By now you’ve probably heard of “The Last Lecture”. Randy Pausch, a Carnegie Mellon University computer scientist, gave the lecture as part of a series where speakers were asked to give a lecture as if it were their last lecture of their life.

For Randy, this was significant. Because he was diagnosed with incurable pancreatic cancer in September, 2006. Doctors told him he would live 3 - 6 months. A year later he delivered “The Last Lecture”:

The speech last fall was part of a series Carnegie Mellon called “The Last Lecture,” where professors were asked to think about what matters to them most and give a hypothetical final talk. The name of the lecture series was changed to “Journeys” before Pausch spoke, something he joked about in his lecture.

“I thought, damn, I finally nailed the venue and they renamed it,” he said.

Randy died at his home in Virginia today. Below is the full lecture. It’s a little over an hour long, but I promise you won’t be disappointed. Be sure to stick around until the end for what Randy calls, “the head fake”. A word of caution, you might want to grab the kleenex.

R.I.P. Randy Pausch (October 23, 1960 - July 25, 2008)

Face it, there’s a liberal bias in mainstream media. The actions of the New York Times this week in publishing an editorial for their darling, Barack Obama, while initially refusing to do so for John McCain is just the latest evidence. In addition, McCain is getting the standard election-cycle treatment by the media, enjoying 1 minute of coverage for every 3 minutes for Obama… to say nothing of the fact that much of that single minute is negative coverage to boot.

Of course, the liberal media defends itself with claims that the “liberal” charge is merely an unsubstantiated rightwing talking point. They also casually dismiss the charges by claiming Obama is simply “more newsworthy“. They want us to think that Obama’s “historic” campaign is the bias-neutral reason for the slanted coverage, yet the coverage has been slanted for many campaign cycles, so there’s got to be another reason. Unfortunately for them, it’s the reason that undermines the credibility of their profession. Bias, plain and simple.

- The amount of money “journalists” contributed so far this election cycle favors Democrats by a 15:1 ratio over Republicans, with $225,563 going to Democrats, only $16,298 to Republicans.

- 235 journalists donated to Democrats, just 20 gave to Republicans — a margin greater than 10-to-1. An even greater disparity, 20-to-1, exists between the number of journalists who donated to Barack Obama and John McCain.

- Other newsroom categories (reporters, correspondents, news editors, anchors, newspaper editors and publishers) produces 311 donors to Democrats to 30 donors to Republicans, a ratio of just over 10-to-1. In terms of money, $279,266 went to Dems, $20,709 to Republicans, a 14-to-1 ratio.

- Discounting contributions to Paul and Giuliani, who was a favorite son for many folks in the media, the totals look like this: $315,533 to Democrats, $3,150 to Republicans (four individuals who donated to McCain) - a ratio of 100-to-1.

And it’s not even like the Democrat candidates need these overwhelmingly lopsided campaign contributions, because the very people making such donations are responsible for providing hours and hours of free, positive campaign coverage for the candidates anyway.

It’s not bias… it’s, it’s… deliverance!

It will probably come as no surprise that Barack Obama is more interested in bar-hopping in Berlin than meeting with brave American war heroes.

Sen. Barack Obama scrapped plans to visit wounded members of the armed forces in Germany as part of his overseas trip, a decision his spokesman said was made because the Democratic presidential candidate thought it would be inappropriate on a campaign-funded journey.

So he blames it on being a campaign trip… But in order to have it both ways, he makes it clear in his speech that he’s not there as a candidate…

“Tonight, I speak to you not as a candidate for President, but as a citizen – a proud citizen of the United States, and a fellow citizen of the world,”

You could almost set your watch by this guy’s inconsistencies…

And what’s he going to do, now that he’s cleared his schedule of the annoying visit with wounded soldiers? A night on the town, of course.

Obama noted that in a break from his whirlwind schedule, “we’ve got some down time tonight. What are you guys gonna do in Berlin? Huh? Huh? You guys got any big. plans? …I’ve never been to Berlin, so…I would love to tour around a little bit.”

Ah, the priorities of a Democrat.

The Obama campaign is trying to have it both ways with respect to his foreign campaign tour through the Middle East and Europe. On one hand, they’re making it a big campaign event and on the other hand they’re trying to portray it as some sort of official Congressional tour (the fact it’s coinciding with his Presidential campaign is just pure coincidence, of course).

Yet, a campaign aide at the briefing said the Berlin speech “is not for campaign purposes.”

“I don’t think the fact that large numbers of people gather to hear a speech makes it a campaign speech,” the aide said. “The substance of what he addresses is what’s important. And what he is addressing has nothing to do with campaigns. It has to do with his view of where we are today in the world.”

Aides suggested the speech would not target Republican John McCain, but might draw contrasts with President Bush’s policies.

When pressed by reporters, aides could not rule out that the campaign might use a film crew to shoot footage for an ad.

It seems to me that the Obama campaign is trying to portray this political campaign tour as an official Congressional trip so taxpayers will foot the bill and he doesn’t have to dip into his campaign donations to fund it…

It would be interesting to know who he’s charging for this political campaign trip.

And some in his campaign don’t realize that Obama isn’t actually the President:

“It is not going to be a political speech,” said a senior foreign policy adviser, who spoke to reporters on background. “When the president of the United States goes and gives a speech, it is not a political speech or a political rally.

“But he is not president of the United States,” a reporter reminded the adviser.

Hell, he’s not even officially the Democrat nominee. But the arrogance of his campaign bubbles over yet again.

