Booch News is the premier source for independent news about all aspects of the kombucha industry — the beverage that is taking the world by storm.
It offers an in-depth look into the kombucha industry, discusses the latest trends, marketing techniques, news, profiles, and other topics related to kombucha.
I’ll still post occasional updates to Professionally Speaking, but most of my attention these days is on Booch News. Meanwhile, the 900+ posts and 100+ podcast interviews on this site will remain as an archive of useful information.
Javed “Jay” is a Pakistani teenager who experiences racial and economic turmoil while living in Luton, England, in 1987. He writes poetry as a way to escape the intolerance of his hometown and the stubborn views of his traditional father. One day, a Sikh classmate, Roops, hands Javed a couple of Springsteen cassettes (remember those?).
As Javed listens to “Dancing in the Dark,” he has a sudden (“blinding”) realization that there is more to life than the narrow streets of his home town. He finds parallels between the Boss’s powerful lyrics and his own working-class environment.
Wanna change my clothes, my hair, my face Man, I ain’t gettin’ nowhere I’m just livin’ in a dump like this There’s somethin’ happenin’ somewhere Baby, I just know that there is.
The lyrics to Dancing in the Dark appear as on-screen text, flashing up karaoke style, spinning around Jay’s head. Jay begins unironically reciting Bruce lyrics in place of dialogue.
Springsteen’s melodies inspire him to find his own voice and follow his dreams. The songs are fuel that give him the confidence to get the girl he likes, chase his dreams of becoming a writer, and stand up to his overbearing traditional father.
The film captures the zeitgeist of the England of the mid-80’s: Thatcherism, the National Front, redundancies. The teenagers celebrate their freedom with joyful unbridled energy. It has the feel of Bend it Like Beckham and the crazy optimism of Yesterday — two other films that give British Asian kids their voice.
The film, is based on the memoirs of journalist Sarfraz Manzoor, and co-written by him. Manzoor grew up in Luton, had a Sikh friend, and has seen Springsteen in concert more than 150 times. Still photos of him with the Boss appear at the end of the film.
Those of us who grew up in provincial English towns and dreamed of escape each lived our own versions of this script.
It’s a town full of losers I’m pulling out of here to win.
Writing in the Wednesday, October 29, 2025 Financial Times, Amit Singhal of Tarrytown, NY, points out that senior leaders enjoy the services of professional speechwriters, while the “little people” who lack access to these resources,. can now turn to generative A.I. for assistance.
The position Singhal was responding to was that of Jemima Kelly’s October 20 Opinion piece ‘AI is killing some of the magic of life’ who bemoans the fact that generative A.I. is “killing some of the magic of creativity”. Which is surprising for a journalist who has to meet deadlines, that, as in corporate comms, require content is produced on schedule and on point. And if the matter was assisted by A.I., I believe, more power to the writer who makes intelligent use of the tool.
I would be willing to put money on another well-received speech I witnessed recently being heavily assisted by artificial intelligence. Even if I’m wrong, the very fact that the thought occurred to me … greatly diminished my enjoyment. … I can’t help feeling that AI is, nonetheless, killing some of the magic of life. … While yes, I’m sure AI can “boost” or “supercharge” your creativity as countless blog posts, social media threads and podcasts will tell you, it can also hugely limit it. So even if we get to a place in which AI truly does eclipse human creativity, it is this channeling that we must preserve if we are to keep experiencing what it means to be a human.
The European Speechwriter Network has a well-established reputation as the premier group of professional political and corporate speechwriters outside the USA. I’ve just discovered their excellent podcast channel of over 160 talks delivered at past conferences.Three presentations caught my attention.
It’s refreshing that speechwriters are analyzing Presidential rhetoric, in what is certainly a more challenging environment than existed in 2009 when I looked at Obama’s speeches.
From “Genius” to “Demagogue”: How Trump’s Second Victory Shifted the Narrative
Kevin Toolis’s two presentations on Donald Trump, delivered 18 months apart, reveal a striking evolution in analysis. While the core observations remain consistent, the tone shifts dramatically from analytical fascination to urgent warning.
Consistent Framework
Both presentations center on Trump as a “game show president” who transformed politics into reality TV. Toolis consistently identifies Trump’s mastery of attention, as well as his use of “bomb words”.
Trump’s success stems not from traditional political skills but from his rise as a media star. Drawing from Trump’s 14-season run as host of “The Apprentice,” Toolis argues that Trump transformed American politics into a game show where conventional rules don’t apply. Trump’s ability to dominate media cycles, create memorable (if crude) nicknames for opponents, and maintain audience engagement mirrors reality TV production techniques. His rallies function like episodes, complete with recurring themes, catchphrases, and dramatic confrontations. The “stream of consciousness” style that Toolis identifies has him jumping between topics while hitting emotional “bomb words” like “immigration” and “they’re laughing at us”. These keep audiences engaged despite lacking policy substance. These words trigger emotional responses, and his ability to create an alternate reality (a darker version of Steve Jobs’ reality-distortion capabilities) where facts matter less than performance.
The Shift in Tone
The 2023 presentation, delivered when Trump’s return to the Presidency seemed possible but uncertain, carries an almost bemused quality. Toolis calls Trump a “goddamn genius” with grudging admiration for his communication skills. He treats Trump as a fascinating case study, even joking about the entertainment value.
By 2025, with Trump back in power, the analysis darkens considerably. The word “genius” is paired with “demagogue,” daring to compare Trump to Hitler (a view once rumored to be shared by JD Vance.). Gone are the lighter moments; instead, Toolis warns of “darker turmoil ahead” and discusses the historical patterns of how demagogues fall.
