Friday, December 26, 2008

Hasslington Will Return After The First Of The Year

I'm fortunate in that I have the opportunity to take the next several days off from...well, most everything, really.  I will, however, be spending that time reading books, jogging, meeting friends I don't often get the chance to see, and recharging my batteries for the work to be done after January 1st.

If you haven't already done so, I recommend reading my previous post ("My Christmas Wish"), which encapsulates a few (though not all) of the reasons why I am at present in an optimistic mood.  That mood will most likely ebb and flow throughout 2009, but, as always, we'll have to wait in order to see how often it ebbs and how often it flows.

I would also like to take this opportunity to wish my friends from around the globe a very happy New Year.  2009, here we come....

Tuesday, December 23, 2008

My Christmas Wish

by: Hasslington

I know that to some this will sound like the whiny whimpers of a "loony leftie," but, given that my wife is from Britain, and given that I lived and worked there for several years (and would be happy to do so again some day), it's natural that we travel to Europe somewhat frequently. This does not put me in a position to pontificate endlessly regarding everything "European," but it does mean that I am in the position of being able to say with assurance the following: I cannot tell you exactly how far a little good will can go with one's friends and allies, but I can tell you that it can go a surprisingly long way. I can also tell you that it's time again for American foreign policy leaders to grasp that concept.

Very, very few Europeans expect the United States to "sell away the farm," so to speak. And very few expect us to take their advice every time they give it (despite what right-wing radio hosts suggest "lazy European whiners" wish us to do "for them"). What the vast majority of our friends and allies DO expect is that we listen to their viewpoints and take them into consideration in more than a cursory, compulsory manner.

So much of this has to do with tone, which the Bush Administration has bizarrely failed to realize. If we say "yes" occasionally to ideas originated by our friends and allies, then saying "no" to other suggestions--which, realistically speaking, we'll obviously still have to continue to do--isn't such a difficult thing for others to stomach. (It's a lot like just about any healthy adult relationship, really.) And if we say "no" in a manner that is respectful and collegial, it doesn't hurt our international standing--it might even gain us more respect amongst our friends (and some adversaries), which could pay off handsomely down the road, in any of a number of ways.

But there's a problem, and it is this: even now, on the eve of 2009, a lot of otherwise fairly intelligent Americans don't care about our international standing--and have the arrogance, born of insularity, to suggest that we needn't ever think about it. Yet international stances and actions reverberate, and accumulate, in this international world. That's reality, no matter what ueber-provincialists insist on believing. (Thankfully, the ueber-provincial crowd is shrinking in numbers.)

We Americans are, after all, necessary leaders on the world stage, which the vast majority of Europeans I know accept and even appreciate (again, despite what insular right-wingers suggest). Given this fact, increasing numbers of Americans of all political stripes need to accept the notion that we have not only the rights but also the responsibilities that come with being world leaders, which means that we need to become more internationally savvy in a hurry. And in this increasingly international world, world leaders cannot afford to be constantly dictating their will; if they make that mistake, history shows us that after a while they get isolated by those allies to whom they dictate (it's human nature, really), no matter how powerful those world leaders are. Then their affluence and influence drains, and....

So we need to be more cooperative with our friends and allies (though not beholden to all of their wishes, of course), and we need to simultaneously keep innovating on the homefront--in a number of senses, economically and otherwise--as well. We cannot afford to only do one or the other, which might have been an option several decades in the past, but is certainly not one, or at least not an acceptable one, now.

Winston Churchill once said that what was special about the United States was (and remains, by the way) that "...America always eventually gets it right." He was giving us the needle by using the word "eventually," but he was correct in the sense that when the U.S. goes astray (as all countries do), it tends to find its equilibrium again, at least eventually. That most certainly does not happen in every country around the world. Most every European I know appreciates this aspect of the U.S., which is why they are so often befuddled by the obvious anti-pragmatism of the ostensibly "pragmatic" Bush/Cheney years. (As far as misleading advertising goes, the present administration's attempts to pass off their brick-brained agenda as realistic and pragmatic is amongst the most "wowser!" of their many "wowser!" moments.)

But starting in 2009, we might--might--be getting it right once again. In order to do that, we need to understand that the process of being pragmatic in the twenty-first century needs to take some different forms than it might have taken the last few decades. We'll have to wait and see if we get there rapidly. I'm in an optimistic mood: today, at least, I'm thinking that we will.

Sunday, December 21, 2008

A Few More Quick Weekend Notes: The Vikes Lose And It's Cold--What Else Is New For Minnesota In December?...

--Well, I got the score right, but I messed-up when it came to predicting the winner of the Minnesota Vikings versus Atlanta Falcons football game. (Since predicting accurately President-Elect Obama's and Senator McCain's running mates, I've been on a bit of a losing streak.) Though it was played in the Metrodome here in Minnesota, the Falcons (who are now 10-5) won 24 to 17. They deserved to win, too--though the Vikings were the more talented team, the Falcons were the smarter, more consistent team today. So they're headed to the playoffs, whereas the Vikings (9-6) will need either two Chicago Bears losses or a win against the New York Giants next week in order to make the playoffs. It's coming down to the wire for the Vikes, who have stumbled-and-fumbled through the last few Decembers....

--Tomorrow is December 22, which in some ways I consider the first day of spring, due to the fact that the days start to get a little bit longer at that point. Remember, please, that I currently live in Minnesota, where our high temperature today was about zero Fahrenheit (about -17 Celsius), so I like to fake myself into thinking that spring starts in late December. I try to keep this in mind during our coldest stretch of the year, which is from about now until Valentine's Day or so. (It's hard to believe that it was over 90 Fahrenheit with high humidity here quite often last summer, but I guess I'm still sort of readjusting to life in the Upper Midwest after having lived for a while in temperate, if soggy, England.)

Saturday, December 20, 2008

A Few Quick Weekend Notes: "Friday's Child" Has Learned To Wear Interesting Clothes; Also, A Vikings Versus Falcons Prediction

--Yesterday, I said that I would watch an old episode of "Star Trek" sometime soon, in order to quietly thank Mr. and Mrs. Roddenberry for the wonderful show. Well, today I was channel surfing, and I happened upon an old episode of "Star Trek" titled "Friday's Child." I watched it with a smile on my face. Sure, the "aliens" in this episode were obviously humans wearing what might be described as theater costumes featuring extraordinarily arbitrary color schemes. (One of the aliens looked like a kid's cartoon character, without the goofily happy-clappy attitude.) What mattered most, however, was encapsulated in the fact that Mr. Spock was a bit miffed that an alien child was named for Captain Kirk and Doctor McCoy but not him, to which he responded with an avuncular bit of humor that was appreciated by everyone. That's a true sign of friendship.

--My Minnesota Vikings (American football team) will play the Atlanta Falcons tomorrow in the Metrodome in Minneapolis. Both teams are having very good seasons; they both have records of nine wins and five losses. This should be a closely-fought game, but the Vikes are tough to beat at home, so I'm going to predict that the final score will be Minnesota 24, Atlanta 17. (A win would put the Vikes in the post-season playoffs.)

Friday, December 19, 2008

Majel Roddenberry Is Once Again With Her Husband

I haven't seen a "Star Trek" television episode or movie in a long time. Yet I was rather saddened when I learned that Majel Barrett Roddenberry, the widow of "Star Trek" creater Gene Roddenberry who played the former "Star Trek" character Nurse Chapel, died this week. (She was in her later seventies.) She also provided the voice of the "ship's computer" for most of the various "Star Trek" series and movies, and had recently provided the voice for the ship's computer in the new "Star Trek" film, which is set to open worldwide in 2009.

Leaving the cheesy sets (and William Shatner stumbling all over "the bridge" while simultaneously trying to keep his toupee on, in an attempt to look as though they were "under attack") aside for the moment, the original "Star Trek" was a wonderful show, not the least because it gave viewers of all ages a chance to check-in on a weekly basis with the pragmatic, conscientious main characters, whose bond was familial with each other (despite occasional off-camera personality clashes amongst some of the actors who played those characters). Just as importantly, their unique banter was instantly familiar and welcoming to us viewers.

That's really the point about "Star Trek"--the special effects were cheesy (and, in the more recent versions, they're still rather frowsy, at least in comparison to other modern science-fiction/fantasy shows and films), and the moralizing has always been a bit on the obvious and preachy side, but it doesn't matter. What matters is that those characters clearly meant more to each other than the fact that they were colleagues and friends--they were one another's family, as well.

I'm not embarrassed to say that it's a great feeling to check-in with an old episode from time to time. I think I'll do so again relatively soon in order to quietly thank Mrs. Roddenberry, as well as her husband.

Thursday, December 18, 2008

Do Men Need "Wellness" More Than Women? And Why Do A Lot Of Folks Keep Calling It "Wellness," Anyway?

At my workplace, we have an employee bulletin called "Words For Wellness." Now, before I say anything more, I'm all for sharing tips regarding healthy living, even rather obvious ones. Yet I fail to see why our society had to invent the word "wellness" about fifteen or so years ago. It's generic and so diffuse as to metaphorically float away into the ether. It's so ueber-general that it's almost meaningless.

The publication should instead make use of the good, old fashioned word "health." (That's a word with a little more meat on its bones, so to speak.) It could, for instance, be called "Words For Healthy Living." That seems to mean a lot more than the fuzzy, good-vibes feel of "Words For Wellness." But anyway...

The following is, according to the latest edition of "Words For Wellness," "five sure ways men can lower their risk for heart disease":

1.) Don't smoke.
2.) Exercise at least 3.5 hours per week.
3.) Maintain weight in proportion to your height.
4.) Eat a diet centered around fruits and vegetables, whole grains, lean poultry, and unsaturated fats.
5.) Consume alcohol only in moderation.

Now, leaving the various nebulous qualities of these suggestions (how strenuous does the exercise have to be?; what precisely does "centered around" mean in this context?...) aside for a moment, here's my question: don't these tips apply equally to men and women? I think it's obvious that they do. And don't both men and women need to lead relatively healthy lives in order to avoid heart disease? I'd say so.

