Finally!

This response took way too long, especially when you keep in mind their original response, which was to basically tell the kids who walked out, "Buck up." They even called it a "teachable moment." As if the kids needed teaching? Pshaw. They're the ones who need to learn a lesson or two . . .in responsibility. Who approved "Mr. Dan Savage" as a keynote speaker in the first place?

Journalism Conference Organizers Apologize for Savage Invite

"The two organizations will review their procedures to assure the appropriateness of content to student audiences."

Ya think?

Savaging the Bible

There are so many things wrong with this, I don't know where to begin.

"Anti Bully Advocate Dan Savage Rants Against the Bible at a High School Journalism Convention"

First and foremost, who's in charge of this convention? I can't believe he was allowed to talk like this at a so-called journalism convention.

He says the Bible gets so many things wrong about homosexuality. But he himself gets "so many things wrong" about the what the Bible says in his rant. Not just about homosexuality, but about virtually everything he ranted against, from slavery to virginity. He's completely ignorant, but he can stand before this group of kids and mock the Bible, spew vitriol, bully Christians, and permit other kids to laugh and join in the bullying? I'm glad some of them walked out.

Where to begin?

I'm so angry and appalled by this.

I would be furious if I were a parent.

Here's a news blurb. Apparently it was at a conference sponsored by National Scholastic Press Association and the Journalism Education Association.

Danish Humor!

Every once in awhile, someone gets it right. This is hilarious.

Hold Your Tongue, Mr. President

Editorial in today's Los Angeles Times called "Sparring Over Race" defends the appropriateness of Barack Obama weighing in on the Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman case in Florida. "Those offended by Obama's remarks appear driven not by genuine offense but by a desire to spar with the president," they write, adding that the president was "careful to say that he welcomed investigations." They conclude: 

It's possible to reserve judgment on those investigations, and to grant Zimmerman the presumption of innocence, and at the same time remind the nation that the lives of young black men too often have been undervalued by this society . . . That, we think, is what Obama was trying to do with his observation that Trayvon Martin could have been the son of the president of the United States.

(Not to quibble, but technically, that's not what the president said. "If I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon," were his exact words.) 

I totally disagree with the LA Times on this one. From the moment I heard Obama speak on this issue I thought it was wrong for him to say anything. In fact, the question should never have come up in the first place. There are thousands of murders in thousands of cities each day. Since when is the president expected to comment on local murders (and at a press conference in the Rose Garden for another event entirely, no less)? In the San Diego area police are investigating the brutal beating death of an Iraqi woman that appears to be a hate crime. Why isn't the president commenting on this crime? Because she's not black? Does the president have to talk about a crime only when it involves a black person? It's an absurd question, but apparently needs to be asked.

The point is, the president should not be commenting on local crimes in general, but especially crimes in which the facts are still being examined. But, OK, Obama was asked the question. At that point, it's incumbent upon him to hold his tongue. The correct response should have been: No comment. It's so easy. Just try it, Mr. President. "No comment." Or, if you must say something, say, “I can’t comment on an ongoing investigation," or, "The facts are not all in," or, "In our justice system, a man is presumed innocent until proven guilty . . .,” or...

Any of those responses would have been appropriate. Instead, reflexively--like he can't help it, like he has a cough or a hiccup--he has to pontificate. He has to expound. The word for it is demagoguery, which has to do with appealing to the emotions, fears, and prejudices of the public. And that's exactly what Barack Obama does in these situations. He does it instinctively. He literally can't help himself. 

There's a great article in NRO today by Victor Davis Hanson on Obama's demagoguery. Hanson identifies at least four times when this president has reflexively commented on an issue before the facts were in: 

• the arrest of Henry Gates at his home near Harvard (Obama called the arresting officers stupid); 
• the shooting of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords (Obama said it was important for us to talk with each other in a way that heals, not a way that wounds);
• the Sandra Fluke/contraception controversy (Obama lectured the nation about how he didn't want his girls growing up hearing derogatory language about women.)
• Now this Trayvon Martin case.

 In each of those events, Obama opened his mouth before the facts were known. And in the first three of these situations, the "rest of the story" (i.e., the facts) actually contradicted the president's comments. We're still waiting for the facts about what actually took place that night between George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin. But what is clear at this point is that things are not as they first appeared. The picture of boy in the hooded sweatshirt that broke all our hearts is apparently that of Trayvon in grade school; when he died at age 17, he was actually 6'3" tall. That doesn't mean he should have been shot, it just means the picture is of a younger boy. And apparently it was Zimmerman crying for help on the ground before he shot Trayvon. And Zimmerman apparently had been hit from behind and his face was bloodied. Again--that doesn't mean this altercation had to end in Martin's death, or whether Zimmerman should have been following Trayvon in the first place, or whether the whole tragedy could have been avoided. What it means is, President Obama does not know the facts, so he should have kept his mouth shut. 