From Prediction to Reality
The 2023 presentation’s predictions proved remarkably accurate. Trump did indeed return to power. But experiencing Trump’s actual return seems to have sharpened Toolis’s concern. The January 6 pardons, mentioned in the 2025 talk, transform theoretical threats into concrete actions.
Indeed, the progression from academic interest to genuine alarm reflects the broader shift in how Trump’s rhetoric is understood: not just as disruption, but as a potential threat to democracy.
Beyond Traditional Rhetoric
Toolis’s central thesis challenges conventional political wisdom: Trump isn’t a poor communicator, he operates by entirely different rules. Unlike traditional speeches that mirror reality, Trump creates what Toolis calls “Trump world,” a constructed reality shared with his followers. This approach confounds fact-checkers and traditional political analysts because it exists “beyond truth and lies.”
The analysis traces Trump’s political persona to his 180 hours as host of “The Apprentice,” where he mastered the art of creating an artificially constructed reality. Indeed, I have it on good authority, from a senior video editor who worked on the program, that Trump was made to appear in command of the apprentices despite failing to fully brief them during a first take, and changing his mind at the last minute to choose who he would fire. This required serious edits to the raw video of the contest that led up to the final segment, so the ‘losing’ contestant could be shown to have credibly failed. Game shows, Toolis notes, aren’t reflections of actual reality—outcomes matter less than ratings and entertainment value. This background explains Trump’s theatrical political style, complete with audience interaction, hyperbolic claims, and gladiatorial threats against “conjured enemies.”
The Demagogue’s Toolkit
Toolis identifies Trump’s core rhetorical weapons: sequential incoherence wrapped around key themes, direct syntax with limited vocabulary, and emotional keywords that trigger Pavlovian responses from supporters. Trump’s speeches follow a predictable pattern. Tropes include portraying America as a victim, endorsing conspiracy theories, humiliating opponents with nicknames, and offering simplistic solutions to complex problems. His speeches also contain the unexpected, the bizarre, the rambling. He employs what students of English Literature term a ‘conceit’, which use surprising or far-fetched analogies. Toolis notes: “You just wouldn’t think at the beginning of the sentence that you could end up where he is in the next sentence. So it’s a very novel technique.”
One of the British journalist’s most unsettling observations concerns Trump’s “Teflon immunity” and flippant style. Take his Fort Knox gold example. This was when Trump casually suggested the government might have stolen America’s gold reserves. It illustrates how factual accuracy becomes irrelevant and was offered up as a joke. Traditional fact-checking fails because Trump’s supporters judge him on performance and entertainment value rather than literal truth.
We’re going to take a look, and if there’s 27 tons of gold, we’ll be very happy. I don’t know how the hell we’re going to measure it, but that’s okay. We want to see lots of nice, beautiful, shiny gold at Fort Knox. Don’t be totally surprised. We open the door, we’ll say, There’s nothing here!
Toolis admits that fact-checking this straightforward claim is almost irrelevant:
I looked it up. How many tons do you think of gold are in Fort Knox? 27 sounds a bit small, doesn’t it? Fort Knox underpins the Federal Reserve, the world’s reserve currency, which is equivalent to, effectively, trillions and trillions of dollars. If any other American president said that, basically, the underpinning of the dollar, that they had stolen the gold, then the markets would be in free fall, yeah? And the dollar would be plunging. Now, if you get on the Internet, it’ll tell you that Fort Knox has got 5,000 tons of gold. I did it in 30 seconds.
However, entertainment is always a prelude to what Toolis calls a “rhetorical hinge, where he has these sorts of comedic episodes, and then he’ll just suddenly lunge in, with some conspiracy invective.” The Fort Knox example segues into a dig at government corruption and the need to dismiss 75,000 Federal employees.
Toolis recognizes that Trump operates in a constructed reality rather than traditional political discourse, which helps explain why conventional criticism often misses its mark. The game show presidency concept explains Trump’s focus on entertainment value over policy outcomes.
His speeches are beyond truth and lies. In effect, actually, Trump doesn’t give any speeches at all. He engages in what Wittgenstein would call a language game, conjuring up a ‘Trump world’ in his speeches, in this version of reality. We expect speeches to be a mirror of reality, but Trump’s speeches are a mirror of Trump world, which he shares with his followers and fan base. He entertains them with memes and themes, but none of it is actually judged by reality.
The Dark Patterns of Demagoguery: Lessons from History’s Tyrants
Guy Doza’s presentation at the September 2025 European Speechwriter Network conference, along with the topic of his latest book, offers chilling insights into how demagogues across time and cultures employ remarkably similar rhetorical strategies to manipulate masses and consolidate power.
Universal Patterns of Manipulation
Doza’s research reveals that, regardless of era, geography, or culture, history’s most dangerous leaders share similarities. They range from ancient Chinese empress Wu Zetian to Mussolini, from Goebbels to Eva Perón. All use virtually identical rhetorical techniques. This universality suggests these patterns tap into fundamental psychological vulnerabilities that transcend cultural boundaries.
A striking example comes from comparing Mark Anthony’s speech in Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar (Act III, Scene 1) with Goebbels’ 1943 “Total war” speech. Both close with nearly identical nature metaphors invoking unleashed storms and “the dogs of war.” They are separated by centuries, yet employing the same emotional manipulation to incite violence.
The Architecture of Authoritarian Rhetoric
Doza identifies several key strategies demagogues consistently employ:
Manufactured Crisis: Leaders like Eva Perón conjured invisible enemies even during peacetime, creating perpetual states of emergency that justify extreme loyalty. Her dying plea—”our lives for Perón”—transformed a peaceful rally into a death pledge for a single leader.
Hyperbolic Authority: Mussolini’s claim that “20 million Italians” (an impossible number) were gathered showed how demagogues use absurd exaggerations to create momentum. Facts become irrelevant when emotion dominates.