It’s always their answer…

WASHINGTON — The political vision of a summer gas tax holiday died a quick death in Congress, losing to a view that federal excise taxes on gasoline and diesel fuel will have to go up if they go anywhere.
…
Now, lawmakers quietly are talking about raising fuel taxes by a dime from the current 18.4 cents a gallon on gasoline and 24.3 cents on

Despite the claim (by the Democrats pushing for a gas tax hike) that they need it to plug a shortfall in funds for infrastructure and the usual cry that lots of jobs will be lost, the reality, as Ed points out, is that this move is backed by big unions in the construction industry and the money is not just for infrastructure, but also massive amounts of government pork.

But rest assured that if Democrats pass this gas tax hike, the blame for the resulting economic pains to average Americans will undoubtedly be placed squarely on Republicans, President Bush, Halliburton, or Karl Rove.

Barack Obama is gearing up for his trip to Iraq in an effort to provide cover for his shifting position on the current state of Iraq. Over the weekend, his campaign purged the campaign website of all the articles, quotes and reminders of Obama calling the surge a failure.

The presumed Democratic nominee replaced his Iraq issue Web page, which had described the surge as a “problem” that had barely reduced violence.

“The surge is not working,” Obama’s old plan stated, citing a lack of Iraqi political cooperation but crediting Sunni sheiks - not U.S. military muscle - for quelling violence in Anbar Province.

The News reported Sunday that insurgent attacks have fallen to the fewest since March 2004.

Obama’s campaign posted a new Iraq plan Sunday night, which cites an “improved security situation” paid for with the blood of U.S. troops since the surge began in February 2007.

Once again, a Democrat candidate thinks the American public is simply too stupid to remember what this guy’s entire campaign has been about since the beginning. And once again, the public will see right through this latest whitewash.

Pelosi has asked President Bush to release oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to “combat high prices”. So she’s finally acknowledging that prices will come down if supply is increased…

Interesting.

To avoid being labeled a flip-flopper anymore, Barack Obama has decided to just take both sides of the issue in a single statement. In response to Iran’s missle test this morning, here’s how Barack Obama said he would respond if he were President (video):

“There’s no doubt we’re seeing rising tensions in the area. And it’s part of the reason why it’s so important for us to have a coherent policy with respect to Iran,” Obama told CNN television.

Iran “must suffer threats of economic sanctions with direct diplomacy opening up channels of communication so we avoid provocation, but we give strong incentives for the Iranians to change their behavior,” he said.

So he wants threats of sanctions but he wants to avoid provocation. Exactly how does that work with a country who says:

The aim of the test was to “to demonstrate our resolve and might against enemies who in recent weeks have threatened Iran with harsh language,” said the air force commander of Iran’s elite Revolutionary Guard, General Hoseyn Salami.

Two other types of missile with shorter ranges were also tested, and state television reported a total of nine launches, showing footage of three missiles firing simultaneously.

“Our hands are always on the trigger and our missiles are ready for launch,” General Salami said. “The enemy must not repeat its mistakes. The enemy targets are under surveillance.”

As Ed correctly points out, “Sanctions are provocations; otherwise, they wouldn’t work at all.”

So Obama is basically saying we need to provoke Iran with actions while making sure we don’t provoke Iran with our actions.

Ummm, okay.

Unhappy that Flip-Flopper version 1.0 (aka John Kerry) was unsuccessful in his bid to win the Presidency in 2004, Democrats have unveiled a new and improved version in Barack Obama.

Try not to get dizzy following this roller coaster of positions from Flip-Flopper version 2.0.

Barack Obama was for public campaign financing before he was against it.

He was against wearing flag pins before he was for them.

He was for extended American troop presence in Iraq before he was against it.

He was for negotiating directly with Iran before he was against it.

He was against laws favorable to lobbyists before he introduced 9 such laws to protect *his* lobbyists.

He was against immunity for the telecom companies involved in the terrorist surveilance program before he was for it.

He promised constituents of Illinois that he wouldn’t run for President in 2008… before he announced he was running for President in 2008.

He was against Congressional “micromanagement” of the war before he was for it.

He was against NAFTA before he was for it.

He was against Union “special interests” funding political campaigns… until they started backing his.

He was against a continued embargo against Cuba before he was for it.

And round and round he goes…

UPDATE: When Barack Obama decided to run a campaign of “change”, his supporters didn’t realize it meant he would “change” his mind every five minutes… check out the latest ad called “Barack Obama: Change that works for him“:

If you don’t do it regularly, set aside today, at least, to thank a soldier. If you know one, call or email ‘em your gratitude. If you see one at a restaurant, offer to pick up his or her tab. If you see one in passing, take a moment to personally thank ‘em for his or her service.

As we celebrate America’s independence today, let’s look back and remember those who started it all.

There were 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence; these men, from the original 13 colonies, participated in the Second Continental Congress, which helped draft and approve the document.

Pennsylvania sent nine delegates to the congress, followed by Virginia with seven and Massachusetts and New Jersey with five. Connecticut, Maryland, New York and South Carolina each sent four delegates; Delaware, Georgia, New Hampshire and North Carolina each sent three; and Rhode Island, the smallest colony, sent only two delegates.

Of the 56 signers, 18 were merchants or businessmen, 14 were farmers, four were doctors, 22 were attorneys and one was an active clergyman. Forty two of the signers served in their colonial legislatures and one, Stephen Hopkins, had served as Governor of Rhode Island. Almost all of the signers were Protestant Christians; Charles Carroll of Maryland was the only Roman Catholic signer.

Maybe if the ACLU had been around back then, they could’ve prevented these closed-minded, Christian-fundamentalists from holding “these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator…”

Damn bible-thumping rightwingers….

God bless ‘em!