Isn't Obama a legal scholar or something? I heard he taught law somewhere. For a guy who was supposedly trained in law, he comes across as surprisingly ignorant. I'm appalled at his poor judgment, but I'm equally appalled at those (like the LA Times editorial writers) who try to justify it. 

"Sparring Over Race" (Los Angeles Times editorial, Marcy 27, 2012)

"Obama's Demagoguery," by Victor Davis Hanson

 "Playing the Race Card, Again," by Jonah Goldberg (Los Angeles Times op-ed, March 27, 2012)

In Solidarity: I Respect Sarah Palin

A combination of defiance and curiosity compelled me to add The Undefeated (documentary about Sarah Palin by conservative filmmaker Stephen K. Bannon) to my Netflix queue. I'm tired of the dominant media monopolizing the stage and influencing the narrative, as they did (or tried to do) with the fictional movie about Palin called Game Change (correctly categorized  in the Internet Movie Database under "drama" and "history" and not "documentary," since it's clearly not a documentary).


Where Game Change zeroes in on Palin the candidate, The Undefeated introduces us to her first as mayor of Wasilla and then as governor of Alaska before being selected by John McCain to be his running mate.


Palin-haters have derided her as stupid, incoherent, incompetent, unintelligent (and those are the nicer comments). In spite of the annoying sound track (someone needs to talk to Bannon about re-releasing this doc sans cheesy music), I watched the entire movie documenting her rise in politics, and I'm going on record as saying that whatever else you may say about her, Sarah Palin is not stupid, and she's certainly not incompetent. Sarah Palin is gutsy and ballsy, defying not only the good old boys of her own party, but the powerful oil companies, as well. I'd bet if Palin had done the exact same things she did in Alaska but had a "D" and not an "R" after her name, she'd be in the feminists' Hall of Fame, by now. Just look at how the liberals catapulted Sandra Fluke to stardom (apparently feminists are now encouraging her to run for office). Instead, because Palin's a conservative, maybe because she's a Christian, she's been demonized.


We could argue all day about whether the decision to lure Palin away from Alaska to join McCain on the GOP presidential ticket was a good one. Maybe the Republicans should have left her alone and let her "ripen on the tree" a bit (ditto for Barack Obama, by the way). Did her run for VP ruin her? I watch her in action as mayor and governor. Impressive! I watch her fall apart as VP candidate. Painful! But then, I watch her fight back after returning to Alaska (weakened, some have said), see her make the controversial decision to step down as governor (to pay the legal bills), and then watch her get back into the arena, bruised but not beaten, ultimately to become the face of the tea party rebellion, and I marvel at her never-give-up tenacity (hence the title). Should they have let her be? Maybe. But maybe not. Maybe it's better now that she's not in public office. She owes allegiance to no one. She seems to thrive in those circumstances, enemies be damned.


Why do I marvel at her ability to get back into the arena and keep fighting? It would have been easier to simply crawl away, lick your wounds, return to private life, take care of your family. That's my tendency. I went AWOL at the first bared teeth of criticism when I started writing years ago, and we're talking about letters to the editor and phone calls (before we went unlisted), not the instant commentary, the blogosphere, the world of Twitter and Facebook. It's brutal. I didn't have the stomach for the vitriol then, and I doubt I have it now. Palin is made of sterner stuff. I admire her for it. It's why I admire Andrew Breitbart, and so many others, really, who endure the frontal assault of the left's hatred. 

Breitbart's in this film, by the way, at the end. And he skewers the GOP establishment for not standing up for Sarah Palin when the media did everything they could to destroy her ("Alinsky-ed" her, is how Tammy Bruce put it), referring to them as "eunuchs." 

Tammy Bruce, now there's another rebel on the front-lines, fighting for conservative values. Palin and Bruce, Malkin, Coulter, Bila, Charen, Seipp (now deceased)...these are the real feminists, if you ask me. Those other so-called feminists? The Flukes, et al? They're just lackeys. Posers. Lap dogs. They sign on the dotted line, toe the line, stand in formation. But they don't think for themselves. Fluke calls on other women to run for office, according to a write-up in the Huffington Post. But not just any woman. Just those who advocate for family planning. Liberal ladies, step up, sign on the dotted line. Conservative women, go home.


