Some templates to help you communicate better

We live in a world of templates and shortcuts. We send emails instead of letters. We send text messages instead of emails. We abbreviate "laugh out loud," because we can (and despite the fact that it should be "laugh aloud").

We had Facebook, then dumped it for Twitter, which reduced messages to 140 characters or less. Then we dumped Twitter for Instagram, which is photographs for people who don't want to have to read 140 characters. Then we dumped Instagram for Snapchat, which makes photos disappear quickly (by "we," of course, I mean "you").

Similarly, we like templates. Give me a template for a cover letter. Give me a template for an email. Give me talking points. Don't make me think.

The reason for shortcuts and templates? It takes too much time to figure out how to communicate, which is why I have a suggestion for the next step in templates: Speaking templates.

Brilliant?

Brilliant!

They're vague, yet applicable. They give us an idea of what to say and our listener can fill in the blanks with their own experience. The result? We save time and our "audience" gets something interesting. It's the ultimately 21st-century experience: simple, short and personally satisfying.

From a template.

You may not understand, so let me give you some examples.

For instance, someone brings up a subject at the workplace and you want to get a few laughs – by topping it with your own similar story. Under my plan, you would say this (Template 1):

"You think that's funny? Well I once did a similar thing but in a way that was much worse and had a hilarious result!"

People will fill in the blanks. They'll laugh. Each person will feel like it's personalized and you'll be the winner.

Similarly, consider the next time you are called upon to make a public speech. It's crucial to have something at the start that relaxes the audience and gets them on your side. Here's my suggestion (Template 2):

"I'm glad you're here. This morning when I was thinking about coming here, I had this outrageous, but believable experience that ended with something that you wouldn't expect, but when I explain it, you realize the whole story made sense and then you laugh with me and like me!"

People will laugh. And like you.

Another template: The idea of how to express empathy to someone going through a difficult time, since we recognize the difficulty of knowing the right balance of giving comfort and not minimizing another person's pain. So you can say this (Template 3):

"I feel appropriately sad for you in a way that makes you feel like I understand. But not so much that it makes you feel like I am making this about me. I'm really making it about you thinking that I'm nice because I comforted you."

They'll feel better. And so will you.

This comes from my experience of relating with Mrs. Brad. After three decades of marriage, I've learned how to listen to her talk about her feelings. In fact, I recently said this (Template 3a):

"Wow. That must be important. I hope you see in my expression that I am empathizing with you and saying the appropriate, short answer that meets your needs and then makes you smile. I also hope you feel better so we don't have to talk about this again."

It must have worked. She hasn't tried to talk about her feelings since.

There's more to come: How to communicate with someone you just met. How to engage with someone on a first date. How to respond to criticism well.

Templates are great (Except 3a, which didn't work well with Mrs. Brad)!

Brad Stanhope is a former Daily Republic editor. Reach him at bradstanhope@hotmail.com.

How to pick best Supreme Court nominee

There's nothing like a Supreme Court justice (actually, there's nothing like a dame, but that line was taken for "South Pacific," so I'm going with Choice No. 2: Supreme Court justice.)

That became more obvious last weekend when longtime Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia died, leaving a vacancy in America's highest court. (Technically, the Denver City Court is the highest court, both by virtue of being in the Mile High City and because marijuana is legal there, but we'll go with the Supreme Court for purposes of this column.)

President Barack Obama began to consider whom to nominate for what will undoubtedly be a long, arduous fight in the Senate.

The previous longest fight in the Senate was the great Lincoln-Douglas primary election bout of 1858, which went 87 rounds before Lincoln won on a knockout. When Lincoln was staggered early in the fight, the ring doctor asked him for his address and he said "Gettysburg," which led to laughter all around, despite it being five years before he delivered the Gettysburg Address.

Anyway, back to the Supreme Court.

As the ultimate seat for one of America's three branches of government, a nominee for the Supreme Court always brings plenty of scrutiny. Whether it's an examination of previous rulings, any political history or one of the famed "litmus tests" that candidates often face (abortion, gay marriage, the designated hitter rule, the Dick York-Dick Sargent debate as best Darren on "Bewitched"), everything's on the table.

