A Fulbright scholar from the National Defense University‘s presentations at the BC campus tomorrow:
In other words, “how to screw people over and manipulate them.” I guess if you’re going to do capitalism, then you might as well go all out!
Here is the text of the speech I delivered at Bellevue College’s 2015 commencement. I’m posting it after one of my high school English teachers asked if she could read it. So, Ms. Apple, please remember that it was written to be a speech– to be listened to– rather than to be read…
Good evening! I am so honored to have this opportunity to say a few words to you tonight.
But, my gosh, preparing these words has not been easy… I have been over this and over this… Read and listened to scores of commencement speeches. Written half a dozen drafts of this speech. Gotten feedback from dozens of people. I’ve wanted my words to be perfect… But I’m settling for honest.
I’ve considered telling you my own story, of my personal philosophy of teaching, and how my main goal as a computer teacher is to empower people to use the computer as a tool to help communicate and connect with each other.
I’ve considered talking about my students, who teach me something new every single day. Who inspire me to continue to come to work every day, in the hopes of seeing the world thru their eyes, and thus expanding my own world.
I’ve considered talking about my love of Bellevue College; how it’s given me a place to feel at home, a safe place to reach out from, a place that surrounds me with brilliant, funny, and appreciative peers. I’ve considered telling you about how much respect I have for the role that Bellevue College plays in the larger community—how I’ve seen dozens of times how it helps people elevate themselves in new knowledge and skills, but most importantly in self-confidence.
I’ve considered voicing my concerns about a couple of the directions that the college is heading (specifically, the push towards university status and the push to move more and more classes online)—because, while these may be exciting directions to grow, we should not forget who we really are— the value of our buildings, which provide safe haven for people meet, face to face, a safe place to try new things and a safe place to make mistakes; we should not forget the value of our teachers who challenge students to explore themselves and the world around them more deeply; we should not forget the value of all our support staff, who help students meet basic needs so they have a solid foundation from which to reach for more.
I’ve considered emphasizing how, over the 50 years that BC has been around, it has learned the value of good teaching, the value of authentic connections between living, breathing human beings, and the value of community. I support progress and growth, but not at the expense of those who need us the most.
I wish I had something deep and profound to say. But I really don’t.
Because, I think that life is pretty simple, really: be kind to yourself and others. Do your best. Listen to your heart. Pursue things you’re interested in. Touch the ones you love. Be grateful to those who have helped you get to where you are right now. And pay it forward.
Because there is no such thing as “too much love.”
Thank you.
When I teach Excel, I always highlight what I consider the two most important features that make Excel useful: formulas and charts. Formulas are important because they allow us to analyze, manipulate, twist and turn numbers so that we can learn new things about them. And charts allow us to visualize numbers so that we can understand them in an instant. (If a picture is worth a thousand words, then a chart is worth a thousand numbers.)
But, when we start creating our own charts, and formatting them, I always point out how charts can be used to manipulate the data. The easiest way to point this out is to change the vertical axis so that it doesn’t start at zero. This amplifies any changes in the vertical axis, making the chart more dramatic. Here is an excellent article by Eric Portelance that further discusses this manipulation, as well as several other manipulations — either on purpose in order to mislead an audience, or by mistake by someone who doesn’t know how to present data accurately. 
The chart Portelance discusses is from a (late 2013) article by Mark Gimein, “Companies and Markets editor at Bloomberg.com, and lead writer for the Market Now blog and newsletter.” Bloomberg is, of course, the huge financial services conglomerate. These guys DO data. They should know better. In fact, I find it extremely hard to believe that they would create a chart that mistakenly mis-represented the data. The only other conclusion, then? That Bloomberg purposefully mis-represented the data.
The question then becomes, why? What do they hope to gain by publishing an article with the title, “For U.S. Men, 40 Years of Falling Income,” and then backing it up with purposefully mis-represented data?
Gimein’s concluding paragraph states, “To TMN it seems that the focus of the economic debate belongs less on rising incomes at the top than on falling incomes in the middle. The concern of Americans on the middle of the economic ladder is not really that their neighbors behind some high hedge are doing too well. It’s that they themselves are not earning anything like the incomes they expected. Judging by the data, that concern is well-founded.”
“Well-founded?” Look at the data in Portelance’s corrected chart:
The real question with this chart is, “what happened in 1972 that caused the steady progression of income growth to immediately level off?” Portelance, admitting he is not an economist, takes a shot in the dark anyway: “Bretton Woods and the end of the Gold Standard?” Maybe so. I’m not an economist either, and a cursory glance at Wikipedia’s “Nixon Shock” article only provided me more anxiety.
However, I do have my own guesses as to Bloomberg’s motives for publishing this purposefully-inaccurate article: Is Bloomberg trying to deflect attention away from income inequality (aka “Class Warfare”)? Are the richest 1% trying to “divide and conquer” the 99%?
Let’s look at a chart that looks at income by class: 
The income of the bottom four-fifths — the middle and lower classes — has remained steady since the mid 1960s. However, the top 20% and especially the top 5% have grown steadily since the mid 60s. This means that all the growth in income is going to the people who are already rich.
Is Bloomberg afraid that the proletariat will realized the rich have rigged the system? That the rich run things? That the rich make the rules, which of course favor the rich?