Ethos Through Naming: Congolese President Mobutu’s self-renaming to ‘Mobutu Sese Seko Kuku Ngbendu wa za Banga’ meaning “The all-powerful warrior who, because of his endurance and inflexible will to win, goes from conquest to conquest, leaving fire in his wake” exemplifies how demagogues construct mythical personas through language itself, demanding linguistic submission from their populations.
Contemporary Relevance
Doza’s work arrives at a critical moment. As he notes, these historical patterns increasingly appear in modern political discourse. Understanding these techniques—the emotional manipulation, crisis manufacturing, and the demand for absolute loyalty—becomes essential for recognizing and resisting the contemporary manifestations of demagoguery.
The presentation’s power lies not merely in its historical survey but in its urgent warning: the rhetorical weapons that enabled history’s worst atrocities remain potent today.
Doza did not mention the orange elephant in the room. Kevin Toolis had already named and shamed that person in his presentation.
Disclaimer
The content of this post is provided for informational purposes only, and readers should verify the accuracy by checking the sources. I highly recommend listening to the podcasts. These views and opinions do not necessarily represent those of this publication. This material was prepared with the help of the generative A.I. tools: TurboScribe, Claude.ai, and Grammarly. A human (me!) did the final edits, and I have not hallucinated since that one time in Haight-Ashbury in 1976 🙂
IBM’s Global Communications Designer, and Bristol, England resident Jeremy Connell-Waite has written an impressive FREE pdf booklet: 109 Rules of Storytelling. It’s available on his LinkedIn.
Connwell-Waite’s introduction explains how the book came about:
Over the last few years, I’ve given a lot of presentations on the art and science of storytelling, and I’ve hosted dozens of “ask-me-anything” Q&A sessions. I kept notes of all the advice I gave out during those sessions. Some of it was good. Some a little questionable… So, for a bit of fun, I thought I’d compile them all into a handy list for you. In no particular order. I’ve called it The 109* Rules of Storytelling – but they’re more like guidelines, really. As with all “rules”, it’s important to know them before you break them. Enjoy.
In addition to the 109 rules (although, since the last one is a reference back to the previous ones, there’s really 108 — something that pleased me no-end since 108 is an auspicious number!) there are dozens of bonus pages with enticing graphics and pithy quotes:
The booklet is a treasure-trove of wisdom that will benefit all executive communications staffers, speechwriters, and presenters. Here’s some of what you’ll discover:
Connell-Waite is not afraid to address one of the hot-button topics in speechwriting today. Here’s #17:
Great storytellers love AI, but they don’t get it to write their stories for them. They use AI more like an “IA” – an Intelligent Assistant – which helps them to research their audience, ask the right questions, and not let their own cognitive bias get in the way of telling the audience what they need to hear. AI is great as a research assistant, or to help you with critical thinking? AI helps you ask better questions. It’s not there to write your stories for you.
AI is a core expertise, as mentioned in his bio “…I train AI models to help people communicate more effectively. That mostly involves building narratives for clients around transformational technologies such as generative-AI, cloud & quantum computing.”
As impressive as the booklet is, I’m blown away by his expalanation of how swiftly it was created:
I collated my notes, messages, and all the advice I’d written in notebooks and on the backs of envelopes. A few bits of advice became a few guidelines… And a few guidelines became some rules…A lot of “rules”. Before I knew it I had 8,475 words. – It took me 2 days to prep & research. – 1 day to write. – 1 day to design & edit.
Wow!
He concludes on a positive note:
Our job as storytellers is to transform those energies into something our audience’s can feel, carry, and act upon. We transport our words and ideas into the minds of our audience. ~ We don’t just tell stories. ~ We light up minds. ~ We ignite hearts. When we send words and ideas vibrating through screens and stages, if we do it right, we can impact companies, our colleagues, and sometimes even entire communities. That’s the kind of energy the world needs now.
Subtitled ‘How AI Will Change the Way We Live and Love’, 12 Bytes builds on themes explored in her 2019 novel Frankissstein that I reviewed in an earlier post. In that review I noted that
Winterson’s genius is not just the obvious foreshadowing of AI that the early 19th century novel explored, but in the rich series of hints of the shape of things to come which, in 2019, perfectly encapsulates today’s debates about ChatGPT and other forms of AI.
12 Bytes is her 2021 take on AI, and a whole lot more. The twelve essays that make up the book share common themes, most involving her views on Artificial Intelligence (AI) which she variously refers to as ‘Alternative’ Intelligence or even IA – Intelligence Automation.
The book suffers from the lack of an index, especially since she covers a vast range of topics – from the expected history of computing (here’s Ada Lovelace, Charles Babbage, and Alan Turing) to the Lancashire textile industry, and transistor radio. Less expected, but central to her thesis, are the Greek philosophers, Gnostic Christians, the Buddha, and sex-bots.
The implications of AI-enhanced sex-bots, designed by men, for men, are judged to be a shallow simulacrum of men’s desires:
AI-enhanced love dolls are sold for sex — that’s why they are made with 3 operating holes, and look like pornstars. But the marketing spiel — both from the sellers and buyers, is all about relationships.
Companionship is part of the package. Come home to her. She’ll be waiting for you. She doesn’t go out alone. Talk to her. AI dolls talk but they won’t answer back, or ignore you, or call their girlfriend to tell her you’re a jerk. They will be polite, respectful, throwbacks to another era.
p.181
Beyond binary
Central to Winterson’s concerns is the challenge of creating AI free of the limits of human binaries (in the chapter bluntly titled ‘Fuck the Binary’).
AI isn’t a girl or a boy. AI isn’t born with a skin color.