It's messy, but I have a plan.

We want the best person possible on the Supreme Court, so I say let's look at what's needed to be on the court, then find the best person – whether they're a "judge" or a "lawyer" or a "newspaper columnist who overuses quotation marks."

The Constitution, by the way, agrees with me.

You may be surprised, but our Constitution doesn't lay out any requirements for the Supreme Court. There are no age specifications. No need for a law degree. Not even the ability to eat with your mouth closed, which has led to some awkward moments in the Supreme Court kitchen.

Traditionally, of course, presidents turned to judges as their nominees. Seven of the eight current members were judges immediately before their appointment and Elena Kagan was the solicitor general of the United States, a judgy kind of gig.

But many previous members of the court weren't judges, including a former secretary of state (John Marshall), treasury secretary (Samuel Chase), senator (Harold Burton) and inventor of the hot dog (Felix Frankfurter).

So let's look at what's needed. There are four major qualities needed to decide cases that will set law for the entire nation: Sound judgment, the ability to articulate the reasons, the ability to get along with others and the ability to look good in one of those robes.

I'd be willing to compromise on one of those, but no more.

The solution is obvious. Who has to make decisions that affect many people after listening to impassioned appeals from those involved? Who must deal with making a tough call in the spotlight, based on what's fair to others? Who is best suited for the demands of this job?

The answer is simple. President Obama should throw out tradition and embrace practicality. He should spurn a sitting judge and nominate a veteran elementary school teacher to the Supreme Court.

A recently retired teacher might be a good choice (Fairfield-Suisun School District's Judy Engell?).

Problem solved. Oh, the other important answer is Dick Sargent.

Brad Stanhope is a former Daily Republic editor. Reach him at bradstanhope@hotmail.com.

How I avoid Valentine's Day hassle

Today, I'm standing up to The Man. Or being lazy. Or cutting corners.

Whatever.

Let's go with the idea that I'm sticking it to The Man. Valentine's Day? No thanks!

The pressure to participate in the annual celebration of love is strong. You're expected to do something romantic, so it's a lose-lose situation.

If you do something, it's because it was expected. If not, you're a jerk.

I'm (largely) not doing anything today. But I insist it's not because of my jerkiness, but because I'm standing up to Big Valentine, the candy-and-flowers lobby.

Who's with me?

Anyone?

OK, here's another reason I'm largely ignoring Valentine's Day: Mrs. Brad doesn't like the holiday. And in a topic that's either related or unrelated, she also loves cheap candy, which ironically makes Valentine's month one of the best times of the year.

More on that later. But first, this:

A close friend at work is getting married this summer and her fiancé is pulling off romantic moves that make it look like his life is being managed by the producers of "The Bachelor." Roses. Candles. Special dinners. Invitation to take my friend, her mom and sister to dinner. He is living like a character in a romance novel – I half expect him to arrive shirtless, on a horse at the office one of these days.

My reaction? Partly awe. Partly concern that he's setting an impossibly high standard.

I feel like the haggard war veteran seeing the new recruit running to battle while being concerned about his long-term safety. Save a little for the future, son!

When Mrs. Brad and I began dating, I did a lot of romantic things. I must have – I'm sure she remembers, but that part of my brain is taken up by the starting lineup of the 1982 Giants and the lyrics to the theme of "Laverne and Shirley."

But here's one of the best things about Mrs. Brad: Since I started dating her decades ago, she's had a thing for cheap seasonal candy. She likes those orange slices that come out at Halloween. She likes Christmas candy. If there was a July 4 candy, she'd like that, too, as a chaser to Peeps from Easter.

But most of all, she likes the "conversation hearts" candies that arrive in the grocery store every Jan. 2, replacing the New Year's Eve champagne and party favors. They're on sale for six weeks at really low prices.

Since we started dating, Mrs. Brad has lit up when I give her a box of the candy. And when she eats them, it's a production: She reads the heart to me, then eats it. "First kiss," she'll say, then eat the heart. "My love," she'll coo, then eat the heart. I nod while watching the game on TV.