My guess is that there are more women than men at my workplace, so why wouldn't the above read, "sure ways people can lower their risk of heart disease"? (In fact, even if there were very few women at my workplace, it would still seem right for the publication to use the term "people" instead of "men.") And please don't try to tell me that men have generally less healthy habits than women; though that might be the case in a very general historic context, these days both sexes seem to eat a lot of overly-processed foods and lack necessary exercise. (I'm speaking in a general sense, of course.)

I find a lot of this dichotomy-making to be a bit on the weird and slightly divisive side of things. Men and women are obviously different in a number of real ways, so why add to that false differences and then advertise them?

Wednesday, December 17, 2008

The Fading Nature Of The English Language, Volume 1

The world is always changing. Sometimes things change for the better, and sometimes they change for the worse. I therefore acknowledge (and appreciate) that some things are changing for the better.

Yet the way we in the Western World use the English language is unquestionably changing for the worse. Here is one example....

PHRASE: "You are transparent."

OLDER DEFINITION (up to about a decade ago): You are attempting to hide some bit of information from me, but you're not doing a good job of it. It's as though you have whatever you are hiding in one of your hands, and that hand is behind your back as you face me. Yet because you're like a transparent object, I can see right through you to whatever you are hiding. You clearly need to work on concealment strategies.

ANALYSIS: I find this use of the term multi-layered and interesting. The metaphor hangs together well.

NEWER DEFINITION (the last decade or so; I blame Tony Blair, amongst others, for this definition): You have nothing to hide; therefore, like a transparent object, nothing clouds one's ability to see clearly through you.

ANALYSIS: Booooooooring. This definition lacks any interesting layers, and in doing so its message is actually quite muddled. Shouldn't we appreciate people who display genuine substance and gravitas? So why would being "transparent" (which suggests a certain lack of substance) be considered a good thing? (It conjures up images of an empty inner life, amongst other things.)

Also, it seems creepily invasive in the sense that the person being "transparent" wants to be metaphorically X-rayed in order to be proven "clean" and therefore "true." (This suggests shades of Orwell's 1984, amongst other things.) It would seem to me that one wouldn't want to be examined like that, literally or metaphorically.

If you want to be seen as an honest person, drop the eerie, new-wave definition of "transparent" and just say, "I'm being open and honest with you...."

Tuesday, December 16, 2008

Here's Hoping For A Coleman/Franken Senatorial Tie (And Not The Kind You Wear With A Clean Shirt)

According to the official website for the office of the Minnesota Secretary of State, of approximately three million votes cast, incumbent U.S. Senator Norm Coleman received 1,211,590 votes on November 4th, whereas his Democratic challenger, Al Franken, received 1,211, 375 votes. This means that on election night, Norm Coleman appeared to have won the narrowest of victories, with a difference of only 215 votes, or about .007%. (If no one else, at least this leaves Sean Connery with a superficial reason to smile....) Nearly half a million votes went to other candidates, the majority of which were cast for Independent candidate Dean Barkley.

Since the vote was razor-thin, a statewide hand-recount took place, and as a result Senator Coleman's lead has slipped to somewhere between 188 and 192 votes, depending on which presently "unofficial" totals one believes; the media is rather uniformly reporting that Senator Coleman leads by 192 votes, but the aforementioned web-site seems to suggest that the lead is 188 votes. As these totals shift slightly from time to time, they both might be obsolete by the time you read this. And with absentee ballots in question (and due to be reviewed and perhaps recounted), as well as challenged ballots that need to be examined, this race could still tip just barely in either direction...a month and a half after election day.

No matter what we keep hearing about a possible "fillibuster-proof majority" in the U.S. senate, just remember this: it's all a bunch of crappola, because you need to get everyone who makes up such a mythical majority to agree unifromly in order to bring it about in any functional manner, and even then it might only work once or twice, given that legislators feel differently about different pieces of legislation and someone is bound to throw a monkey wrench into her or his party's plans at any given time. And, anyway, it looks as though the Democrats will fall short of the number necessary for such a headline-motivated, phantom majority.

So the results of this U.S. senate race will not tip the scales heavily in either direction--the Democrats will have a big but not all-powerful majority in the U.S. senate one way or the other. Given that, at the national level, I'm at present far more comfortable with the Democrats than the innovation-starved, rather rudderless Republicans, I'm happy with this outcome. Yet I also remain wary of giving either party too much power, which means that I am pleased that the Democrats haven't cracked, say, the sixty seat ceiling (out of the 100 that make up the body), which would be a psychological back-breaker for the Republicans and for many fans of somewhat centrist senate policies.

What we're left with in this Coleman-Franken saga, then, isn't an epoch-defining moment, but more like a bit of a national senate curiosity (as if we haven't had enough of those in recent years). For my part, I know that when the dust settles (whenever that might be), I should be hoping that Al Franken (barely) wins. I did vote for him, after all. Yet I find myself hoping for something else: an exact tie between the two candidates. The chances of that happening are very, very small, but I keep thinking, well, a guy can hope....

I want a tied outcome so that my home state of Minnesota is forced to change its rules for U.S. senate races in order to bring them in line with some other states that require senators to win a majority of votes cast--if not in the initial, more crowded candidate field on election day, then in a run-off between the top two vote-getters a month later. Let's face it--whoever "wins" this Minnesota U.S. senate race received about (or perhaps slightly less than) 42% of the overall vote on election day. I suppose that's okay if the next closest candidate received, say, 35%, but that didn't happen this time, so whoever wins isn't going to seem legitimate.

Besides, if the outcome were to be a rather miraculous tie, wouldn't the state have to hold a run-off between Mr. Coleman and Mr. Franken in January, or at least something like that? That would force Minnesota to change the rules, for sure. One way or the other, they need to be changed.

Monday, December 15, 2008

Regarding America's Troubled Automobile Industry...

This past weekend, I wrote the following comments on my friend Flash's "Centrisity" blog-site (http://centrisity.blogspot.com/). I have modified the comments ever so slightly, simply for clarity's sake. Here are my comments:

Foreign manufacturers have a leg-up on U.S. car makers in ways other than employee benefits (though I agree that some adjustments must be done in that area). One of the other ways they have a leg-up is that they have always been forced to look outside of their own countries in order to meet profit goals; their home markets alone cannot meet overhead costs. Hence, they have innovated for their own needs as well as been flexible enough to innovate for the needs and wishes of people elsewhere.

Our (U.S.) car manufacturers, on the other hand, have been hopelessly myopic. Their sense of the world is almost non-existent, and their view of things is rather Palin-esque: if we want big trucks to look tough and/or compensate for small penises, etc., why, that's the only way to go. Hooray, hooray, U.S.A.!

Yet the rest of the world has different requirements and trends, and we should have been smart enough to adhere to both our wishes at home and the necessities of folks abroad who would rather like to drive U.S. vehicles. (I know many folks from outside of the U.S. who would like to drive U.S. cars and have done so in the past, but who have finally thrown in the towel and bought vehicles from other countries in recent years, due to the clumsiness of smaller American cars.)

The American Right can scream about employee benefits (and, to a certain extent, they may be right) and The American Left can talk about installing a Car Czar into the national equation (and, to a certain extent, that may be a pragmatic idea). But unless and until U.S. auto manufacturers recognize that we are going to have to sell (hopefully environmentally-friendly) cars to a good chunk of the 2.5 billion combined Chinese and Indians (as well as others elsewhere) in order to stay viable, everything that both sides of the political aisle in presently insular Washington (and Detroit) try to do is going to go down the drain.

The first step might be to get the unimpressive C.E.O.s of U.S. car companies to park their fancy private jets and take a good, old-fashioned world geography test. The results would be howling funny, I'm sure. Or at least they would be funny if the stakes weren't so high.

--Hasslington

Sunday, December 14, 2008

Hasslington Reflects And Recalibrates

I apologize for not posting anything over the past week. This was primarily due to two things: 1.) my computer was a bit "on the blink" (as it were), though that has been rectified; and 2.) due to my mind being focused on something other than what I was doing, I caused a bit of a plumbing emergency a few days ago, though that too has thankfully been rectified.

Hence, this past week was odder than many, but we carry on with smiles on our faces....

Yet this past week has also afforded me the opportunity of reflecting on the direction I want to take this blog-site now that the 2008 U.S. presidential election is over, and I have come to the conclusion that I would like to try posting material more often than I have until this point. (Since I started this site last April, I've averaged about three posts per week; I'd like to raise that average to about five posts per week.) I have also come to the conclusion that, given my wish to post material more often, the posts I publish from this point forward will often (though not always) be shorter than they have tended to be up until now.

Basically, this means that I will be writing about as much per week as I've written up to this point, but the material I write will be spread-out among more posts per week.

I'm still as excited about blogging as I was the first day I started this site, and I'm equally excited about this "recalibration." So we'll see how it goes.

Sunday, December 7, 2008

Relatively (If Not Completely) Arbitrary Lists, Political And Otherwise

HASSLINGTON'S EARLY OBAMA CABINET NOMINEE POLL REVEALS NO BIG STINKERS YET

The recent Hasslington poll--which asked readers, "If you had to choose, with which Obama cabinet nominee are you least satisfied?"--revealed no "big, obvious errors" on the part of President-Elect Obama insofar as his first seven cabinet nominees are concerned. Why do I say this? Well...

1.) Everyone except Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano received at least one and no more than two votes in the poll, which seems to reveal that no one has yet come across as being an obviously bad choice to a large segment of the politically-interested public (or at least amongst those politically-interested folks who read this website). Had someone come across as being "obviously weak," that person would have likely received the lion's share of the votes.

2.) I have been informed that a few voters chose nominees who they thought were over-qualified for the posts for which they have been nominated. (One person informed me, for instance, that New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson is "a bit too 'big' an international persona for the position of Commerce Secretary." I replied by saying that the position for which he is nominated may be strengthened, given the increasingly international economy of which the U.S. domestic economy is a major player and the present international economic downturn in which the U.S. domestic economy is playing a major role. But we'll have to wait and see if that position is indeed strengthened....)