AI isn’t born at all. AI could be a portal into a value-free gender and race experience. One where women and men are not subject to assumptions and stereotypes based on their biological sex, and accident of birthplace.
p. 216
However, for this value-free AI to emerge, we need to train it on datasets free of bias:
When we try to teach AI our values, we wont be able to do that on data-sets that reinforce division and stereotypes.
p. 232
Prior Unity
In addition to the promise of an AI free of limiting gender roles, Winterson examines the deeper implications of an AI-enabled future where we transcend all our divisions:
Humans love separations — we like to separate ourselves from other humans, usually in hierarchies, and we separate ourselves from the rest of biology by believing in our superiority. The upshot is that the planet is in peril, and humans will fight humans for every last resource. Connectivity is what the computing revolution has offered us — and if we could get it right, we could end the delusion of separate silos of value and existence.
p.6
This is of fundamental importance:
Reality is not made of parts but formed of patterns. This is ancient knowledge and new knowledge. It is liberating. There is no fundamental building block of matter. No core. There is nothing solid. There are no binaries. There is energy, change, movement, interplay, connection, relationships. It’s a white supremacist’s nightmare.
p. 121
In this, Winterson echos the hopes expressed by the Western-born Spiritual Adept, Adi Da Samraj, who has proposed what he calls “prior unity” as the basis of a new human civilization:
If human beings collectively (as everybody-all-at-once) realize that they are (always already) in a condition of prior unity—and, therefore, of necessary co-existence and mutuality—with one another, and if, on that basis, they stand firm together, then they will be in a position to directly righten the world-situation. The collective of all the billions of people can—and, indeed, must—refuse to go on with the current chaos.
Winterson claims that an AI-enabled future can help achieve this goal:
We know the hero narrative — it’s the saviour, the genius, the strong man, the against-the-odds little guy… As a story, the narrative of exceptionalism stands against collaboration and co-operation (I did it my way). And it overlooks the lives, and contributions, of literally billions of people. One of the interesting things about AI is that it works best on the hive-mind principle, where networks share information. The real sharing economy is not one where everything can be monetised by Big Tech; it’s one where humanity is pulling together — that’s exactly what we have to do to manage both climate breakdown and global inequality. The biggest problems facing us now will not be solved by competition but by co-operation.
p. 265
12 Bytes is an enjoyable, witty, and thought-provoking read.
A recent LinkedIn post by C-Suite Communications & Public Affairs expert Guy Doza proffered a ChatGPT-generated picture of a formally dressed speechwriter holding a quill pen.
The picture caused great amusement among speechwriting professionals. Comments ranged from “Not only is he a he, but his inspiration also appears to come exclusively from hims…” to “Definitely went to Oxford!…should speak with a British accent.” Overall, speechwriters found this both hysterically funny and sadly stereotypical.
I thought I’d offer some alternatives to this bizarre image by asking my favorite generative AI image tool, MidJourney, to create images for the writers of the wedding, political, and corporate speeches I’d previously generated with ChatGPT and Deepseek R1.
This unfortunate writer is most likely a freelancer who probably struggles to find clients in today’s world. More than most, his clients might well be using ChatGPT to craft their own Best Man remarks. He’s down on his luck but still puts in the hours in his low-rent office.
From first-hand experience, I know that this person works in close collaboration with the executives they support. Rather than sitting alone in an office, they are often found taking notes in the board room as the execs discuss strategy. Women such as Felicity Barber and Dana Rubin are leaders in the corporate speechwriting arena.
Political speechwriters occupy pride of place in the popular imagination. While men such as Sam Seaborn on The West Wing might be famous as fictional characters, and bros Jon Favreau and Dan Pfeiffer are contemporary pundits, women such as Vinca LaFleur and Peggy Noonan have written memorable Presidential speeches.
However, in generating these images, I saw one that was straight out of the Kennedy era, when the legendary Ted Sorensen crafted memorable lines as he sat at the table witnessing the defining crises of JFK’s Presidency.
Back in July 2023, I posted a 3-partseriesexamining how speechwriters can use generative A.I. tools like ChatGPT.This week the news about a Chinese generative A.I. — DeepSeek R1 — caused stocks in the shares of many American AI companies to slump. Commentators noted that the Chinese A.I. could “do more with less” — challenging the resource-intensive approach in the States. I decided to put it to the test.
My July 2023 posts concluded with a series of political speeches that asked the A.I. to generate a response using Monroe’s Motivated Sequence. I then asked for examples of rhetorical techniques such as similes, metaphors, synechdoche, and metonymy. Finally, generate alternate versions of a now dated 2023 transcript of a speech on Britain’s HS2 rail program (since significantly cut bask in scope) given in the Houses of Parliament. Full details are in the original post.
Here’s what DeepSeek R1 generated — apparently using a fraction of the compute resources of ChatGPT.
PROMPT: Act as a speechwriter. Create an outline for a speech supporting the building of the High Speed Two rail line from London to the north of England using the structure of Monroe’s Motivated Sequence.
Here’s an outline for a speech supporting the construction of the High Speed Two (HS2) rail line, structured using Monroe’s Motivated Sequence. This five-step framework is designed to persuade the audience by addressing their needs and motivating them to take action.
Title: “Connecting Our Future: Why HS2 is Essential for Britain”
1. Attention: Grab the audience’s attention with a compelling opening.
Start with a vivid statistic or fact: “Did you know that by 2050, the UK’s population is expected to grow by 10 million people? Our current rail infrastructure, built over a century ago, is already struggling to keep up.”
Paint a picture of the problem: “Imagine sitting on a delayed train, packed like sardines, knowing you’ll miss an important meeting or your child’s school play. This is the reality for millions of commuters every day.”
Rhetorical question: “What if I told you there’s a solution that could transform how we travel, boost our economy, and create thousands of jobs?”