I think it's time to re-think what "feminism" means.

Complicating My Life with Books?

"Books are where we go to complicate our lives . . ."

Found this quote in Los Angeles Times book review of John Leonard's collection of essays called Reading for my Life. The quote is from the title essay. I like this notion of books "complicating" our lives. Maybe that's why some people don't like to read...!

Here's a partial list of what I've read in the past year. Analyzing my list, I see I tend more towards non-fiction: 

Garlic & Sapphires: The Secret Life of a Critic in Disguise, by Ruth Reichl. Former New York Times food critic--fun fun funny.

Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother, by Amy Chua. Funny in a self-deprecating, sarcastic way, but also brutally honest and a little sad.

In the Basement of the Ivory Tower: Confessions of an Accidental Academic, by Professor X. Right up my alley! An adjunct professor of English writing anonymously because, well, figure it out. A thoughtful and honest also funny (in a self-deprecating, sarcastic way) about the state of higher education.  

Save the World on Your Own Time, by Stanley Fish. Straightforward thesis here: educators do not have the right to advocate for anything in the classroom. Conservative notion coming from a liberal. Very refreshing.

I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist, by Norman Geisler and Frank Turek. Not being well-versed in science, I learned a lot reading this book. I like their underlying message: it takes more "faith" to not believe in God than it does to believe in the Bible. I challenge non-believers and agnostics to give this book a glance.


God and Man at Yale, by William F. Buckley, Jr. What I love about this book (50th anniversary edition) is that it was written by Buckley when he was fresh out of college, a 20-something upstart taking on the big boys and boy did they hate him for it. Buckley was skewered mercilessly by the academic elites. I view him as a brave young man fighting a lonely battle with his wits. Very interesting to read.

Currently reading:

The Help (fiction) by Kathryn Stockett
The Social Animal (nonfiction) by David Brooks. 

 Would like to read:

The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo

The Hunger Games.

In my queue (i.e., beside table):  

Known and Unknown: A Memoir, by Donal Rumsfeld (as I said, complicating my life) 

Animal, Vegetable, Miracle: A Year of Food Life, by Barbara Kingsolver. 

I read slowly, and reading time is often interrupted by school prep and essay grading. So I plod along. I wonder what other people are reading?


*****


Here's the entire quote by Richard Leonard, as well as a link to the book review by David Ulin in the Los Angeles Times Sunday paper. 

Popular culture is … like going to the Automat to buy an emotion. The thrills are cheap and the payoffs predictable and, after a while, the repetition is a bummer. Whereas books are where we go to complicate ourselves.

Reading for My Life Writings, 1958-2008

by David L. Ulin, Los Angeles Times Book Critic

  

This American Life: When Journalism and Theater are Indistinguishable

Just listened to the entire broadcast of Ira Glass' mea culpa and then went to their website and downloaded the transcript. I'm sure I'm not the only person who was reminded of another "creative" journalist who invented stories and sold them as truth (Stephen Glass of The New Republic). Ira Glass' probing questions of Mike Daisey reminded me of the scenes in the movie Shattered Glass when editor Chuck Lane asks Stephen Glass question after question trying to get to the truth of his stories. It was excruciating to watch, just as Ira Glass' interview with Daisey was excruciating to listen to.

While I appreciate This American Life's admission of responsibility, it doesn't alter the very real sense (at least in my mind) that much that of what we hear on the news today could easily be fabricated. Mike Daisey got caught (though he doesn't think he did anything wrong--see below). Stephen Glass got caught. But who's to say there aren't others out there making up stories this very minute as long as it suits their narrative? 

Mike Daisey admitted as much when he returned a week later after his initial "fact-finding" session with Ira Glass and Rob Schmitz (probably after having "lawyered" up) and justified the importance of his work because it was all about "making people care." He obviously had no qualms about going on This American Life, even though it was made clear to him that this was journalism, not theater. He obviously had no qualms about being the new media darling, apparently making the rounds on the major news outlets and publishing op-eds, etc. He obviously had no qualms circulating his script (42,000 downloads the first 48 hours!). 

In other words, he had no qualms selling his fabrications as truth. Why? When confronted on This American Life by Ira Glass and asked why he wouldn't give them his Chinese interpreter's real name phone number so they could corroborate his story, he admitted he was afraid that doing so might "unpack the complexities" of how the story gets told. 