3.) I left the "None Of The Above" option off the list in order to force voters to choose someone, but had I not left that option off the list, I get the sense that quite a few folks might very well have chosen it. Perhaps I'll reconsider inserting such an option into future polls....

AS SOMEONE WHO LOVES TO READ PAST HIS BEDTIME, I'VE BEEN TURNING THE FOLLOWING OVER IN MY HEAD OF LATE (I'VE YET TO DECIDE ON MY FAVORITE POSSIBLE ENDING): "EARLY TO BED, EARLY TO RISE, MAKES A PERSON HEALTHY, WEALTHY, AND...

1.) ...wise."

2.) ...boring."

3.) ...George W. Bush."

4.) ...annoyingly chipper during the early hours at work."

5.) ...inordinately sensitive to early-morning traffic noise."

6.) ...the first in line for 'the sales' at the local mall, frantically clutching the door handle while waiting for the precise moment it is unlocked by a slightly frightened security guard."

7.) ...a pensioner."

8.) ...a huge fan of 'Morning Joe' (in the U.S.) or John Humphrys (in the U.K.), or, in rare but psychologically interesting cases, both."

9.) ...a frequent visitor to coffee shops, at which he or she speaks to who he or she calls the 'folks behind the counter' for at least five minutes prior to letting the next person in line place his or her order."

10.) ...a painter and/or photographer specializing in sunrise vistas."

I'M AN OBAMA SUPPORTER, BUT IT NEVER HURTS TO AT LEAST GLANCE AT THE COMPETITION FOR 2012, EVEN AT THIS VERY EARLY STAGE. SO, WHO MIGHT PRESIDENT OBAMA'S 2012 PRESIDENTIAL OPPONENT BE?

1.) U.S. Senator John Thune (South Dakota). He's young-ish, conservative, well-spoken, and seemingly authentic. Then again, he might decide to bide his time, build his resume,' and run for president in 2016. (It will most likely depend on President Obama's popularity rating a few years from now.) One way or the other, though very few people are presently talking about him, Senator Thune is (quietly) on the rise....

2.) (A Relative Unknown). Most potential Republican presidential challengers are looking like weak competition right now, which could change, but it could also mean that someone relatively unknown might very well emerge rapidly over the next few years in order to become the party's nominee.

3.) Governor Bobby Jindal (Louisiana). He's still in his thirties, but he has intelligence, charisma, and a certain way with words. It probably also helps him that he's from a minority group (he is of Indian descent). His age might benefit him, at least after he turns forty in 2011. Yet there is a possible drawback: did I mention his age?

4.) Governor Tim Pawlenty (Minnesota). I can't believe I just put this guy (who happens to be my state's governor) in forth place, but I guess he's quietly building a following, so.... He tends to project a home-spun Midwestern persona that is too generically "home-spun" to be authentic. He'd have done well as a Vice Presidential candidate in the 1970s.

5.) Former Governor Mitt Romney (Massachusetts). He's from Massachusetts, and I guess Michigan, too. Oh, and he's got a following in Utah, and.... He's too ubiquitous (he seems to be from both everywhere and nowhere, like a tee-totaling version of Tony Blair) and fake-looking (his hair has to be unreal) to seem authetic. He also both looks like the main character from 'American Dad' and is likely to take that satirical television show seriously. But he does have a somewhat considerable conservative following....

6.) Former Governor Mike Huckabee (Arkansas). He's a clever speaker who nonetheless brings the theme music to "The Andy Griffith Show" to mind....

Others: Haley Barbour (who is ingratiating but whose 'beyond-the-back-of-beyond' accent is truly something to behold), Charlie Crist (whose often ueber-earnest expression is somehow infuriating), Jon Huntsman (who has the same sort of 'titanium guy' problem Mitt Romney has), Sarah Palin (...please, no...), Tom Ridge (a real possibility if the pro-life crowd is marginalized within the party, which is not necessarily likely to happen), etc., etc.

This is a very weak crowd at present. This may or may not remain the case over the next few years. My suggestion would be to assume that it will strengthen considerably, and prepare for that to be the case. Whether it actually does strengthen or not is obviously still an open question....

Wednesday, December 3, 2008

Hasslington's "Obama Cabinet Nominee Poll #1": Let's Put On Our "Critical Caps" For A Moment

The oft-hyperventilating, Palin-loving, "Obama-Is-A-Crazy-Liberal!" sloganeering crowd has thus far been proven wrong, at least insofar as President-Elect Obama's early cabinet picks are concerned, as they have been quite politically balanced indeed. For instance, Tom Daschle, nominated for U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary, is obviously left-leaning; Hillary Clinton, nominated for U.S. Secretary of State, is in many ways a centrist on foreign policy (she's dove-ish on some issues and hawkish on others, such as Iran); and Robert Gates, re-nominated for the role of U.S. Defense Secretary, is a conservative currently serving in the Bush Administration.

Earlier today, Mr. Obama nominated Bill Richardson--who is certainly hard to peg as an ideologue, given that he is dove-ish on foreign policy yet also a tax-cutting Democrat--for the increasingly important role of U.S. Commerce Secretary. (Given Governor Richardson's impressive international credentials, he is surely a solid choice for that job in this increasingly international economy.) Other nominees, such as Janet Napolitano for U.S. Homeland Security Secretary, are impressive in their own unique ways.

Given that, I would like Hasslington readers to put on their "critical caps," as it were, and vote for the nominee with which they are least satisfied in the poll--which will be up and running for the next few days only--located above this post. (As of this moment, there are seven major cabinet nominees; others will be forthcoming in the next few weeks, and I plan to conduct a similar poll when most of them have been announced.) I hope to create a (not-too-distant) future post based on these "critical" votes.

This is an experiment, really. I hope to use it to dig a bit "deeper" into the thought process being used to form the forthcoming Obama cabinet. At any rate, let's see where this experiment leads, shall we?

Saturday, November 29, 2008

Regarding...India, Pakistan, And Joe-The-Former-Candidate

THE MUMBAI TERRORISTS SEEM TO HAVE HAD PAKISTANI CONNECTIONS. HENCE, REGARDING THIS SCENARIO IN THE CONTEXT OF AMERICAN PRESIDENTIAL POLITICS...

...I seem to remember quite clearly one U.S. presidential candidate continuously steering Middle-Eastern foreign policy debate questions in the direction of a discussion on the future of U.S.-Pakistani relations and their long-term implications. That candidate was Democratic Senator Joe Biden. Unless you are just now returning from a six-month vacation on Mars, you are well aware that Senator Biden went on to become Senator Barack Obama's presidential running mate, and you also know that due to the electoral outcome on November 4th, Senator Biden has since become Vice President-Elect Biden.

Over the past two or so years, while most of the other presidential candidates, Democratic and Republican, understandably spent large quantities of foreign policy debate time speaking almost exclusively about Iraq (Senator McCain's favorite foreign policy topic), Iran (Senator Clinton's favorite foreign policy topic), and Afghanistan (Senator Obama's favorite foreign policy topic), Senator Biden seemed to confuse a number of audience members by consistently suggesting that how we handle the paradox-bomb that is the ongoing Pakistani scenario--as it relates to India, Afghanistan, and the wider region--will largely determine whether or not we "succeed" in the other nearby countries the other candidates were spending so much time discussing.

I should also point out that Senator Biden did often discuss Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Israel/Palestine, Syria, Lebanon, etc., during the debates. My point, however, is that he shifted the context from the more simplistic one used by many candidates from both parties--generally discussing these countries in piecemeal, individual terms exclusively, which allowed them to focus on their favorite topics and decide whether or not to move out from there--to a more holistic and complex context--briefly discussing the region in general and then suggesting that, given its nuclear capabilities and powder-keg status at present, Pakistan needs to be where the discussion of particular countries starts and from where it radiates to discussions of other countries in the region. (Needless to say, he was quite critical of the Bush Administration's Pakistan policy, which he said "...is only a Musharraf policy, not an actual Pakistan policy....")

The only other Democratic candidates to do this, though admittedly to a lesser and less consistent extent, were Senator Obama and Governor Bill Richardson. Those two candidates, and particularly Governor Richardson, showed that they knew the issues regarding Pakistan quite well, but they never fully used that country as their prime focus of policy toward the region. No Republicans responded in a manner similar to Senator Biden, or even in a manner similar to Senator Obama or Governor Richardson. The one who came the closest was probably Mayor Rudy Giuliani, though he focused his rather "gung-ho" comments on Iran more often than on Pakistan.

My ultimate point is this: I do not believe that Vice President-Elect Biden is some sort of soothsayer who will be sworn into the number two position in the executive branch "just in the nick of time to save us from ourselves." I may have my optimistic moments, but I am not that naive. What I do believe, however, is that an intelligent individual, President-Elect Obama, made an intelligent and informed Vice Presidential selection when he chose Mr. Biden, who happens to be prescient regarding foreign policy far more often than most U.S. national legislators, to be his running mate.

(And I think Senator Biden got a bum rap during the presidential campaign regarding his Iraq federalization plan, which it should be pointed out won the support of three-quarters of the U.S. senate and might have helped expedite a return to lower levels of violence in Iraq had it been implemented immediately upon request. Just because President Bush went in a different direction on the issue, which has resulted in some success, it doesn't mean that Senator Biden's plan was the "wrong" one.)

Does Joe Biden like to hear himself talk...often endlessly? Yes. Everyone knows that. But who cares? He's also smart, and he will make his voice heard early and often in the Obama Administration, which is what President-Elect Obama has said he wants. (Regarding foreign policy consistency within the administration, it also helps that Mr. Biden is a friend of Hillary Clinton; surely this had at least something to do with her apparent selection as the forthcoming Secretary of State....)

