4. 80% of the world’s population is functionally illiterate. (But why should it stay that way?)

5. “Screenagers," academics muse, are able to deftly and "seamlessly weave sounds, words and images into an integrated mosaic" in their minds.

(If that's really a skill, it's a nice skill. But you cannot logically conclude that having th

Reading is indisputably in decline, which upsets or pleases people, depending upon one's viewpoint. In the USA, we’ve suffered a 10% decline in literacy from 1982 to 2002.

The data are clear—-people are becoming less literate, preferring not to learn at all or to learn in other ways--hearing, visual, and touch.

Brian Tracy reports that half of all high school graduates and one-quarter of all college graduates in the USA never read another book after graduation.

Moreover, 70% of adults have not been in a bookstore in at least five years.

“Text,” some sneer, is an “ancient learning technology” whose time is up. (It may be ancient, but it’s certainly not passe. The original word "text" means to "weave"--weaving newly-read information into your mental database of what you've read previously.)

As an avid speedreader who doesn't watch TV or DVD’s or CD’s or use electronic learning devices—except, of course, for the Internet—-I deplore the decline in reading and writing proficiency.

The academic case against reading has six points:

1. We are pre-programmed to store, retrieve and communicate information by speech.

2. Because of our pre-programming, we are driven to develop technologies to communicate by speech. (Sounds good to me--so far).

3. Younger people in electrically developed countries reject “text” as the “technology of choice.” (My Assumption: that’s because all too many are slow readers, and slow reading is about as pleasant as having a root canal.)

Speed reading lessons and much practice will correct this problem and make reading enjoyable to anyone. So, why not learn how to be a speedreader? Why not teach others?

4. 80% of the world’s population is functionally illiterate. (But why should it stay that way?)

5. “Screenagers," academics muse, are able to deftly and "seamlessly weave sounds, words and images into an integrated mosaic" in their minds.

(If that's really a skill, it's a nice skill. But you cannot logically conclude that having thi

Moreover, 70% of adults have not been in a bookstore in at least five years.

“Text,” some sneer, is an “ancient learning technology” whose time is up. (It may be ancient, but it’s certainly not passe. The original word "text" means to "weave"--weaving newly-read information into your mental database of what you've read previously.)

As an avid speedreader who doesn't watch TV or DVD’s or CD’s or use electronic learning devices—except, of course, for the Internet—-I deplore the decline in reading and writing proficiency.

The academic case against reading has six points:

1. We are pre-programmed to store, retrieve and communicate information by speech.

2. Because of our pre-programming, we are driven to develop technologies to communicate by speech. (Sounds good to me--so far).

3. Younger people in electrically developed countries reject “text” as the “technology of choice.” (My Assumption: that’s because all too many are slow readers, and slow reading is about as pleasant as having a root canal.)

Speed reading lessons and much practice will correct this problem and make reading enjoyable to anyone. So, why not learn how to be a speedreader? Why not teach others?

4. 80% of the world’s population is functionally illiterate. (But why should it stay that way?)

5. “Screenagers," academics muse, are able to deftly and "seamlessly weave sounds, words and images into an integrated mosaic" in their minds.

(If that's really a skill, it's a nice skill. But you cannot logically conclude that having th

As an avid speedreader who doesn't watch TV or DVD’s or CD’s or use electronic learning devices—except, of course, for the Internet—-I deplore the decline in reading and writing proficiency.

The academic case against reading has six points:

1. We are pre-programmed to store, retrieve and communicate information by speech.

2. Because of our pre-programming, we are driven to develop technologies to communicate by speech. (Sounds good to me--so far).

3. Younger people in electrically developed countries reject “text” as the “technology of choice.” (My Assumption: that’s because all too many are slow readers, and slow reading is about as pleasant as having a root canal.)

Speed reading lessons and much practice will correct this problem and make reading enjoyable to anyone. So, why not learn how to be a speedreader? Why not teach others?

4. 80% of the world’s population is functionally illiterate. (But why should it stay that way?)

5. “Screenagers," academics muse, are able to deftly and "seamlessly weave sounds, words and images into an integrated mosaic" in their minds.

(If that's really a skill, it's a nice skill. But you cannot logically conclude that having th

3. Younger people in electrically developed countries reject “text” as the “technology of choice.” (My Assumption: that’s because all too many are slow readers, and slow reading is about as pleasant as having a root canal.)

Speed reading lessons and much practice will correct this problem and make reading enjoyable to anyone. So, why not learn how to be a speedreader? Why not teach others?

4. 80% of the world’s population is functionally illiterate. (But why should it stay that way?)

5. “Screenagers," academics muse, are able to deftly and "seamlessly weave sounds, words and images into an integrated mosaic" in their minds.

(If that's really a skill, it's a nice skill. But you cannot logically conclude that having th

4. 80% of the world’s population is functionally illiterate. (But why should it stay that way?)

5. “Screenagers," academics muse, are able to deftly and "seamlessly weave sounds, words and images into an integrated mosaic" in their minds.

(If that's really a skill, it's a nice skill. But you cannot logically conclude that having this skill renders reading unnecessary).

6. The Internet breaks down boundaries and creates an instant global information system. (I agree. The Internet has made me a globalist. There’s lots of good stuff to read on the Internet, so I’m glad to be a speed reader, too).

My rebuttal against the logic-challenged case against literacy and reading is, as follows:

1. Information is doubling and tripling every few years. You need to speed read, even if you use digital media as well, to keep up with the avalanche of new information and prevent your personal obsolescence.

As Brian Tracy says, “to earn more, you have to learn more.”

We all need to read more and read much faster, which provides greater comprehension and reading enjoyment.

Tracy says that “we should make every minute count.” In addition to reading regular reading, I agree with Tracy and Zig Ziglar that you should always listen to audio teaching media while driving. Zig calls that “Automobile University.”

The American Automobile Association (AAA) says that Americans drive an average of 12,000 to 25,000 miles per year, spending 500 to 1,000 hours (the equivalent of two full university semesters).

You should attend Automobile University daily as you drive, rather than listen to music or talk shows.

Speed reading is a far quicker way to learn than viewing and listening to videos, CD’s and DVD’s--which I consider a boring, time-wasting way to learn, if exactly the same reading material is available instead.

Why not speed read something in 5 to 10 minutes instead spending 45 minutes learning the same stuff on digital media?

Remember, every minute counts.

2. The case against read