2. Need: Establish the problem and why it matters.
Current infrastructure is outdated: “Our Victorian-era rail network is simply not fit for the 21st century. Delays, overcrowding, and inefficiencies cost businesses billions annually and frustrate passengers daily.”
Economic disparity between regions: “The north of England has been left behind for too long. While London thrives, northern cities struggle with underinvestment and lack of connectivity, stifling growth and opportunity.”
Environmental urgency: “With climate change accelerating, we need sustainable alternatives to cars and planes. HS2 offers a greener way to travel, reducing carbon emissions and congestion on our roads.”
3. Satisfaction: Present HS2 as the solution.
Faster, more reliable travel: “HS2 will cut journey times between London and the north by up to 50%, making travel faster, smoother, and more reliable for millions of people.”
Economic benefits: “This project will create over 30,000 jobs during construction and thousands more in the long term. It will also unlock economic growth in the north, rebalancing our economy and reducing regional inequality.”
Environmental advantages: “HS2 will take millions of cars off the road and reduce domestic flights, significantly cutting carbon emissions. It’s a critical step toward achieving our net-zero goals.”
Future-proofing: “HS2 isn’t just about today—it’s about preparing for tomorrow. It will free up capacity on existing rail lines, improving local services and ensuring our infrastructure can handle future growth.”
4. Visualization: Help the audience see the benefits of HS2.
Positive vision: “Picture this: a bustling northern city, thriving with new businesses and opportunities, connected to the capital in under 90 minutes. Commuters enjoying spacious, reliable trains, and families reunited faster than ever before.”
Contrast without HS2: “Without HS2, our rail network will continue to creak under pressure. The north will remain disconnected, and our economy will stagnate. We cannot afford to let this opportunity pass us by.”
Call to emotion: “This isn’t just about trains—it’s about people. It’s about giving everyone in this country a fair chance to succeed, no matter where they live.”
5. Action: Call the audience to support HS2.
Direct appeal: “I urge you to support HS2—not just as a rail project, but as a vision for a better-connected, greener, and more prosperous Britain.”
Specific actions: “Write to your MP, share the facts about HS2 with your community, and challenge the myths surrounding this project. Let’s show the world that Britain is ready to invest in its future.”
Inspirational closing: “Together, we can build a legacy that future generations will thank us for. Let’s not look back in 20 years and wonder what could have been. Let’s act now, and let’s act boldly. HS2 is more than a railway—it’s a lifeline for our nation.”
This outline provides a clear, persuasive structure for your speech, using Monroe’s Motivated Sequence to build a compelling case for HS2. Let me know if you’d like me to expand on any section!
PROMPT: Act as a speechwriter. Suggest 3 similes and 3 metaphors to describe to an audience why high speed train travel is enjoyable.
Here are three similes and three metaphors to vividly describe why high-speed train travel is enjoyable. These can be woven into a speech to make the experience more relatable and engaging for your audience.
Similes:
“Riding a high-speed train is like gliding on air—smooth, effortless, and free from the bumps and jolts of ordinary travel.” This simile emphasizes the comfort and tranquility of high-speed rail, contrasting it with less pleasant modes of transportation.
“Traveling on a high-speed train is like watching time shrink before your eyes—cities and landscapes blur together as hours turn into minutes.” This highlights the speed and efficiency of high-speed rail, making long distances feel short.
“Sitting in a high-speed train is like being in a moving living room—spacious, comfortable, and designed for relaxation.” This simile conveys the convenience and comfort of train travel, making it feel like a home away from home.
Metaphors:
“A high-speed train is a ribbon of steel, weaving through the countryside and stitching cities together.” This metaphor paints a poetic image of connectivity and unity, showing how trains bring people and places closer.
“The high-speed train is a time machine, collapsing distances and giving you back the most precious resource—time.” This metaphor emphasizes the efficiency of high-speed rail, framing it as a tool that saves time and enhances productivity.
“The train is a symphony of motion, where every component works in harmony to create a seamless journey.” This metaphor evokes the elegance and precision of high-speed rail, comparing it to a beautifully orchestrated piece of music.
These similes and metaphors can help your audience visualize and emotionally connect with the joys of high-speed train travel, making your speech more memorable and impactful. Let me know if you’d like help integrating these into a larger speech!
PROMPT: Act as a speechwriter. Use synechdoche and metonymy to surprise an audience with reasons why high speed trains are a good idea.
Here’s a speech that uses synecdoche (using a part to represent the whole) and metonymy (using a related term to represent something else) to creatively and persuasively argue why high-speed trains are a good idea. These rhetorical devices will surprise the audience by offering fresh perspectives on the benefits of high-speed rail.
Title: “The Tracks to Tomorrow: Why High-Speed Trains Are the Future”
Opening:
“Ladies and gentlemen, imagine a world where the wheels of progress never stop turning. Where the heartbeat of a nation pulses along steel veins, connecting cities, dreams, and opportunities. This is the promise of high-speed trains—not just a mode of transport, but a lifeline to a brighter future.”
Synecdoche: Using a part to represent the whole.
“Every seat on a high-speed train is a desk, a dining table, and a meeting room.” Here, the “seat” represents the entire experience of traveling on a high-speed train. It’s not just a place to sit—it’s a space where work gets done, meals are enjoyed, and connections are made. High-speed trains transform travel time into productive time.
“The whistle of a high-speed train is the sound of opportunity calling.” The “whistle” represents the train itself and, by extension, the economic and social opportunities it brings. It’s a call to action, signaling progress and growth for communities along its route.
“Every ticket sold is a vote for a greener planet.” The “ticket” represents the passenger and their choice to support sustainable travel. High-speed trains reduce carbon emissions, and every journey taken is a step toward a more sustainable future.