The world is still enthralled with President-Elect Obama. I think this is a generally good thing, and I hope it continues, though it will have to do so in an altered form once he starts governing and therefore has to make a few decisions that might be unpopular in certain sectors of the world. But, in light of recent events, I hope folks around the world understand the role Vice President-Elect Biden played in shifting the foreign policy debate within the presidential race (particularly on the Democratic side) to include countries like Pakistan, which in the early stages of the debate process were basically ignored. I also hope that folks around the world pay attention to the gravitas he adds to the Obama Administration. (Let's remember that in pre-election national polls, over 90% of Americans said he was "qualified" to be president should tragedy occur, whereas only about 50% thought the same of Governor Palin.)

Nearly everyone presently interested in the transition of presidential power seems to be saying that President-Elect Obama's "first important selections" are "telling," and most of these folks are referring to his cabinet appointments. What they seem to have forgotten is that he made his first "telling" selection months ago when he chose Joe Biden to be his running mate. I think it was a good selection. But, as is nearly always the case, only time will tell.

Monday, November 24, 2008

Regarding...(A Number Of Things)....

REGARDING...A POTENTIAL SECRETARY OF STATE HILLARY CLINTON....

Hillary Clinton is highly intelligent and experienced enough insofar as international policy is concerned to do a good job as the next U.S. Secretary of State. Though she and President-Elect Obama do not naturally see eye-to-eye on all areas of foreign policy, they agree more often than they disagree on a number of crucial foreign policy issues. (And she'll most likely adhere to her future boss' wishes regarding the issues on which they tend to disagree.)

She might also be able to help push a few more "dove-ish" Obama policies (in comparison with the Bush II policies) toward the Middle East because she herself is a cautious centrist--some might even say she's naturally hawkish--when it comes to the region. Just as Democratic chief executives sometimes find it easier to cut taxes than do Republicans (...if a Democrat wants to cut taxes, many folks often think, "Well, that must be the way to go according to a vast majority of people, because even the Democrat is for it..."), so too might a soon-to-be President Obama find it easier to convince the American public to change its mind on a few select Middle East issues if the far more hawkish Hillary Clinton is often his mouthpiece on the region. The psychology behind this kind of "muscular-yet-more-leftwards" thinking is complex and seemingly convoluted, but it's often quite successful, as well.

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are internationally famous, rock-star-esque politicians, so there will assuredly be a number of ego clashes in their working relationship. So we'll have to see if they can keep their differences largely out of the public eye. (My guess is that they can pull this off.) And, anyway, she has proven that she can be a team player. Now, let's just see if her husband can do likewise, which largely means keeping his mouth shut....

REGARDING...A POTENTIAL COMMERCE SECRETARY BILL RICHARDSON....

If you've read this blog more than a few times, you know that I am a fan of New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson. I will, therefore, try to keep this section relatively short, in order to avoid repeating myself a bit too much. Please let it suffice to say that in this international era nearly everything recirculates back to the realm of foreign policy (even what we often view as being in the exclusive realm of "domestic policy" does this, for the most part...). It is therefore the case that whoever becomes the next U.S. Commerce Secretary needs to have extensive knowledge of world politics and a working relationship with many world leaders.

As far as that is concerned, Bill Richardson is a former multiple-term member of the U.S. House of Representatives, a former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., a former U.S. Energy Secretary, a present (and popular) two-term state governor, an ongoing international hostage negotiator and diplomat, and someone who has been nominated five times for the Nobel Peace Prize. I would have preferred him to have been the forthcoming Secretary of State, but as the worthy Hillary Clinton is slotted for that position, I think he'll do a fine job as U.S. Commerce Secretary instead. I'm glad to see that President-Elect Obama has apparently decided to offer this job to Governor Richardson; it's another fine choice amongst several fine early cabinet choices on the part of Mr. Obama.

REGARDING...READING WHAT ONE'S STUDENTS READ....

I have taught English (as well as, to a far lesser extent, Religion, Citizenship, and a few other areas of study) to people ranging in age from about ten to well into adulthood. At present, I have stumbled somewhat accidentally and fortuitously into a job at which I teach both English and Reading (the latter of which is for struggling readers) to junior high students here in Minnesota. A rather large percentage of these students are at present fascinated by Stephanie Meyer's young adult "Twilight" novel saga (at present, there are four novels in the series).

Since the film version of the first novel--also called "Twilight"--has just been released, I found myself shrugging and purchasing the paperback version of that book this past weekend. I told my students that I would read the book over the next week or so in order to determine whether or not I want to see the movie, which was greeted with a number of smiles and approving murmurs. I started the novel this evening, and so far it strikes me as having the somewhat contradictory characteristic of being ingratiatingly self-absorbed--rather like a lot of teenagers, though not all of them--and evocative of the "young outsider experience," which is hardly a new motif, but, hey....

So far, I think I like the novel. I hope that lasts.

Thursday, November 20, 2008

Presidential Election Map Analysis; Also, Potential Obama Cabinet Jobs For Governors Napolitano And Richardson....

ELECTORAL MAP POLITICS: TAKE YOUR OWN ADVICE NEXT TIME, HASSLINGTON!

Had I stuck with my initial (say, mid-October or thereabouts) feelings regarding the U.S. presidential electoral map, I would have chosen the correct number of electoral votes for both Barack Obama and John McCain--365 for the former and 173 for the latter--though I would not have picked every single state race correctly.

Why do I say this? Well, I had a sense during the closing weeks of the election that North Carolina might flip barely into the Obama column, but then I listened to my last-minute second-thoughts, which told me that it would perhaps stay barely in the McCain column. As it was, Barack Obama pulled out a very slim victory there.

The same is the case with the Omaha congressional district of Nebraska. A few months ago, I said that it may very well tip into the Obama column, though the rest of the state would surely vote rather heavily for John McCain. But, again, just prior to the election, I had second thoughts, and predicted a razor-thin McCain victory in the district. Again, I should have stayed with my initial feeling.

Had I stayed with those feelings, I would have added sixteen electoral votes (fifteen for North Carolina and one for the Omaha district of Nebraska) to my official pre-election prediction (349 for Barack Obama and 189 for John McCain), which would have brought my prediction for Barack Obama's total to 365.

This does not, however, mean that I would have predicted accurately every state race, because in my official prediction I stuck with my initial sense that Indiana would tip barely to John McCain and Missouri would tip barely to Barack Obama. Yet the opposite occurred, as previously ruby-red Indiana tipped very slightly to Barack Obama and Missouri tipped very slightly toward John McCain (marking the first time since 1956 that Missouri has failed to vote for the eventual president in the general election). Still, as far as electoral votes are concerned, this would not have mattered, as both Indiana and Missouri have 11 electoral votes.

So, had I stuck with my guns, I would have called 48 states and Washington, D.C. correctly, and two states incorrectly. I also would have called the Omaha district correctly, and would have therefore hit the electoral vote tally on its proverbial head (as it were) at 365.

But I must own up to the mistakes I made in my official prediction. Hence, I called 47 states and Washington, D.C. correctly, and three states (and one district in Nebraska) incorrectly. I also fell sixteen electoral votes shy of President-Elect Obama's final winning tally, which is quite good but not exactly prescient.

The moral of this story, I guess, is what I often tell my students: "On multiple-choice exams, only change your answer if you are absolutely sure you messed-up the first time, because often your first idea is the right one." The electoral map is kind of like a multiple-choice exam (or a true-false exam), and it would have perhaps been to my benefit had I taken my own advice.

Yet I do take solace in the following facts: the three states I predicted incorrectly--Indiana, Missouri, and North Carolina--are the three I said I was having the greatest trouble predicting in my official pre-election prediction post. And all three of those states were won by one candidate or the other by a razor-thin margin, so all of them could have gone either way....

U.S. HISPANIC POLITICAL GROUPS ARE GRUMBLING IN INCREASING NUMBERS. IT'S TIME FOR RICHARDSON TO BE OFFERED A CABINET POST.

The post of U.S. Secretary of State is not yet filled, given that Senator Hillary Clinton is presently contemplating whether or not she will accept President-Elect Obama's apparent informal offer of the job. And it's of course the case that former President Clinton's list of contributers to his foundation might reveal some deal-breaking names with which the president-elect would not wish to be affiliated. So anything can still happen.

Yet with a potential Secretary of State Clinton looking more and more like a realistic possibility, and with Hispanic political groups beginning to grumble about an apparent lack of representation in the early Obama Administration cabinet choices (despite the fact that Hispanics voted heavily for Mr. Obama), it would probably behoove the president-elect to appoint one of the most experienced Hispanic politicians in the U.S., New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, to an important cabinet post relatively soon.

Now, of course Governor Richardson could still be named Secretary of State, which I think he'd prefer (and which his resume' would suggest has his name written all over it). But failing that, it might be a great idea to give him his old job of U.S. Energy Secretary back (he was Bill Clinton's final Energy Secretary, and he was successful at it), or perhaps the job of U.S. Transportation Secretary. I suggest either of these two jobs because he has shown particular interest (and aptitude) in the connections between energy and transportation in the U.S., and he's both written about and overseen construction of interesting and forward-thinking projects in areas that overlap both categories, such as the rail lines between Albuquerque and Santa Fe, which were initially dubbed "Richardson's Folly" but have since become popular successes.

With his experience in the areas of diplomacy, energy, and transportation (his recent books are also brimming with good ideas in all three areas), and with pressure mounting on President-Elect Obama to appoint one or more Hispanic individual to his cabinet, it's probably a good bet that Bill Richardson will end up with a big national job relatively soon.

We'll see.

FINALLY, CONGRATUALTIONS TO ARIZONA GOVERNOR JANET NAPOLITANO

It's a bit premature, as nothing yet is official, but though she lost out on the U.S. Attorney General job, it seems as though Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano has been asked to be the new Director of Homeland Security. As the governor of a border state who has been a former state attorney general and now deals with, among other things, immigration issues daily, she's well-situated for such a role. Congratulations to her!

Sunday, November 16, 2008

A Potential Secretary Of State Clinton May Not Be The Best Idea (Though It's Not Her Fault).

