I was sent a link to a speech by Newt Gingrich on Education. Not expecting much, I was surprised by the saliency of his speech. His "world that works" and "world that fails" model begs critical thinking.

View his speech here.

Alternately, if you're just interested in hearing a briefer introduction to his argument, view this clip, entitled "FedEx vs Federal Bureaucracy."

Fair warning: I could be very, very, very misguided in the observation I am about to make.

Earlier today I was driving on the freeway and happened to be listening (by chance) to the Rush Limbaugh show (hosted today by Mike Davis). I'm not conservative by any means, but I'll occasionally listen to Rush just to test my ideas against his. I have always believed if you can't weigh your thoughts and opinions against the opposition and have them come out stronger and better honed, what's the point of having them in the first place?

I listened incredulously as Mike Davis bemoaned the rising number of government enforced smoking bans because they were yet another example to him of government curtailing American liberty; as he slammed Michelle Obama because of her recent appearance on The View; as he comforted a caller (Marie) who articulated her despair over how easily people were falling to Obama's gimmicky rhetoric. This last caller, Marie, emphasized that she would be compelled to move out of the country if Obama is elected. Davis was quick to soothe her, saying, as best I can recall, "Now hang on a minute Marie, tap the brakes on all of that. I know that you feel strongly about this, but if we survived eight years of Bill Clinton, if we survived the Jimmy Carter presidency, if we survived....then certainly we can survive this. Not that we're going to, because Obama will certainly not be elected."

Throughout the time I was listening to this show, I had been again wondering in the back of my mind why a liberal or democratic radio show had not been able to take hold on American airwaves. It had been attempted, but never gained steam. I've heard Limbaugh criticize the attempt before, citing its failure to the fact that there simply aren't enough American's willing to jump on the democratic bandwagon in order to justify a radio program, in addition to other justifications. Today, however, I arrived at my own possible explanation.

I wonder if the reason why conservative talk shows are so much more successful than liberal talk shows isn't because contemporary individuals feel a greater need for shepherding, cheerleading, and a balm for uncertainty, whereas more liberal individual prefer a more independent, laissez-faire way of gaining knowledge and forming opinions. This occured to me as I realized that I grew most irritated with Rush or with any other talk show host at precisely the moment they began to preach, rather than to reach out to listeners. Occasionally they will leave the microphone behind, stop describing current affairs, and step up to the pulpit, where they proclaim what other people ought to think.

It seems reasonable to me, if only considering the stereotype, that conservative individuals of the baby-boomer generation are much more comfortable with a "big-brother" figure who is looking out for them, telling them what to think or what to hate, than liberals. In contrast, liberals would become irritated by such an attempt at making them conform. I should emphasize that I do not mean to suggest that conservatives can't (or won't) think for themselves, that liberals are "free-thinkers" who are smarter than conservatives, and nor am I trying to place a value on one or another mindset. I'm ambivalent, in general, to people's political orientation. In this instance, I was simply led to wonder if a part of the conservative/liberal paradigm might be empirically related to a certain level of Uncertainty Avoidance, and if the tipping point would correlate to one's political orientation.

Interesting.

The latest from PC World is as ironic as it is fascinating. Robert Strohmeyer reports on a burgeoning new crop of websites which are unlike anything we have seen before. These novel services are predicated on the impulse people feel to connect on social networking sites (SNS) and seek to drastically enhance the layperson's ability to connect online. Recognizing that many SNS users are generally active on not just one but a swath of SNS, these services capitalize on the fundamental trusim of their market generation -- that multitasking is always a plus -- and condenses the SNS a person is active on down to one convenient loctaion.

From my perspective (increasingly not the norm, I find), the irony lies in the fact that where one might suspect a person seeking "authentic" connections online might desire to put all of his or her eggs in just one basket, rather than spread them out all across the farm, now we see a service which allows you to spread all of your eggs across the farm, and hold a digital basket where you can keep your eyes on them at all times. It provides the illusion of solidarity, but promotes quite the opposite.

---
See
Robert Strohmeyer, "Web Apps Manage Social Networking Overload" (Pc World, June 2 2008).

Jemima Kiss, writing for PDA: The Digital Content Blog recently wrote an article covering wadja.com, a relatively new social networking site headquartered in Athens, Greece. Although nothing stands out as particularly exceptional about Wadja.com itself, it has gained increased attention lately due to a controversial move by Facebook. Apparently, perhaps out of fear for unwanted competition, Facebook has banned messages which include the words "wadja" or "wadja.com." On reading this, I was initially skeptical. Not willing to take Jemima Kiss' word for it, I logged into my Facebook account and tried to message one of my friends about wadja. Sure enough, the message wouldn't process, even upon repeated attempts.

