? A second ten-minute video from Patricia Jenkinson on June 23, 2016 is titled Signposting: Making It Easy for your Audience to Follow Your Speech.

 

 

Chemistry professor Joe Schwarcz explains how the Costco rotisserie chicken lawsuit is frivolous

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There is an article by Vaidehi Mehta at FindLaw on February 2, 2026 titled Lawsuit over Costco’s preservative-free rotisserie chicken ruffles feathers. He said:

 

“Their legal arguments center on the idea that Costco’s ‘no preservatives’ promise is deceptive because it conflicts with how the product is actually formulated. They allege that sodium phosphate and carrageenan function as chemical preservatives (by buffering pH, chelating metal ions, reducing fat oxidation, preserving texture, and extending shelf life), so a reasonable consumer would not expect a product advertised as having ‘no preservatives’ to contain these ingredients.”

 

But when you look up the Wikipedia articles on sodium phosphate and carrageenan you will find neither is described as being a preservative.

 

Joe Schwarcz is a chemistry professor and runs the McGill Center for Science and Society. His latest article collection book from 2025 is titled Better Not Burn Your Toast: The Science of Food and Health. Another article by Joe Schwarcz at the McGill Office for Science and Society on February 4, 2026 is titled The Frivolous Costco Chicken Lawsuit. He begins by explaining:

 

“Let’s start with the fact that sodium phosphate and carrageenan are not preservatives! Preservatives are substances added to food, other than salt, sugars, vinegar or spices, that prevent spoilage by curbing the growth of bacteria, molds or fungi.” 

Then he goes on to explain what sodium phosphate and carrageenan are and how they function. He ends by pointing out that the high sodium content from salting the chicken instead is a valid dietary concern.

An image of a rotisserie chicken was cropped from this one at Wikimedia Commons.