Now that Senator Hillary Clinton's hat has been thrown into the ring as a possible future Secretary of State (I, amongst others, suggested her as a possible Secretary of State this past summer, though I ultimately endorsed New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson for the role), a certain amount of grumbling has emerged from various sectors of the blog-o-sphere. Much of this grumbling has focused on Senator Clinton's apparent unwillingness to take marching-orders from, well, anyone, really. This line of thought suggests that she would make a fine national chief executive but a less-than-stellar employee of anyone else who might be the national chief executive, no matter how suited she might be for the role of Secretary of State, or for a related role.

I disagree with this viewpoint, mostly because Senator Clinton has shown herself to be quite capable of backing-up Senator Obama on the campaign trail. Yes, she'd rather be the head of the executive branch, and, yes, her background suggests that she'd be well-suited for that role. Yet she has transitioned to the role of "Official Obama Supporter" in a rather seemless fashion. (Her husband, by contrast, has found her transition to be far more difficult to stomach.) So, from that standpoint, there is a lot to recommend her for the post of Secretary of State.

Yet I do have a problem with a potential Secretary of State Clinton in that I simply question whether she is "too big" for the role. Given that the Secretary of State needs to do a lot of her or his most sensitive work in a somewhat quiet, somewhat "under-the-radar" manner, would a Secretary of State Clinton be able to detach herself from the international public eye enough to spend considerable periods of time in a "subtle" context? (I'm obviously aware that some of the Secretary of State's time is spent very much in the public eye, as well.) And would a Secretary of State Clinton be able to keep the focus on President Obama's policies, as opposed to her own fame? At this point, I'm simply not sure.

Please notice that I am not "blaming" Senator Clinton for her status as a "political rock star." Besides, I think she's earned the international attention. But, in a sense, her ueber-fame is a bit limiting in that her options are somewhat more limited than those of someone like, say, Chuck Hagel or Bill Richardson or John Kerry, etc.; there are only certain jobs that she may not have "outgrown." The role of Secretary of State is indeed a very, very important one, but an ideal Secretary of State needs to be highly experienced in diplomacy, highly respected in international circles, and, quite frankly, less than internationally enthralling. Senator Clinton certainly fulfills the first two requirements, but not the third.

Thursday, November 13, 2008

"Minnesota Nice"? Nah, It's More Like "Minnesota Idiosyncratic."

We Minnesotans are supposed to be particularly "nice" people, or at least that's what I'm told (somewhat endlessly) by...my fellow Minnesotans. Given that we also pride ourselves on what is oftened termed our "Midwestern humility," this "niceness" assertion seems odd in that it suggests we "humble people" enjoy patting ourselves on the back about this particular trait--though we would probably suggest that we are simply "stating a fact."

And, oh, do we ever like to let ourselves know about our "niceness": people toss it about in an off-handed manner during conversations on a regular basis, and it's stated as a "fact" in local television and radio commercials. (In the Twin Cities, it's right up there with E=mc2.) There was even a reminder just the other week in the local paper that we are either #2 or #3 in the country on the "niceness" scale, according to some national study or other. (The writer seemed somewhat miffed to learn that apparently North Dakotans are slightly "nicer.")

But I wonder what criteria that study used to determine "niceness," which has always seemed a very nebulous (and therefore suspicious) term to me. What were they looking for, exactly? And, following that line of questioning, what does "niceness" even mean?

I bring all of this up because today I was reminded by yet another non-Minnesotan who has lived in the Twin Cities for quite some time that, "People here are immediately nice to you when you pass them on the street or see them in the shops. It's disarming. But they are also very difficult to get to know, beyond the smiles and kind greetings."

I don't write this to anger unduly my fellow Minnesotans, but rather because I have heard this same sentiment uttered countless times by folks from outside of the state who have come to live and work in Minnesota. For my part, as a former American expatriate, I found readjustment to Minnesota a somewhat difficult process because I, too, had to negotiate this rather odd cultural idiosyncracy.

In most places I've been to--both inside and outside of the United States--people are somewhat taciturn when they pass you in the street, but are quite gregarious when they meet you in, say, a pub or related setting; they are quite willing to meet new people and start new lines of communication in such settings. Friendships between people from different cultural backgrounds often spring from such interactions.

In Minnesota, however, the opposite often seems to be the case in that people are immediately friendly when they meet you on the sidewalks, or out in front of their houses, and the like, yet in a pub environment (or any of a number of social settings) they either talk almost exclusively amongst their peer group or watch the television and avoid eye contact with strangers. (The first two individuals I made friends with upon my return to Minnesota were both British expatriates living in the Twin Cities, probably because they sought-out conversations with whomever wished to converse in such social settings.)

Again, I don't mean to crap on my home state--I was born and raised in the Twin Cities, after all--but I find this notion of the "nice" nature of Minnesotans to be suspect in that it suggests a magnanimous cultural sophistication that might very well be inherent to the state, but if so it is often offset or even overridden by a rather insular clannishness on the part of a large percentage of the population. The suggestion seems to be that we Minnesotans like "outsiders" (domestic and foreign)--by which we apparently mean those who are either "from elsewhere" or "moved elsewhere" for a considerable length of time but have returned home--but are not particularly keen on getting to know them well, even if they live next door. Or perhaps it's just that, given our somewhat Scandinavian cultural background, we're simply not sure how to get to know them, which would be easier for me to accept emotionally because it suggests that we are not particularly equipped for such scenarios and instead excel in other areas.

Minnesota has a generally strong economy and features an unquestionably high quality of life, so there is a lot to recommend it. But I tire of Twin Citians suggesting that we're "worldly" and "culturally sophisticated" and then reciting the same half-dozen or so talking-points in order to back-up their assertions. (If I hear one more time how "...we have more theater seats per person than any other metro area in America except New York City," I might throttle the person saying it...or perhaps I'll throttle myself so that I needn't hear it again.) Whenever people start doing that on a mass scale, they immediately undercut the argument they are making, because the last thing that genuinely worldly, sophisticated people would do is recite the local handbook (so to speak).

I come back to my original point: if we're so "nice," how come so many people from outside of the area find it so difficult to create lasting friendships here? They will, however, receive a smile and a friendly "hello" on the street, so....

Is Minnesota a good place to live? Yes, and I would never for a moment suggest otherwise. Is it "nice"? By my definition, I'm not so sure. If we are truly worldly, sophisiticated people, we would stop repeating the party line and instead examine our shortcomings, both internally and verbally, in order to improve them. That's what truly sophisticated people tend to do, because they know that admitting one's shortcomings is the first step toward self-improvement. Who knows? Maybe such a proactive mindset could lead folks to start interesting conversations in certain social settings....

Wednesday, November 12, 2008

Cellular Saturation

Have you noticed that people whose cell phones feature quiet, "excuse-me" ring-tones have a tendency to answer their phones quickly and in a somewhat embarrassed manner when someone calls them while they are amongst other people in a public space? If so (or even if you haven't noticed that), have you also noticed that people who choose loud, ostentatious, rather annoying ring-tones for their cell phones have a tendency to answer calls in such a lackluster and astonishingly slow manner while in a public space that one might think their drink (or food, or whatever) had been inadvertently spiked with alarmingly enormous doses of emergency room anesthetics?

The latter scenario happened while I was at a coffee shop this evening. A woman's phone "rang" for about thirty seconds before she answered it (doesn't it have a voicemail option?), which is annoying in and of itself. Yet the phone rang so loudly, consistently, and screechingly that it seemed as though the entire London Symphony Orchestra was told in no uncertain terms that in order to save their pensions they would inexplicably have to play a musical rendition of the storming of Iwo Jima capable of being heard clearly from the inside of 1960s-era reinforced bomb shelters several hundred miles away. (I know I mixed my eras just then; I'm just going with the flow on this subject.)

I believe that my ears rang temporarily as a result, though I can't be sure because the ringing may have come from any of a number of nearby fire alarms accidentally set-off by someone crashing into one, due to having been startled by the unexpected assault on her or his eardrums. (A young lady sitting nearby made the very sensible decision of fleeing to the bathroom during the auditory assault.)

Please choose a less psychotic ring-tone and answer your phone quickly, madame. Better yet, turn off your cell phone for a little while, if any part of you feels as though you can survive such a "drastic" course of action.

Sunday, November 9, 2008

Hasslington's Obama Administration Cabinet Endorsements, #1: Bill Richardson For U.S. Secretary Of State

THE HASSLINGTON ENDORSEMENT PROCESS BEGINS

Over the next week or so, I will be making endorsements for important cabinet posts in the emerging Obama Administration (which takes over the reigns of executive power on January 20, 2009).

My first endorsement will be for the very (and increasingly) important role of U.S. Secretary of State, and here it is:

HASSLINGTON'S ENDORSEMENT FOR U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE: BILL RICHARDSON

Why? Well, there are five or so major contenders for the role (at least if one believes the recent media reports), and they represent a very impressive field. Any one of them would do a fine job in the role, so making an endorsement is a very difficult process.

Prior to examining Governor Richardson's qualifications, let's look at the other four compelling candidates for the role.

DEMOCRATS:

* U.S. Senator John Kerry may be in the "lead" in the horserace for this post, and his intellectual talents and well-traveled world-view suggest that he deserves a lot of consideration. That he is also a former Democratic presidential nominee who lost a close election to George W. Bush in 2004 also might help him, given that a Kerry appointment to the post would suggest an immediate break with the Bush mindset. (And, of couse, he made sure that Barack Obama was the keynote speaker at the 2004 Democratic National Convention--which launched President-Elect Obama's national political profile in a dramatic manner--so the president-elect might feel as though he owes a debt to Senator Kerry.)

* Richard Holbrooke is a former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., as well as a former Undersecretary of State, so he would bring a lot of real-world experience to the role. He has worked in international affairs since the 1970s, and he has been a foreign policy advisor to several high-profile Democrats.