Unpack the complexities?  Is this just another way of saying you can pass off lies as truth Apparently so. Mike Daisey doesn't think he did anything wrong because he has some kind of "greater good" in mind. 

I can't help but wonder why MSNBC and the other news outlets didn't question his story. Maybe it's because they believed the narrative, so they assumed the story was true. Even Ira Glass admits they were wrong to not kill the story when they couldn't get the facts. Why didn't they kill the story? Is it possible that they too believed the narrative? That's the conclusion I come to. And pundits wonder why regular people (like me) go to the alternative media outlets to get "the rest of the story." 

One thing that was not mentioned on the program: Daisey's "narrative" slanders Google, and maybe Steve Jobs. Will This American Life (and other news outlets who also gave him his moment in the spotlight) hold this man accountable? Will there be follow-up legal action? I hope so.

Kudos to Rob Schmitz of Marketplace (Shanghai) for being on the alert and smelling a rat.

This American Life: Retraction (March 16, 2010)

An Appeal to Community College Students: Don't be Fooled!

As an educator who interacts constantly with college-aged students, and as a parent of three children who are in their early twenties, I am disturbed by President Obama's shameless attempt to manipulate young people by holding political rallies disguised as "official White House events" at community colleges.

In fact, the more I listen to this man on the campaign trail, the more alarmed I become. It is increasingly apparent to me that Obama's "power to persuade" is a deadly concoction of charm and fallacious reasoning, made all the more potent when presented to gullible students who, simply by virtue of being assembled together in a stadium or auditorium, are vulnerable to the insidious "bandwagon" fallacy. When the president of the United States mocks and ridicules people or ideas you might otherwise respect, either because of family tradition or personal convictions, and when everyone around you laughs and cheers and jeers, are you going to be among the few who "sit on your hands" or shout out a dissenting "boo"? Most twenty-somethings wouldn't. Most fifty-somethings wouldn't.

Again, the word "shameless" comes to mind. Obama--correctly assuming that most of these students are either ignorant of or disinterested in facts, and taking full advantage of social mores (what college kid would shout "boo" while a popular, witty, charming president is speaking?)--is able to make overtly false claims with virtually zero accountability. And even if those claims are rightly disputed in the next day's right-wing news outlets who are vetting and fact-checking the president, little matter. Obama's moved on, the kids with their short attention spans have moved on, the mainstream media outlets aren't interested, and the beat goes on. The 24/7 information cycle is all and only about image, not substance.

Critical thinking is in danger of becoming a lost art. 

Note: this same entry is posted on Minamide Musings, my blog on education, with a few additional comments that focus on the classroom.

President Obama, speaking at Prince George’s Community College in Ohio, this week.

Obama's "Long Game" (satire)

Pretty funny video from HuffPost Comedy satirizing Obama's long-range agenda. I love the white board scenes.

Gobbledygook in High Places

I think that right now in this, uh, in this economic very slow but, but, you know it's, return that we need to, uh, we need to have these prices well could have, well could affect the comeback of our economy and we're very worried about that. So of course we don't want the price of gasoline to go up we want it to go down (Energy Secretary Stephen Chu, responding to a question about whether he still believes we need to boost gas prices in order to encourage energy efficiency).

Uh....would you repeat that, sir?

Haha, this is what happens when your boss needs to change the narrative but fast in order to get re-elected.

Steven Chu's Europe Gas Quote Haunts President Obama (Politico)
Secretary Chu Recants on Higher Gasoline Prices (Breitbart)

Who Decides What We Should Be Aware Of?

Received the following in my in-box this morning from Michael Mufson, professor of theater at Palomar, sent on behalf of the PC3H Committee (and no, "PC" is not short for politically-correct, though it should be). Addressing the entire Palomar College community, including classified staff, counselors, administrators, faculty, district counselors, deans, directors, distinguished Governing Board members, and yours truly, Mufson writes: 

April is LGBTQ awareness month at Palomar and we are hoping to create a broad discussion amongst classes, faculty, staff and community about gender and sexuality in American culture.  We are planning a series of events to spark discussions across many disciplines.  An essential part of the project is participation of many classes in the discussion. There are many ways you can participate:

•  Have a discussion on any LGBTQ topic and encourage your students to share their thoughts on the blog.

•  Encourage students to use the blog for pre-writing or free-writing process and discussion

•  Give extra credit to students for attending one or more of the events.  Encourage them to post a response on the blog.

