Mark Gilroy

Bringing Books to Life!

The Last Lecture: Randy Pausch on Living Well

Randy Pausch died on July 25, 2008, at age 47. A computer science professor at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, he achieved worldwide fame and became a bestselling author by the way he celebrated life despite a diagnosis of just months to live due to pancreatic cancer.

It began September 18 2007, when he gave a speech titled “Really Achieving Your Childhood Dreams.” The context was his university’s “last lecture” series, where professors were challenged to share with the audience something that matters most to them, as if they had only days to live. For Pausch, who spoke just weeks after learning he was suffering from terminal cancer, the context was not hypothetical.

The lecture became a hit as it crisscrossed the globe on the Internet, with more than three million viewers on YouTube alone. “If I don’t seem as depressed or morose as I should be, sorry to disappoint you,” said Pausch, the married father of three young children, at the start of the lecture. He spoke with optimism and humor, convinced that not even the specter of death could keep him from having fun; a buoyancy he maintained throughout his illness. He claimed you couldn’t escape the Reaper but you could still beat him … by living well.

In challenging his audience to really achieve their dreams, Pausch turned our typical success paradigms upside down by saying that achieving our dreams is not really about achieving our dreams. Huh? That’s not a chapter in The Secret is it?

“It’s about how you live and how you love,” he said. He believed he learned more from the dreams he had not achieved. How we travel the journey matters more than whether we get to the exact destination we had in mind. I guess knowing you are about to die will do that, will give that perspective, won’t it? Not necessarily according to Pausch.

“Cancer didn’t change me at all. I know lots of people talk about the life revelation. I didn’t have that. I always thought every day was a gift, but now I am looking for where to send the thank you note.”

Now that’s a challenge. I can’t think of a better place to start than a simple, “Thank you, Randy.”

Color Blind Criticism Is Not Racism

Colin Powell was considered by many to be the front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination in 1996 until withdrawing after his wife, Alma, publicly voiced her fear on 60 Minutes that he would be assassinated on the basis of his race.

Hillary Clinton, in a major campaign faux pas, brought the subject back to the forefront when, on May 23, 2008, in response to the question of why she had not bowed out of the Democratic primary race despite Barack Obama’s clear status as the presumptive nominee said, “We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California.”

Oops.

Barack Obama has not steered clear of the idea that race will be used against him. Just a few days ago in a speech in Jacksonville, Florida, he said:

It is going to be very difficult for Republicans to run on their stewardship of the economy or their outstanding foreign policy. We know what kind of campaign they’re going to run. They’re going to try to make you afraid. They’re going to try to make you afraid of me. He’s young and inexperienced and he’s got a funny name. And did I mention he’s black?

Ouch.

I hope that Obama is wrong. And I think he is, though maybe I’m being naive.

Here’s what I hope and pray is true of America at this moment in our history; I hope and pray we are color blind enough to …

■ vote for or against a man – or woman – no matter what his or her race;
■ affirm or criticize a candidate no matter what his or her race; and
■ when a person so follows his or her conscience in voting, affirming or criticizing, we not accuse them of racism.

If Obama wants to woo the hearts of swing voters in the face of real or perceived prejudice, he could take a page from Ronald Reagan’s game plan to turn a negative into a positive. When asked (again and again) if it was legitimate to make age an election issue, in a debate with Walter Mondale, he used his non-abrasive brand of humor to neutralize the power of the question to divide:

I will not make age an issue of this campaign. I am not going to exploit for political purposes my opponent’s youth and inexperience.

Major League Baseball: “What I Learned About Competition from the Globetrotters”

In 2006 the Harlem Globetrotters got win number 22,000. From 1971 to 1985 they won 8,829 straight games. In 1948-49 they beat the NBA champion Minneapolis Lakers two years in a row, which was a major factor in integrating the NBA. But most of their wins have come against various “stooge” teams, most owned by Red Klotz: the Boston Shamrocks, New Jersey Reds, Baltimore Rockets, the Washington Generals, and the Atlantic City Seagulls were a few.

Legends like Meadow Lark Lemon, Curly Neal, and Sweetwater Clifton are from a long ago era – already past their prime when I saw them as a kid – but amazingly, the team founded by Abe Saperstein in 1926 is still touring and entertaining the world.

Yes, the Globetrotters have steadfastly claimed that their “exhibition” games were competitive, but everyone knows better. The games have been the backdrop for one of the most enduring and entertaining comedy sketches of all time.

Competition in sports assumes two persons or parties with similar levels of ability – and fair rules.

The NBA is contending with charges that the league encouraged referees to “affect” the outcomes of certain playoff games. Anyone who watched Game 6 of the 2002 playoff series between Los Angeles and Sacramento has not problem believing that to be true, though the greatest mystery of the game was probably Shaq hitting 75% of his free throws. And anyone who watched Jeff Van Gundy, now an ESPN-ABC announcer, explain that he didn’t mean what he said when he said that very thing as Coach of the Houston Rockets, knows how awkward that topic is for those with a vested interest in protecting a league that is supposedly competitive first and entertaining second. But I digress …

Returning to the subject of my previous blog, Major League Baseball, and as response to the defenders of this spectacular of beauty, grace, intelligence, and sportsmanship, I would simply say that the numbers don’t lie. The league lacks competitive balance due to the vast gulf between what clubs can afford to pay for talent. Unlike the NFL, the singularly healthy professional sports league in the United States, there is not a revenue sharing plan. That means owners and general managers don’t have to be skilled talent evaluators and traders to build a great team, but rather they simply outbid the have-nots to amass all-star teams on a single roster.

Sure, there are exceptions to the rule and low-payroll teams have a Cinderella year and the high pay-roll clubs have an off year (cough … New … cough … York … cough … Yankees …). But a quick scan of the 2008 payroll figures is a pretty good indicator of how this season will end.

  1. Yankees $209,081,579
  2. Tigers $138,685,197 (a surprise spender, up from 9th in ’07)
  3. Mets $138,293,378 $117,915,819 $20,377,559
  4. Red Sox $133,440,037
  5. White Sox $121,152,667
  6. Angels $119,216,333
  7. Cubs $118,595,833 (when you are cursed, does it matter how much you spend?)
  8. Dodgers $118,536,038
  9. Mariners $117,993,982
  10. Braves $102,424,018
  11. Cardinals $100,624,450
  12. Blue Jays $98,641,957
  13. Phillies $98,269,881
  14. Astros $88,930,415
  15. Brewers $81,004,167
  16. Indians $78,970,067
  17. Giants $76,904,500
  18. Reds $74,277,695
  19. Padres $73,677,617
  20. Rockies $68,655,500
  21. Rangers $68,239,551
  22. Orioles $67,196,248
  23. Diamondbacks $66,202,713
  24. Twins $62,182,767
  25. Royals $58,245,500
  26. Nationals $54,961,000
  27. Pirates $49,365,282
  28. A’s $47,967,126
  29. Rays $43,820,598
  30. Marlins $21,836,500

Certain Major League Baseball teams have discovered the Harlem Globetrotters model for success. Stack the talent and schedule the stooges.