REPUBLICANS:

* U.S. Senator Chuck Hagel is a social conservative, but he's also a sharp critic of the Bush Administration's deployment strategies regarding (and subsequent use of) U.S. troops worldwide. Like John Kerry, he is a Vietnam veteran, but unlike Kerry, he is leaving the U.S. senate this coming January. (Senator Kerry was re-elected to his post last week, whereas Senator Hagel is voluntarily stepping away from his senate seat.) He has developed an impressive foreign policy portfolio over the last dozen years and, despite the fact that he is a Republican, he has not hidden his admiration of Barack Obama since Senator Obama entered the presidential race nearly two years ago. He even traveled to the Middle East with Senator Obama and Senator Jack Reed several months ago.

* U.S. Senator Richard Lugar is well into his seventies, but he has been an expert on nuclear proliferation issues for decades now. Furthermore, his willingness to work with Democrats, combined with his elder-statesman-esque mindset and calm demeanor, have served him well as a negotiator working to resolve seemingly irreconcilable differences between ideologues in the senate chambers and beyond. He is also from Indiana, a state that voted for Barack Obama for president this year, which marks the first time since 1964 that Indiana voted for the Democratic candidate. Surely the Democrats want to stay on the "good side" of Indiana voters....

*** NOTE: There are surely others, such as former Democratic Senator Sam Nunn (of Georgia), who will receive well-deserved consideration for the role. (In fact, he'd be a strong selection.) For the purposes of this post, however, I am merely examining the five individuals most often discussed in the media over the past week. ***

SO WHY SHOULD BILL RICHARDSON BE SELECTED FOR THE ROLE?

Though they are all impressive candidates, none of the above four individuals has as diversified a political portfolio as Bill Richardson, which can only help in the process of adapting to a new governmental role. He spent fourteen years as a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, which he followed with substantive stints as the U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., the U.S. Energy Secretary, and the two-term Governor of New Mexico. (In 2006, he was re-elected by an overwhelming majority of New Mexico voters.) This will be his final term as the chief executive of New Mexico, as that state limits its governors to two terms.

Governor Richardson is well-known throughout worldwide diplomatic circles, and for a number of reasons. First of all, he has been an international hostage negotiator for at least fifteen or sixteen years now, and has had considerable success in that heavy-pressure role. He has also negotiated with and/or delivered U.S. requirements to the likes of Saddam Hussein, Fidel Castro, the Taliban in Afghanistan, Slobodan Milosevic of the former-Yugoslavia, and the North Korean leadership structure. (The North Koreans, who refused initially to speak directly with President Bush's leadership team in his first term, instead flew to New Mexico in order to negotiate through Governor Richardson. The Bush Administration quietly sanctioned this unique set-up, and negotiations were largely successful.) He has often met with success in these types of roles, prompting former-President Clinton to suggest that this success is due partly to the fact that "bad guys like Bill" and his straight-forward, honest approach to negotiations; such a mindset has prompted many unsavory types to respect Governor Richardson, which has often led to foreign policy progress. (It also helps that he is a big, burly figure who cannot be intimidated easily, physically or otherwise.)

The fact that Governor Richardson is Hispanic might also help in that it would allow President-Elect Obama to fill an important cabinet post with someone from an ethnic group that swung heavily to the Democrats in several critical swing-states during this election cycle. That might help to solidify support among an ethnic group that is still considered very much "in-play" for both major parties during each election cycle.

Then there's this: Vice President-Elect Biden seemed to develop a rivalry with Governor Richardson during this past election cycle. Both ran for the Demcratic party's presidential nomination, and both leveraged heavily their considerable foreign policy experience. Governor Richardson made it out of the Iowa caucuses with his campaign alive, whereas Mr. Biden did not. If the president-elect wants to create what Abraham Lincoln did, which is to say a cabinet of rivals who are forced to use their considerable talents in order to work together, he could do much worse than choosing Governor Richardson as his Secretary of State, given that soon-to-be Vice President Biden will surely be involved heavily in foreign policy decisions (as will the president, of course) and will need to work closely with whoever is slotted-into the role. I, for one, would like to see those two foreign policy experts working together in order to find a concensus (and occasionally butting-heads in order to hash-out emerging concerns) as opposed to occasionally working at cross-purposes.

Given his impressive resume' (and I didn't even mention his five Nobel Peace Prize nominations), his magnanimous but tough negotiating personality, his familiarity with leaders worldwide (several worldwide leaders, including the head of Spain's government, Jose' Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, called him in order to congratulate the Democratic party on their electoral success last week), and other assorted reasons (such as his fluency in English, French, and Spanish), I endorse New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson for the role of U.S. Secretary of State in the forthcoming Obama Administration.

Saturday, November 8, 2008

Busy Weekend

It's a busy weekend for me, folks. I have about a hundred final quarter grades to submit via the computer, which would be easier if I hadn't started my present teaching job just three weeks ago. Hence, I have to figure-out point totals and percentage "weights," as well as go through late papers assigned prior to my tenure and figure out how to grade them.

It's therefore the case that I won't have another substantive post for a few days or so. But I promise to examine the recent U.S. presidential election as well as the emerging cabinet soon.

For now, there are these Hasslington endorsements, which I'll flesh-out later:

Secretary of State: Bill Richardson (though there are a lot of good potential Secretaries of State from which to choose). Please see my July endorsement of Governor Richardson for further details.

Defense Secretary: Robert Gates (at least for a little while longer).

Attorney General: Janet Napolitano.

Tuesday, November 4, 2008

America Rising

Dear President-Elect Obama,

I want to send my most heartfelt congratulations to you, sir, for your historic victory this evening. I was honored to cast my presidential vote for you and your running mate, Senator Biden. We have enormous challenges in front of us, and I know that there are bound to be many disappointments in the coming years. But I also know that, given the evidence before us, we ought never underestimate your ability to overcome the odds.

Sincerely,

Hasslington

*************************************************************

Dear Senator McCain,

I want to send my most heartfelt thanks to you, sir, for the extraordinary amount of service you have rendered to our country for decades, as well as for the healing and unifying nature of your concession speech this evening. You lost an election, but you have not lost the admiration of millions upon millions of people, including many of those who, like me, chose not to vote for you for president.

Sincerely,

Hasslington

*************************************************************

(Note: As of this moment, my electoral map predictions are accurate. That being said, Indiana, Missouri, Montana, the Omaha district of Nebraska, and North Carolina are still too close to call. If Senator Obama wins Missouri and loses the other aforementioned outstanding races, my prediction of a 349 to 189 final electoral tally will be correct. That being said, I may be proven at least somewhat wrong, which wouldn't bother me at all. Somehow, at this point, it doesn't seem to matter.)

Saturday, November 1, 2008

"Hasslington's Presidential Swing-State Voting Predictions" and "Hasslington's Electoral Vote Prediction"

Here is the final draft of "Hasslington's Presidential Swing-State Voting Predictions," followed by the final draft of "Hasslington's Electoral Vote Prediction." This has been a very difficult task for me, given that John McCain has a history of finishing in a very strong manner with "undecided" voters, but also that the overall trends (domestic and foreign in nature) benefit Barack Obama. So though Barack Obama is more likely to be the next president, it is surely the case that this election is still up in the air, even this close to election day....

HASSLINGTON'S PRESIDENTIAL SWING-STATE VOTING PREDICTIONS

A good friend of mine, who happens to be a Barack Obama supporter and lives in North Carolina, tells me that his state will most likely tip toward John McCain, if just barely. I'm torn evenly with regards to who will "eek" out a win in that state, so I will yield to his expertise.

I am also finding the following states very difficult to predict: Indiana, Missouri, and Ohio. Yet I will give them my best shot anyway. (For instance, I have settled on predicting that Ohio will lean very slightly toward Barack Obama, probably by 1% or thereabouts, due simply to the Obama campaign's impressive ground operations there and elsewhere. If that were not the case, Ohio would most likely lean slightly toward John McCain. In other words, I've no idea how Ohio will go, and have simply given up thinking about it by predicting a very close Obama win there....)

Months before they were chosen, I predicted both vice presidential running mates accurately. Might I also get the November 4 presidential results largely right, or not? Personally, I'm not so sure. We'll have to wait and see....

At any rate, HERE ARE MY PREDICTIONS:

1.) I predict that Barack Obama will win the following swing-states:

* Colorado (9 electoral votes) by 4%
* Florida (27 electoral votes) by 3%
* Iowa (7 electoral votes) by 9%
* Michigan (17 electoral votes) by 11%
* Minnesota (10 electoral votes) by 11%
* Missouri (11 electoral votes) by 2%
* Nevada (5 electoral votes) by 4%
* New Hampshire (4 electoral votes) by 6%
* New Mexico (5 electoral votes) by 6%
* Ohio (20 electoral votes) by 1%
* Oregon (7 electoral votes) by 10%
* Pennsylvania (21 electoral votes) by 5%
* Virginia (13 electoral votes) by 5%
* Wisconsin (10 electoral votes) by 8%

2.) Barack Obama should also win the following states (and one district):

California (55); Connecticut (7); Delaware (3); District of Columbia (3); Hawaii (4); Illinois (21); Maine (all of its 4 electoral votes, which are distributed somewhat separately); Maryland (10); Massachusetts (12); New Jersey (15); New York (31); Rhode Island (4); Vermont (3); Washington (11).

3.) I predict that John McCain will win the following swing-states:

* Arizona (10 electoral votes) by 5%
* Georgia (15 electoral votes) by 4%
* Indiana (11 electoral votes) by 2%
* Mississippi (6 electoral votes) by 7%
* Montana (3 electoral votes) by 4%
* North Carolina (15 electoral votes) by 2%
* North Dakota (3 electoral votes) by 4%
* West Virginia (5 electoral votes) by 6%

4.) John McCain should also win the following states:

Alabama (9); Alaska (3); Arkansas (6); Idaho (4); Kansas (6); Kentucky (8); Louisiana (9); Nebraska (all of its 5 electoral votes, which are distributed somewhat separately); Oklahoma (7); South Carolina (8); South Dakota (3); Tennessee (11); Texas (34); Utah (5); Wyoming (3).