•  If you already have a written assignment that relates to the topic, post some quotes or conclusions from the assignment on the blog.

•  Create a written assignment that relates to the topic, post some quotes or conclusions from the assignment on the blog.

In these stressful times, it is important for us to remember that education is more than student learning outcomes and career training for corporate America.  This project is an expression of the ideal of education.  Let’s put the community in community college.

My initial thoughts:


Mufson's suggestion that faculty and staff incorporate discussions on LGBTQ in our courses is absurd, especially when you think in terms of your own course content (Physics? Calculus? Library Technology?). Our job as educators is to teach our course content, not to incorporate social values of any sort, no matter how commendable, that are not relevant to those objectives.


I have a feeling that Stanley Fish, who wrote Save the World on Your Own Time, might disagree with Mufson's final statement about education being more than learning outcomes and/or career training. Fish's entire book revolves around a simple thesis: Our job as educators is to teach content related to our own discipline, along with analytical skills related to that content. That's it. If we have passions or beliefs or morals or values that we want to fight for or protest or advocate, that's fine. Do it on your own time, and in your own name, not in the classroom and not as a representative the institution where you teach.


And who determines that April is anything month? Why do LGBTQ people get their own month? Lots of people could argue for special acknowledgment of their disenfranchisement. What about "Unborn Human Babies Awareness Month" or "Religious Liberties Under Assault Awareness Month" or . . . ?

One wonders how Professor Mufson would feel if the college encouraged faculty to incorporate discussions about the rights of the pre-born or of persecuted Christians in his theater classes? My guess is he would opt out. As I will be this April in my English classes.


Sorry, but this is infuriating. 


Notes: 


I posted this same entry on my other blog since it seemed to relate to education, but I think there's some cross-over issues that belong here. I'm thinking of merging the two but I don't know how.


Here's a description of Stanley Fish's book, which I read last semester for Professional Development hours (yes, I got paid to read!)

Contrasting Legacies

So the Los Angeles Times actually published my letter, nearly in its entirety.

Contrasting the Legacies of James Q. Wilson and Andrew Breitbart

This is Not Your Mother's Democratic Party

The nanny state strikes again...thank you Uncle Sam.

First $10 per gallon gas . . Next up: $50 light bulbs!

Chalk this up to another way the government has figured out how to save energy: make energy so expensive we won't drive and we'll go to bed early.

Welcome to Obama's America. 

.

When Crudeness Gets a Pass

To all those who are outraged by Rush Limbaugh's crude, sexist, offensive on-air remark calling a feminist activist a "slut" (for which he apologized), I assume you are equally outraged by Bill Maher's even more crude, sexist, offensive, even misogynist remarks targeting Sarah Palin?

No? What about crude, sexist, misogynist slurs against conservative women in general? Liberal Kirsten Powers writing on The Daily Beast provides a litany of what she refers to as "the routine misogyny of liberal media men." Conservative blogger Michelle Malkin has her own collection of vile sexist and racist slurs directed at her personally.

Outraged? Guess not. As Michelle says, "Enjoy the silence."

The War on Conservative Women, by Michelle Malkin

Rush Limbaugh Isn't the Only Media Misogynist, by Kirsten Powers

Interesting follow-up column by Kirsten Powers about how she was blasted by liberals for this earlier column on Limbaugh.

Why I Support Mitt Romney in Italics

I am bothered by the impression of late that a choice between Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney is an either/or proposition in terms of which one is the conservative candidate. I don't believe it. Mitt Romney is conservative. His life choices reflect conservative values:

He's a man of faith. Even if doctrinally we differ, he is still a man of faith. Can't we at least concede this? Dennis Prager made a good point this morning on his radio program about this. Some Christians say they can't vote for Romney because of his Mormonism. Prager says, Jimmy Carter is a born-again Christian. Would these same people vote for Carter just because he says he's a Christian? They would not. Even Barack Obama claims to be a Christian (cynicism aside, let's just take him at his word). Let me see....Obama the "Christian" or Romney the Mormon?

He's a family man.

He is a charitable, philanthropic man.

He is an honest man, a decent man.

He's a patriotic man. 

He's a smart man, a business man, a pragmatic man.

He's a proven leader. 