It's an inexpensive way to celebrate Valentine's Day for weeks!

As we celebrate today, allow me to give a little relationship advice.

Be romantic, but pace yourself.

Treat your loved one with romance and respect every day.

Don't wait for an annual holiday to show your affection.

Put Jack Clark in right field and let him hit third (oops! The 1982 Giants got mixed in there!).

Most of all? Find someone who likes conversation hearts. And if you really want her to say loving things to her, just ask her to read the candy to you.

Hot stuff!

And pretend that you're really standing up to Big Valentine.

Brad Stanhope is a former Daily Republic editor who also hopes this column also substitutes as a Valentine's Day gift for Mrs. Brad. Reach him at bradstanhope@hotmail.com.

16 facts to know for the Super Bowl

Today is the big day. After months of commercials, official reviews, helmet-to-helmet hits and more commercials, it's Super Bowl Sunday.

Peyton Manning will be on TV almost as much as he is in games when he doesn't play – on those omnipresent Nationwide Insurance commercials.

If you're a fan, you already know about the Broncos and Panthers, who play today. If you're not, you're in the right place.

This is where you can learn all you need to know about the event, teams and players in Super Bowl 50 in lovely Santa Clara.

Here are 16 facts, since the greatest player in Super Bowl history was No. 16: David Woodley of the 1982 Dolphins.

Hah hah, fooled you. It was Joe Montana. Not on the 1982 Dolphins, though. He was the greatest No. 16.

Anyway, here are the 16 facts, some of which might be true:

• Manning, Denver's quarterback, started his NFL career in 1998. That means he started his career in the same millennium as the American Revolution.
• The teams may experiment today with a rule that a failed replay challenge results in the responsible coach being punched in the stomach by the opposing coach while standing at the 50-yard line.
• Super Bowl IV was the first time with an individual performer at halftime. It was Carol Channing. Seriously. Carol Channing.
• Manning started his NFL career in 1998. That means he started his career a millennium when Carol Channing performed in a Super Bowl halftime show. Carol Channing!
• Carolina quarterback Cam Newton ranks fourth on the "Greatest Newtons" list, behind Sir Issac, Wayne and Fig.
• Denver, the hometown of the AFC Champion Broncos, is actually 5,280 feet above sea level, which is why it's nickname is "The 1.609-Kilometer-High City."
• Carol Channing. Seriously. And she was in the Super Bowl halftime show again two years later. Twice!
• The term "sack," which means tackling the quarterback behind the line of scrimmage, comes from the early practice of grabbing quarterbacks, stuffing them in burlap bags and keeping them there the rest of their natural lives. That practice ended in 1983.
• Broncos cornerback Aqib Talib is not only the greatest rhyming name in the NFL, it's a sure winner in "hangman."
• CBS will broadcast today's Super Bowl. Ironically, CBS is the network that broadcast "I Love Lucy" in the 1950s. It's also quite possible that I don't know what "ironically" means. Which might be ironic. But maybe not.
• Manning started his NFL career in 1998. That means he started his career in the millennium that "I Love Lucy" was on CBS.
• The NFL decided to call the game "Super Bowl 50" instead of using a Roman numeral because Roman numbers only go up to 49. In ancient Rome, anything greater than 49 was called "Magnum Numerus."
• Manning started his NFL career in 1998. That means he started his career just one millennium after the one that saw the height of the Roman Empire.
• Super Bowls are the 21 most-watched TV programs in American history. The 22nd-most-watched program was that "Gilligan's Island" episode where they almost got off the island, but Gilligan fouled it up. I think.
• The character of "Gilligan" was played by Bob Denver, who is the namesake of one of the NFL teams in today's game: Yes, Charlotte, North Carolina, is named after Bob Denver.
• Manning started his NFL career in 1998. That means he started his career in the same millennium as the invention of the printing press, which made the printed version of this column possible.

Brad Stanhope is a former Daily Republic editor. Reach him at bradstanhope@hotmail.com.