Metonymy: Using a related term to represent something else.
“The rails are the arteries of a thriving economy.” Here, “rails” represent the entire rail network, which keeps the economy moving and alive. High-speed trains ensure that goods, people, and ideas flow freely, fueling growth and innovation.
“The timetable is a promise—a guarantee that the future will be on time.” The “timetable” represents the reliability and efficiency of high-speed trains. It’s a symbol of trust and precision, showing that high-speed rail delivers on its commitments.
“The station is a gateway—not just to new places, but to new possibilities.” The “station” represents the entire journey and the opportunities it unlocks. High-speed trains don’t just take you from point A to point B; they open doors to education, employment, and cultural exchange.
Closing:
“High-speed trains are more than just engines and carriages. They are the wheels of change, the tracks of progress, and the bridges to a better tomorrow. So let’s not just build trains—let’s build connections. Let’s build opportunities. Let’s build the future. Thank you.”
This speech uses synecdoche and metonymy to reframe high-speed trains as symbols of progress, sustainability, and opportunity. By focusing on specific parts or related concepts, it surprises the audience with fresh, imaginative reasons to support high-speed rail. Let me know if you’d like to expand on any section!
PROMPT: Act as a speechwriter. Revise this speech to be written at an 8th grade level
Here’s a revised version of the speech, written at an 8th-grade reading level for clarity and simplicity:
Speech by Gareth Davies, MP for Grantham and Bournemouth
Thank you to the hon. Lady for her comments. She’s right—HS2 will boost productivity, create jobs, and improve connections across the country. We need to keep sharing these benefits with everyone. But we also have to be realistic. We must balance the need for high-speed rail with managing our budget, especially as we face challenges like rising costs due to the war in Ukraine and supply chain issues from COVID-19. These are tough times, and we’re making the hard decisions needed to keep our finances stable while still investing in important projects like HS2.
The hon. Lady mentioned the National Audit Office report. We’re looking at it carefully and will respond soon. But the key point is this: HS2 is important, and we’re committed to it. We’ve had to make some tough choices to make sure we’re building strong transport links while also being responsible with public money. That’s what the British people expect from us.
We’re also working to improve rail connections across the country, especially in areas that lost service back in the 1960s with the Beeching cuts. It’s not just about building new lines—it’s about making the existing ones better too.
Now, let me address some specific points raised today. The hon. Member for Bath talked about the M4 connection to Dorset. I want her to know that the Department for Transport has asked National Highways to study this route, and we’re carefully considering their findings. We’ll have more to say on this soon.
The hon. Member for Bath and my colleague from Wimbledon also brought up rail electrification. We’re working hard on this as part of our plan to create a net zero railway by 2050. Since 2010, we’ve electrified over 1,200 miles of track, with 1,000 of those miles done in just the last five years. That’s a big improvement compared to the 70 miles electrified between 1997 and 2010. We’re making progress, but there’s still more to do.
The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland shared some great insights about the challenges his community faces. I’ll look into the issue he raised about funding and get back to him.
Finally, my colleague from Wimbledon made an important point: the government can’t pay for everything. We need private investment to help fund our infrastructure projects. In fact, nearly half of the UK’s future infrastructure projects will be paid for with private money. Over the next ten years, we expect total investment in infrastructure—both public and private—to reach nearly £650 billion. That’s how we’ll build a stronger future for everyone.
Thank you.
This version simplifies complex ideas, shortens sentences, and uses more straightforward language while keeping the original meaning intact.
PROMPT: Act as a teacher. Revise the following text so that it can understood by 8 year old children. [Insert 8th grade text above]
Here’s the revised version of the text, simplified so that it can be understood by 8-year-old children:
Thank you to the lady for her ideas. She’s right—HS2, the new high-speed train, will help people work better, create new jobs, and make it easier to travel across the country. We need to tell everyone about these good things. But we also have to be careful with our money. Right now, things are tough because of the war in Ukraine and problems caused by COVID-19, like higher costs and fewer supplies. We’re making hard choices to make sure we have enough money for important projects like HS2 while still being careful with how we spend.
The lady also talked about a report from the National Audit Office. We’re reading it carefully and will say more about it soon. But the most important thing is this: HS2 is really important, and we’re going to keep working on it. We’ve had to make some tough decisions to build better train lines while also being smart with the money we have. That’s what people expect from us.
We’re also working to make train travel better in places that lost their train service a long time ago, back in the 1960s. It’s not just about building new train tracks—it’s also about fixing and improving the ones we already have.
Now, let me talk about some other things people brought up today. The lady from Bath talked about a road called the M4 and how it connects to Dorset. I want her to know that we’ve asked a group called National Highways to study this road, and we’re thinking about what they found. We’ll share more about this soon.
The lady from Bath and my friend from Wimbledon also talked about making trains run on electricity instead of diesel. We’re working on this as part of our plan to make trains better for the environment by 2050. Since 2010, we’ve added electric power to over 1,200 miles of train tracks, and 1,000 of those miles were done in just the last five years. That’s a lot better than the 70 miles we did between 1997 and 2010. We’re doing a good job, but there’s still more work to do.
The man from Orkney and Shetland talked about some problems his community is facing. I’ll look into the issue he mentioned about money and get back to him.
Finally, my friend from Wimbledon made a good point: the government can’t pay for everything. We need help from businesses and other groups to pay for big projects like new roads and train lines. In fact, almost half of the money for future projects will come from private companies. Over the next ten years, we think the total money spent on these projects will be nearly £650 billion. That’s how we’ll make things better for everyone.
This version uses simple words, short sentences, and avoids complicated ideas to make it easier for 8-year-olds to understand.