HASSLINGTON'S ELECTORAL VOTE PREDICTION

Barack Obama / Joe Biden : 349 electoral votes (27 states and 1 district)
John McCain / Sarah Palin : 189 electoral votes (23 states)

Tuesday, October 28, 2008

Here's A Rough Draft Of "Hasslington's Presidential Swing-State Voting Predictions," One Week Prior To The Election

Instead of discussing the absurd "socialist" label Senator McCain's campaign is at present rather desperately trying to attach to Senator Obama--which hardly bears mentioning--I will now provide the "rough draft" to my "Presidential Swing-State Voting Predictions." The numbers I've come up with are based partly on recent polls, partly on months-long trends, and partly on what my gut is telling me. I've been following the presidential race for almost two years now, yet the only thing I'm sure of is that I'll still be quite unsure of my predictions come election day....

For now this is, as stated above, a rough draft. The "final draft" (featuring some changes, I'm sure) will appear sometime this coming weekend (probably on Sunday). At that time, it will be accompanied by my "Electoral Vote Prediction."

(Note: some typically Republican-voting states--such as Georgia, Mississippi, Montana, and North Dakota--have seen their presidential poll numbers tighten of late, which is why I include them here.)

Colorado: Obama by 3%
Florida: Obama by 5%
Georgia: McCain by 4%
Indiana: McCain by 1%
Iowa: Obama by 9%
Michigan: Obama by 11%
Minnesota: Obama by 11%
Mississippi: McCain by 6%
Missouri: Obama by 3%
Montana: McCain by 3%
Nevada: Obama by 6%
New Hampshire: Obama by 7%
New Mexico: Obama by 8%
North Carolina: Obama by 2%
North Dakota: McCain by 3%
Ohio: Obama by 4%
Oregon: Obama by 10%
Pennsylvania: Obama by 6%
Virginia: Obama by 5%
West Virginia: McCain by 5%
Wisconsin: Obama by 8%

Total swing-state wins: Obama 15, McCain 6
Total swing-state "pick-ups" vs. 2004: Obama +9, McCain -9

Monday, October 27, 2008

October 27 Is A Great Day For A Birthday

THE FOLLOWING IS A LIST OF PEOPLE BORN ON OCTOBER 27:

James Cook (British sea captain), Theodore Roosevelt (former U.S. President), Dylan Thomas (British poet), Ralph Kiner (Hall of Fame American baseball player), Warren Christopher (former U.S. Secretary of State), Sylvia Plath (American poet), John Cleese (British actor/comedian), John Gotti (notorious American mofia boss), Ivan Reitman (Canadian/Slovakian film director of "Ghostbusters" and "Kindergarten Cop"), Marla Maples (who among other things used to be married to Donald Trump), Scott Weiland (lead singer of American rock band Stone Temple Pilots), Zadie Smith (celebrated contemporary British novelist), Hasslington (who happens to be the exact same age as Zadie Smith), and...uh...Kelly Osbourne (who among other things is the daughter of Ozzy).

ALSO...

November 4 is election day here in the U.S., so even though sloganeering for particular candidates will surely occur on that day, the final full day of campaigning is really the previous day, November 3. This means that we have about a week of campaigning left to endure. Since the candidates' media exposure levels will only increase this week (!), and therefore cannot be "beaten," I say we "join 'em" for this final temporary stretch run.

For my part, I'll be wearing my "Obama/Biden" button as often as possible up to and including election day, with the obvious exception of when I'm at work, where political ads of any sort are (thankfully) banned.

Saturday, October 25, 2008

Bits And Bobs, Volume III: Hilarious Presidential Candidate Pictures; Baracking For Obama; E-Mails Are Only Sometimes Necessary; And So Forth...

1.) I can't wait to see what candidate pictures MSNBC uses during their presidential coverage on election night. I hope they feature the same hilarious ones they used during the primary and caucus process. Their John McCain picture, for instance, featured a face so airbrushed it looked like the John McCain of thirty-five years ago with the odd added effect of a mop of prematurely white hair. Given the confident tilt of the head and winning, Hollywood smile, it looked more like Tom Cruise in a white wig than it did the modern John McCain.

For his part, Barack Obama's picture was also far less-than-accurate, as it made him look like a junior high student who cannot hide the joy he feels at having recently had his braces removed. Given that picture, if I didn't know better, I would have thought that Barack Obama would be a shoe-in to win the position of this year's student council president.

2.) I started a three-month teaching job this past week. I hope it leads to a permanent position because I like the set-up of the school at which I'm teaching; the teachers are serious and focused on the same set of academic principles, but they are allowed to use a considerable amount of flexibility and creativity in their lesson plans. It is, I think, a good, healthy balance between consistency and individuality in the classroom.

The only thing I still fail to understand is the workplace obsession with e-mails--I'm speaking in general, as opposed to this particular workplace. I can understand and in fact support the notion of a given school's principal, for instance, sending out a general daily e-mail, and I also support the idea of the head of each department sending out a weekly e-mail. These scenarios can have the effect of making sure that everyone is orbiting the same sphere, so to speak, and it can clarify any outstanding instances of generalized confusion regarding any of a number of things.

What I don't particularly think works, however, is when somone sends you an e-mail and then, fifteen-or-so minutes later, walks up to you and says, "Did you get my e-mail?" This occured to me this past week when I was in the supply room, sifting through textbooks for my next class. A fellow employee walked into the supply room and asked me if I had received her e-mail, which she had apparently sent within the half-hour. I told her that I had been in the supply room for that time, so no, I had not receive her e-mail. Then I asked her what she wrote in it. She proceeded to describe the situation, which had to do with telling students in one of my classes about a schedule change for the computer lab. I told her that I would let the students know about it.

She's a very good teacher (I sat in on one of her classes, and was impressed) and a personable individual, so I don't mean to dismiss her personally. But I wonder if the majority of workplace e-mails aren't simply a waste of time that tend to muddy the operational waters. As I stated above, in a school setting, I would suggest that the principal and head of each department should send general e-mails to those working under them on a fairly regular basis. Beyond that, however, I would point out that unless the school is absolutely enormous (this one is not), I often find it far easier to simply speak face-to-face with colleagues about alterations in plans, etc.

Things seem to move more smoothly when e-mails are kept to a minimum, because when that occurs, most everyone tends to read closely and digest the few e-mails that are sent. Yet when e-mails pile upon one another, people tend to take in very little insofar as details are concerned, which often defeats the purpose of the e-mails in the first place.

The bottom line, however, is that for now, at least, I'm employed on a full-time basis. I am most certainly not complaining.

3.) From a message left on our voicemail by Mrs. Hasslington's (British) father: "...I'll call you again later. I assume you are out Baracking for Obama at present...."

4.) You either "get" English pub rock (an earlier, more crisp and rhythmic version of the often grungier American garage band motif) or you don't "get" it. Personally, I enjoy it immensely. Because of its evocative sound and looping guitar riffs, my vote for the greatest English pub rock song of all time is "Sultans of Swing" by the early, far less arena-rock-infused incarnation of Dire Straits.

Let me be clear: I've got nothing against their mid-1980s album "Brothers In Arms," which is strong arena-rock stuff, but I simply prefer the tighter, punchy sounds of the earlier Dire Straits, which can be enjoyed even in the most contained spaces, such as, well, English pubs.

5.) By the way, I meant to publish this nearly two weeks ago and simply forgot: Paul Simon, my favorite musical artist (who is still releasing music and performing around the world; his 2006 album "Surprise" was criminally underappreciated by nearly everyone but most music critics, and he was touring in Europe just this past summer), turned sixty-seven on October 13.

His voice is still mellifluous after all these years....

6.) I posted the following comment, with just a couple of changes in order to show context, on my friend Anoka Flash's "Centrisity" blog-site this past week, in regards to early voting (particularly, but not exclusively, via mail):

"...when it comes to voting, I prefer the traditional method of standing in line on election day with my 'neighbors,' as Flash puts it.

"That being said, we are not living in a Hardy Boys book. If others wish to vote via mail, I find it ridiculous to suggest that they shouldn't do that. Let them vote via mail, for goodness sake.

"I also find it very odd indeed that some folks think that we ought to continue to do nearly everything as we did fifty years ago; that's a sure sign of a weakening nation. You either move forward or you regress; there really is no stasis.

"So let's evolve with the times--in proactive ways as opposed to superficial ways, of course--like we tend to do (at least when we have been strong). Let people vote via mail or at the polls as they wish, and let's get the Mayberry theme music out of our heads.

"Speaking of Mayberry, it seems as though even Andy Griffith supports Barack Obama, given the recent and amusing Ron Howard mini-film released in support of Barack Obama's candidacy...."

As always, I recommend reading the Centrisity blog-site (http://centrisity.blogspot.com/) on a fairly regular basis, as well as my friend Penigma's blog-site (http://penigma.blogspot.com/).

7.) Last but not least, it was six years ago that we lost U.S. Senator Paul Wellstone in a plane crash. Whether you tended to agree with him or not, one thing is for sure: he was an authentic individual. His loss is still felt in Minnesota, and beyond.

Tuesday, October 21, 2008

Playing The Presidential Election Percentages

Much has been made over the airwaves today regarding the apparent "tightening" of the presidential race in such swing-states as Florida and Ohio. To a certain extent, this appears to be true, and to a certain extent, it is not. Here's why....

1.) The race has been "tight" in Ohio for quite some time now. Some reputable recent polls have put Senator Obama in the lead by up to three precentage points in Ohio, while others have put Senator McCain in the lead by up to three percentage points. (Those numbers are all within the margin of error.) Still other polls show a dead heat. But, as I said, the fact of the matter is that Ohio has not swung nearly as much in the polls over the last few months as have other states, such as Michigan and Wisconsin. (Several weeks ago, both Michigan and Wisconsin were either dead-heats or leaning slightly toward Senator Obama, but at present both are leaning heavily toward Senator Obama, to the point where Senator McCain has pulled a lot of his people out of Michigan and his campaign may have to pull some money out of Wisconsin.)