Although this sort of corporate underhanded behavior shouldn't prove overly surprising in the current era of cutthroat business tactics, it strikes me as odd and out of character for organizations belonging to this particular industry. Can social-networking combines, such as MySpace and Facebook, ardently claim socialization and networking among people as their top priorities and then comfortably pull stunts like this without fear negative PR? It seems to me that in light of this recent event, any member of Facebook has gained the right to seriously question this service's dedication to seeing its members connect with other individuals. Not to mention Facebook looks especially bad when contrasted to the cavalier demeanor of Wadja.com's managing director Alex Christoforou, who observes that despite "Facebook [banning] the word Wadja.com throughout the whole site," he simply found it "weird and quite amusing. Here is this big Silicon Valley social network banning the word Wadja, an outfit based in the Mediterranean, having fun connecting people." Since when did "having fun connecting people" cease to be the goal for Facebook?

Are we social network consumers left to believe that combines such as Facebook and Myspace aren't having fun connecting us any longer? Have we become the numbers that they energetically affirm we are not? Additionally, perhaps more importantly, are we being subjected to the tyrannical control of our free speech, thinly veiled as a measure to protect us from "spam?" With this sort of arrogant display of un-legitimized power we could be witnessing the foreshadowing of a significant shift in social networking industry for the worse.

-----
See

Jemima Kiss, "Elevator Pitch: Wadja's social network is big in Greece - and in big trouble with Facebook" (pda: the digital content blog, 30 May 2008).

Marshall Kirkpatrick, "Facebook Censoring User Messaging: Spam Prevention or Unaccountable Control of Conversation?" (ReadWriteWeb, 21 May 2008).

This evening my parents showed me a hilarious/interesting video on youtube. Enjoy:

Last night I had a wonderful conversation with a very dear friend. At some point in time, I started verbalizing goals I wanted to keep in mind after I graduate:

1. Develop a list of personal core values and adhere to them.
2. Remain constantly motivated even when faced with other people's ironic, tired, or blase dispositions.
3. Remember that I am a verb: my actions speak louder than my words - and appropriately so.

Last night I attended Greek Week's Recognition Night. The final portion of the evening was dedicated to seniors. First, they presented a slideshow with pictures of us as babies and as college almost-graduates. Second, they delivered letters from our parents. Although seeing the picture of myself was funny - I had never seen it before - I was particularly affected by the letter.

At first, I didn't think much of it. I'm a little disappointed in myself in admitting that at first blush, I felt the letter was rather blase. I think I read over it and imagined that it was the same letter that every other senior would be receiving. Nevertheless, I called my mother and thanked her for the effort. She told me I was welcome, of course, but also told me that dad cried a little after he wrote it. We both chuckled at the cuteness of it: the tenderness most-times hidden beneath a tough, austere face.
 
When I called last night, I was out with friends, and so couldn't talk for very long. I called her again this morning and after talking with her, spoke to my dad. He expressed that the letter was very hard to write. After my conversation with them, I picked up the letter again and read it. I think this is when the disappointment for how I originally viewed the letter sank in, but then was quickly washed away by what the letter actually said: "We couldn't be more proud of you."
 
Although I constantly think my parents are insane for being proud of me and I don't understand where their perception of me comes from, I'm realizing that their pride means something very special to me - much more than I originally thought. I regularly get down on myself for not doing enough. I don't study enough, I don't work hard enough, I don't mean enough to enough people, I don't win enough awards, I don't make enough money, I'm not being a good enough friend or lover, and so forth. This morning, I woke up mired in that familiar well of disappointment and regret. When I read the letter my father wrote and was confronted with how proud he and my mom really are of me, I started feeling that everything was okay. I started to realize that I usually subject myself to a pretty impossible rubric for what I should be as a human being. And although that will probably never change...and honestly, I don't know that I ever would want it to change, I'm realizing now that the only rubric that should matter to me is the one my parents put forth. Honestly, who do I owe more for all that I have been able to experience and do? And who do I care more for? My love for them runs so deep that I can easily forget about it: it fades into the background of who I am, something as vital but discrete as blood or bone.

I may never think that I've done anything worth a damn, but I've got to say, so long as my parents think highly of me, I can feel proud of that. I hope that in the future, when I get down on myself, this is what I'll return to.

My dad started off his letter by commenting on how wonderful spring is because of the sense of newness one gets from flowers and trees starting to bloom. As I was writing, I looked out my window and realized that the oaks outside were in full bloom for the first time this year. My father ended his letter by proclaiming how excited I must be at the newness that lays before me. I guess he was right.

Over the last few weeks, I have been asked to participate in interview luncheons for candidates to the Assistant Professor in Leadership position open at the McDonough Center. Each candidate has been posed the question, "What is your definition of leadership?"

This question is interesting, and problematic to me for a variety of reasons - not the least of which is the underlying assumption that such a concept needs distilled down to basic, elemental parts; an assumption which seems to be relentlessly compulsory.

Although I seem to contradict myself, one definition attracted me more than any others. Dr. Bechtold, of the University of Hawaii (I believe), suggested that "Leadership is the process in which a leader creates a message which followers can endorse."

Food for thought.

I just experienced a major breakthrough with my honors thesis in English literature. The irony? It is best articulated as a mathematic formula: (a+c=I)+(r+s=E)=U.

Who'd have thunk it.

I saw the picture below featured on Reuters' website and promptly began salivating. The caption reads: "An employee takes a nap in a nap pod which blocks out light and sound at the Google headquarters in Mountain View, California March 3, 2008."