Conclusion
It might be unfair to compare the output of ChatGPT from 2023 to DeepSeek of 2025. However, if claims about the efficiency are in fact true it represents, as some have noted, a “Sputnik moment” for the American technology industry.
As for speechwriters, I stand by my concluding words from 2023:
This three-part series has, I hope, shown ways in which speechwriters can use generative A.I. tools like ChatGPT. The number of tools is expanding rapidly. No doubt some public speeches — be they at a wedding, in the conference center, or on the hustings — will use material simply cut and paste from GPT output. This is not a clever way to proceed. The language can be silted, repetitive, filled with factual errors, and unconvincing.
However, in the hands of a professional, research tasks, speech outlines, alternative points of view, and more are available for review.
I believe these tools will enrich and make life easier and more productive for professional speechwriters and concerns about their use are misplaced.
Writing in the Weekend FT (subscription required), columnist Gillian Tett highlights the cultural differences between dinner party “table talk” on either side of the Atlantic.
She observes that “American professionals tend to take it for granted that when they meet over dinner they will stage a communal debate.”
…the idea is basically the 21st-century version of an 18th-century Parisian salon: the guests expect to enjoy an intellectual exchange along with the food, a conversation that might be based around a guest’s book, film, start-up or political campaign (or, failing all that, more discussion of the ultimate conversation starter, Trump).
Whereas “British rituals are different.”
Brits tend to eat later than Americans, drink far more alcohol and hate it when guests ask each other, “What do you do?” (Let alone google each others’ achievements at the table, which is common in the US.) But what generally goes unmentioned is a more important distinction: single-table conversations rarely happen in Britain.
In addition to her work writing for the FT, Tett is an anthropologist and recently appointed Provost of King’s College, Cambridge where — she notes — attempts to impose a single topic for discussion by academics dining at the high table are met with a brusque ““This is just not done here.”
She identifies the source of the difference in the way the two cultures treat intellectual capital:
In America, the creation of ideas is treated as a vital sphere of economic activity, one that philanthropists think needs to be backed, on an industrial scale, in many forums. Just as the Medicis once sponsored cathedrals or artists, today’s 21st-century luminaries use their cash to sponsor debate, turning economic capital into the cultural and intellectual variant. And since America is also a place that admires ambition and hustle, this fosters a culture of performative intellectual display, be that in a TV studio or at a dinner party.
In Britain, however, hustle is not so readily admired and ambition is sometimes derided as being pushy or showing off. Thus if you are brilliantly clever, you are admired for concealing the fact or cracking jokes about it at your own expense. Few Brits stand up in public and shout that they want to be public intellectuals; or not without a self-deprecating laugh.
For us plebs who don’t receive invitations to society dinner parties in either country, it’s worth bearing in mind that “performative intellectual display” is still very much a fact of life in many aspects of American life. Indeed, in my five decades in the States I have grown used to listening to monologues from American’s of all backgrounds: from the boating enthusiast telling you the correct way to trim a sail to the home cook describing their recipe for the perfect lasagna.
The fact I am teetotal somewhat limits my potential to enjoy the drunken revelry of British dinners, amusing as they might be.
The proliferation of tent cities and decrepit RVs in towns and cities across America has led some to see this as a potent symbol of the economic crisis, as affordable housing is out of reach of ever increasing numbers of low income people. Indeed, the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) reported
On a single night in January 2023, “roughly 653,100 people—or about 20 of every 10,000 people in the United States—were experiencing homelessness,” with about 60% in shelters and the remaining 40% unsheltered, according to HUD. That’s a 12% increase from 2022 and the highest number of unhoused people since reporting began in 2007.
The main form of homelessness is people living in temporary accommodation, the main driver is an inability to afford housing, and America is not even particularly close to the worst. The UK holds that ignominious title, with an astonishing one in 200 households living in emergency lodging outside the formal housing sector.
Hundreds of thousands of people across the developed world live in buildings where damp and mold are commonplace, as are insect and animal infestations. The disruption of being moved from place to place causes adults to drop out of work and children out of school.
Britain has the highest rate of homelessness of any country:
These numbers show that while more people sleep on the streets in the States, there is less overall homelessness per 10,000.
The FT highlights the root of the problem in three areas:
This nightmare scenario is due to three main factors: woefully inadequate rates of housebuilding, a dwindling social housing sector and the erosion of financial support for those unable to afford market rents. Relative to population size, the UK builds fewer homes than the vast majority of other developed countries. This has sent private sector rents spiraling, exacerbated by a 25 per cent shrinking of the social housing sector since the 1970s, slowly closing a crucial safety valve.
A lengthy analysis of the rates of housebuilding in Britain since the end of the First World War to today, concludes that a combination of NIMBYism, the “iron ring of green belts around Britain’s cities,” and a failure of political will has led to the current undersupply.
It remains to be seen if an America where land is more plentiful can build accommodation for all.
Following 15 years at Sun Microsystems and the sudden layoff that ended my work for a company that I fully expected to stay with until I reached retirement age, as described in my Working Life Part IV, I faced the challenge of making a living in Silicon Valley. Luckily, I had developed a network.
Freelancing
My first few months after leaving Sun with a small but welcome severance package were spent looking for freelance speech writing jobs. I was fortunate to have kept in touch with a colleague from my Sun days, who had been a speech writing mentor. Joel Postman had left before the layoffs took effect to work in executive communications at Hewlett-Packard. He helped me pitch for a freelance opportunity to write speeches for Nora Denzel, who headed a software division at the company. I met with her several times and wrote two presentations. By the end of 2004, I had been brought into the company as a full-time employee.
Blogging
Coincident with joining HP as a freelancer, I started kicking around the idea of this website and blog to build my portfolio and reputation as a freelancer. I took an entire year, but in January 2006, I posted my first blog entry. I’d developed my WordPress skills with Joel, who also promoted himself online. Something he and I, in our different ways, have continued to this day.