I'm getting a little tired of hearing people (calling in to talk radio, for example) say they can't vote for Romney because he's robotic, or that doesn't have enough passion about social issues, or he doesn't speak for "the working class" person, or worse, that his Mormon doctrine is a deal breaker. Enough of this. If Mitt Romney is the nominee, which in all likelihood is going to be the case, what are these people going to do with Barack Obama's arrogance (give me robotic over arrogance any day), Barack Obama's passion on social issues like gay marriage or abortion, etc., Barack Obama's antagonism toward working class people, or Barack Obama's cynical disdain for people of faith, Barack Obama's hypocrisy and dishonesty.

Yes, it's time to stop the bloodletting in the Republican party so whatever damage has been done these past few months can hopefully be undone and these naysayers can be convinced to re-think their views and get them to unite behind the Republican candidate, as imperfect as he seems to them. I am absolutely terrified that this divisive rhetoric within the Republican party is doing irreparable damage to our chances to defeat this horrible president, and I wish social and religious conservative leaders would accept the inevitable, take the initiative, and unite 100% behind Romney.

Romney can't win if the conservative base is divided. It will be hard enough to win back the independents who have been turned off by this intra-party mudslinging. I consider myself a social and fiscal conservative, but I am also a realist, and this is how it appears to me from where I'm sitting.

Different Men, Different Era, Different Mission

Op-ed in today's LA Times called "Conservatism's Two Faces," by someone named Jim Newton, comparing Andrew Breitbart's legacy with James Q. Wilson's, both of whom died this month (link below). Here's the letter to the editor I just sent in:

Different era. Different mission. Different men. To contrast Breitbart disparagingly with Wilson is to miss an important distinction between the two. Wilson was born in 1931, Breitbart in 1969. Mr. Wilson turned 43 (the age Breitbart was when he died this month) in 1974. Contrast the 1970’s with today. The differences are many, not the least of which are a breathtaking incivility and an irrepressible 24/7 information cycle that spews out distortions in the same breath as the news. So Breitbart was engaged a different battle. What's more, Wilson had a lifetime to refine his legacy. Breitbart only recently emerged on the journalistic scene, and one could argue that he was only just getting started. We’ll never know what his ultimate legacy would have been had he lived into his eighties. Instead, we have only the work he began which is still in its infancy. Finally, to dismiss Breitbart as a ranting pugilist is to reveal an astonishingly limited understanding not only of what he accomplished in his short-lived career but also of what drove him to behave in ways that offend the refined and the polite. Sometimes you have to fight fire with fire. It’s treacherous business, and unfortunately people get burned, including, sadly, the firefighter. Andrew Breitbart died fighting, and he deserves better than this petty commentary by Jim Newton.

 "Conservatism's Two Faces," by Jim Newton

Remembering Andrew Breitbart, Part II

Coming back to this.



Video streaming by Ustream

Remembering Andrew Breitbart Part I

I'll come back to this later.




Video streaming by Ustream

Nous Sommes Tous Obstructionists, I Guess?

A report in this weekend's Washington Post Business section says that Social Security just passed what it calls a "treacherous milestone." It went cash negative. I guess this situation could be problematic. Why doesn't the president try to address this problem?

Oh wait, one president did. His name was George W. Bush. Here he is addressing both houses of Congress at a State of the Union speech, back in 2005. It appears the Democrats weren't all that supportive of Bush's attempts to privatize Social Security in order to prevent it from going bankrupt. In fact, they look downright giddy.

And Democrats like to call Republicans obstructionists?

An Unconventional Commencement Speech

I just listened to Steve Jobs' 2005 commencement speech at Stanford University. It's only about 15 minutes or so. It's probably the most unlikely message one would expect at a graduation speech, with its three key points focusing on dropping out, getting fired, and facing death, and summed up with the enigmatic slogan from the authors of The Whole Earth Catalog, "Stay hungry, stay foolish." At first glance, not the most inspiring words.

Yet why do I feel so, well, inspired?

What does it mean, I wonder, to "stay hungry, stay foolish"? I found a couple of explanations online that I like:

Stay hungry: always keep wanting something more, something new.
Stay foolish: always keep an open mind, never think that you know everything.

Stay Hungry: don't be too easily satisfied or grow too comfortable.
Stay Foolish: don't think that you know everything.. stay foolish and keep learning new things.

Other thoughts that I liked from the speech:

"Your time is limited, so don't waste it living someone else's life. Don't be trapped by dogma — which is living with the results of other people's thinking. Don't let the noise of others' opinions drown out your own inner voice. And most important, have the courage to follow your heart and intuition. They somehow already know what you truly want to become. Everything else is secondary."

Steve Jobs, Commencement speech, Stanford University, June 12, 2005.