The HP Way
I joined a behemoth of a company with over 300,000 employees worldwide formed by the merger of HP and Compaq back in 2001 (and described at the time by my old boss Scott McNealy as the “slow motion collision of two garbage trucks.“)
However, working in the comms division in the HQ building was a smart team that brought professionalism to their daily work. I enjoyed writing content for Nora, who presented with pizzaz and appreciated my work. We traveled to HP facilities in Europe, including the labs outside Bristol, where I’d last lived in 1979. The city streets were familiar. Later that same trip, I booked a presentation at the Telco World Congress conference in Barcelona in January 2005. Nora had to return to California for meetings and then back across the Atlantic for this event. Unfortunately, it was the Friday before the formal event opening that weekend, and a mere 20 people were in the audience.
It was on that trip that we were sitting at breakfast in a hotel when Nora glanced at a message on her phone, gasped, and handed it to me. The HP Board had just forced CEO Carly Fiorina out.
Fiorina had riled many of the old guard at HP, who still clung to the “HP Way” created by the company founders back in the 1950s.
Shortly after, Nora’s responsibilities changed, and I was reassigned to support the head of HR, Chilean-born Marcela Perez de Alonso. I only supported her for a few months. However, my one contribution was her presentation at an Organizational Development conference in San Francisco, where I took the initiative to record the presentation and have it transcribed. Bizarrely, this is still available on the HP website.
HP Labs
After my brief stint supporting HR, I was asked to move into the storied HP Labs and support the newly appointed Prith Banerjee. He had spent many years in academia and was well-respected by the Labs 500 engineers in seven worldwide locations. However, he had to fall in line with the new CEO’s cost-cutting initiatives and canceled some “fringe” projects. Nevertheless, there were plenty of fascinating research topics to write about. I attended a ‘poster session’ at an HP Labs gathering in Boston where I asked researchers to describe their project so their grandmother or young child could understand the technology. There was work on the environmental impact of data centers, insights into the future, and an opportunity to meet retired employees who had been there in the early days.
HP Labs occupied the building where founders Bill Hewett and Dave Packard had their adjoining offices, kept as a shrine to their vision and innovation. Prominently displayed on the 60s-era desk was the icon HP pocket calculator. (Between the two offices was the private washroom they shared!)
MagCloud
One of the unexpected benefits of my association with the Labs was an early introduction to the MagCloud print-on-demand service for magazines. Engineers Udi Chatow and Andrew Bolwell explained the ease with which anyone with a PDF document could produce excellent quality ‘evergreen’ magazines. At the time I was the president of the Northern California Chapter of the National Speakers Association and convinced the members of the value of own high-quality magazine. Six editions of SPEAKER magazine resulted. Later, I helped Kombucha Brewers International produce SYMBIOSIS. Editions of both remain online and available as PDF downloads or printed magazines.
Mark Hurd
In March 2005, Mark Hurd was recruited from NCR and appointed CEO. His tenure was, to say the least, interesting.
He started out focused on ROI across the company, and cost-cutting measures were implemented. Wall Street was delighted. Wikipedia:
Under Hurd’s tenure, the company met Wall Street expectations in 21 out of 22 quarters and increased profits for 22 straight quarters, while its revenue rose 63% and stock price doubled. He laid off 15,200 workers — 10% of the workforce — shortly after becoming CEO. Other cost-cutting included reducing the IT department from 19,000 to 8,000, reducing the number of software applications that HP used from 6,000 to 1,500, and consolidating HP’s 85 data centers to 6. During the 2009 recession, depending on job role Hurd imposed a temporary 5%, 10% or 15% pay cut on all employees and removed many benefits.
Despite his successful stewardship of the company finances, Hurd was — like Fiorina before him — forced out by the board over a dubious HR issue in August 2010. He went on to a successful career at Oracle and sadly passed away in 2019, aged 62.
Pretexting scandal
“A fish rots from the head.” (Turkish proverb)
For a company founded in a garage listed as “the birthplace of Silicon Valley,” the period I worked there was not a happy one. This was not the fault of the many dedicated employees, but more the actions of leaders, especially the Board of Directors. Wikipedia again:
On September 5, 2006, Newsweek revealed that the general counsel of Hewlett-Packard, at the behest of HP chairwoman Patricia Dunn, had contracted a team of independent security experts to investigate board members and several journalists in order to identify the source of an information leak. In turn, those security experts recruited private investigators who used a spying technique known as pretexting. The pretexting involved investigators impersonating HP board members and nine journalists (including reporters for CNET, the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal) in order to obtain their phone records. The information leaked related to HP’s long-term strategy and was published as part of a CNET article in January 2006.
Patricia Dunn claimed she did not know beforehand the methods the investigators used to try to determine the source of the leak. Board member George Keyworth was ultimately accused of being the source and on September 12, 2006, he resigned, although he continued to deny making unauthorized disclosures of confidential information to journalists and was thanked by Mark Hurd for his board service. It was also announced at that time that Dunn would continue as chairwoman until January 18, 2007, at which point HP CEO Mark Hurd would succeed her. Then, on September 22, 2006 HP announced that Dunn had resigned as chairwoman because of the “distraction her presence on our board” created. On September 28, 2006, Ann Baskins, HP’s general counsel, resigned hours before she was to appear as a witness before the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, where she would ultimately invoke the Fifth Amendment to refuse to answer questions.
I witnessed the challenge the scandal posed to my colleagues in the Corporate Comms department.
Soon enough, however, the restructuring in the company came to the team I was part of. A new head of Marketing followed the CEO’s directive to cut costs, and in August 2008, just under four years after joining the company, I was one of a large group he dismissed.