Yet Ohio has been a toss-up for quite some time now; some folks may feel that it has fluctuated a little one way or a little the other way, but if that's the case, the fluctuations have been very small indeed.

2.) Let's remember that as recently as mid-September, Florida was seen as what I would term "relatively safe McCain territory," as Senator McCain had been leading in Florida polls on a consistent basis since the Democratic party had settled on its selection of Senator Obama as its nominee back in early June. (Senator Obama announced his victory in Saint Paul, Minnesota, at the start of the summer season.) Last week, however, Florida polls suggested that Senator Obama may have taken the lead, which was a dramatic turn-around. This week, many of those same polls are unsure of who is in the lead, with some of them suggesting that the race is now a toss-up in that state.

This is natural in the sense that any big fluctuation in one particular direction is generally followed by a small fluctuation in the other direction in state-wide polls (and in national polls, for that matter). Florida has most likely displayed this pattern by moving from its "relatively safe McCain territory" status to "toss-up but perhaps leaning Obama" in a very short timespan, which has created a slight "kick-back" against the pro-Obama fever in that major toss-up state. Hence, many post "kick-back" polls suggest a dead heat in the state. Given the amount of retired military voters and retired folks in general in Florida, and given the fact that Senator McCain once scored six or seven points ahead of Senator Obama in Florida for weeks-long stretches in many polls (and at least four-plus ahead of Senator Obama for months-long stretches), I consider this a good sign that Senator Obama's candidacy is strong in Florida.

3.) There is almost always a "tightening" of the polls nationally prior to a presidential election if one candidate is leading the other by a not insubstantial margin leading into the final three weeks. In this case, Senator Obama has led Senator McCain by about five or six points nationally for a few weeks now, and the general trend has been toward Senator Obama for a month or more now. Hence, it is natural that in several swing-states (and, in a more general manner, nationally) people are conducting gut-checks regarding their choices in order to solidify their decisions, and some of them are wavering. Yet the point is that many are not, as most all of the national polls still suggest that Senator Obama is in the lead by at least four percentage points, and perhaps as much as six, amongst folks who suggest they are going to vote on November 4. (There are of course some polls that show smaller or larger national leads for Senator Obama, but the four-to-six point region seems the most often reported at this point.)

Let's remember that just prior to election day in 2004, President George W. Bush led in most national polls by a mere percentage point or two, yet he won the election nationally by about two-and-a-half percentage points. Though how each state votes is more important than national numbers, a lead of three or more percentage points nationally this late in the campaign season is a good sign for the leader....

4.) It's important to look at the other swing-states that are at this moment very much "in play." Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin--three of which voted for Senator Kerry in 2004--are at present in "relatively safe Obama territory." New Mexico and Oregon are probably also there, and New Hampshire may be moving rapidly in that direction (though one never knows about New Hampshire). That leaves Colorado, Florida, Missouri, Ohio, Nevada, North Carolina, and Virginia as the most-competitive swing-states at present, all of whom voted for George W. Bush in his narrow 2004 electoral victory. (And don't count-out Indiana, which also voted for President Bush....)

Hence, if there is a late swing to Senator McCain in the final two weeks of the campaign, he will pick up several of those states, which can only be considered a "hold" for the Republican nominee--and the election will probably be a very close one. Conversely, if there is a late swing to Senator Obama, he will win the election in a landslide. The third scenario comes about if things simply "tighten" a bit more in those states, in which case the advantage surely goes to Senator Obama. And things have actually "tightened" in Senator Obama's favor in a few other states of late: Georgia, Montana, North Dakota, and West Virginia. All of those states voted for George W. Bush in both 2000 and 2004. A win for Senator Obama is still a long-shot in those four states, but his competitiveness in those states puts more pressure on Senator McCain's camp.

Broadly speaking, Senator McCain is still on defense now, whereas Senator Obama is still on offense. Senator McCain can still win the election, but if Senator Obama keeps playing his cards in a steady, cool manner, potentially losing either Florida or Ohio will not lose him the election, because he need not win either of those states in order to win the electoral vote--though he'd love to win at least one of them. Senator McCain, however, needs to win both of those states to win the election, and he needs to improve his numbers elsewhere, as well.

Friday, October 17, 2008

Various Notions, Volume 13: Hasslington's Third Presidential Debate Poll Results; International Refractions In The Midwest; Hasslington Sounds Off

FOR SENATOR OBAMA, MODERATE DEBATE SUCCESS IS MOST LIKELY A POSITIVE SIGN....

The results of "Hasslington's Third Presidential Debate Poll" indicate that Hasslington readers think Senator Obama "won" the third and final U.S. presidential debate, though most of them think it was a "moderate" win for him as opposed to a "big" win. Yes, a few folks thought that it was a big win for Senator Obama, and a few folks thought it was a big win for Senator McCain (and a few folks thought the debate ended in a tie, or a draw), but slightly more than half of those who cast their vote in the poll on this blog-site in the twenty-four hours after the debate ended thought that it was a moderate victory for Senator Obama. No other option registered higher than 15% or 16%. As I did not see most of the debate due to other obligations, I accept the decision of the Hasslington voters, and I thank them for casting their votes.

One way or the other, Senator McCain most likely needed a "big" win in order to immediately gain ground nationally in the presidential race, and, given the results of polls conducted by various national and international media outlets in the wake of the debate, he most certainly did not achieve a "big" win in the minds of the vast majority of voters. In fact, like the Hasslington poll, many of the post-debate surveys conducted by the major news organizations (and the like) suggested that Senator Obama may have achieved a third debate victory, if not an overwhelming one.

But let's say, for argument's sake, that it was evenly matched this third time around. Even if that were the case, as they say in baseball, the tie goes to the runner. Senator McCain's team has been on the field for a while now, and Senator Obama's team has been at bat during that time, which is most likely a positive sign for Senator Obama's team. A tie, therefore, goes to Senator Obama's baserunner. His next batter is stepping up to the plate, and Senator McCain's pitcher is tiring visibly.

Yet there are still two and a half weeks until the next election. Hold onto your seats, political fans, because we'll soon be entering the ninth inning, with Senator Obama leading 3-0 and his closing pitcher ready to shut things down. Yet, as Yogi Berra would say, "It ain't over 'til it's over." That may sound silly, but there's little use in denying that there's a certain amount of solid sense in that Yogi-ism. As applied to this election cycle, there's probably a lot of sense in it.

NOTE TO THOSE WHO MISTAKINGLY THINK A PROVINCIAL, INSULAR MENTALITY CAN STILL BE APPLIED IN THE U.S.A. IN A WORKABLE SENSE IN THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY

Mrs. Hasslington, who is British, attends a French-speaking group on a regular basis, which meets here in the Twin Cities in Minnesota, USA. Other people in attendance include (but are certainly not limited to) folks from France, Spain, the continent of Africa, South-east Asia, and so on and so forth. (If Governor "I-just-got-my-first-passport" Palin stumbled upon this group while looking for the pom-poms she had accidentally misplaced, it would blow her mind, I'm sure....) And, of course, they all speak English, too.

I cannot for the life of me see how this type of scenario, multiplied on a mass scale across the country, would serve to destabilize anything in our fine republic, with the exception of cultural myopia. (But I'm all for destabilizing that.) In fact, as far as I'm concerned, it simply makes things more interesting, and it also carries on the tradition of the constant addition of new ideas and motivated people that has made the United States the great country that it is.

SPEAKING OF THE BRITISH....

Or, rather, speaking of a Brit who recently became an American citizen.... Mike, I'll be out of town this weekend, but I'll hoist a few with you at our local watering hole sometime soon. Until then, as always, take it easy, my friend.

(That's really all I wanted to say in this particular segment.)

REGARDING THE IMPORTANCE OF TRAVEL, PARTICULARLY BUT NOT EXCLUSIVELY INTERNATIONAL TRAVEL

In a column written for CNN International, British writer Robin Oakley reminded me recently of one of my favorite quotations. "It was the American Mark Twain," Oakley wrote, "who reminded us all that 'travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness.'"

Insofar as this topic is concerned, let me make a few things clear: Mark Twain was not only a great writer (if you've read any of his material you would probably agree that such a declaration goes without saying), but he was also great in a uniquely American manner in that he was sarcastic yet warm-hearted, sophisticated yet Midwestern from his head to his toes (which, being a Midwesterner myself, I would suggest is certainly a virtue), well-read and experimental in both his writing style and the substance of what he had to say, well-traveled yet unmistakeably salt-of-the-earth, and every bit as relevant today as when he was alive and producing his classic works of literature.

Yet I also want to say that what he had to say regarding travel--he traveled both inside and outside of the United States extensively--is, to my mind, very accurate. To that end, and as applied to my own life, I have found that a lot of folks my age (which is to say in their thirties) misuse the excuses "I couldn't afford to travel when I was younger" and "I can't afford to travel now."

Well, I grew up in a middle class family and went to a private high school, so even though we were never "in want" (as the saying goes), given the demographics of the school I attended, I was almost surely in the lower half insofar as household income was concerned. So, too, was a good friend of mine, with whom I traveled to Germany on the school's summer foreign-exchange trip when we were sixteen or seventeen. Though there were a lot of males in the school's various German classes and the trip was open to all, we were the only two males who signed up for the trip. (Ten young ladies were also on the trip; despite the favorable percentages and despite the extensive time we spent with those young ladies--or perhaps because of the extensive time we spent with them--my friend and I were to both come up rather empty on the romance front during that trip....)

Fast-forwarding to the present day, I've been back in the U.S. for a year or so (previous to that, I lived for two-and-a-half-years in England), and in that time I have seen a fair few folks with whom my friend and I attended that private school. When they ask me about my life, among the various things I mention is my time spent abroad. When I tell them this, more than a fair share of them say something along the lines of, "Well, I wish I could have traveled back then, but we couldn't afford it. And I can't afford it today."

This is complete nonsense. I worked for a year as a small business manager here in the U.S. (during which time I made a very modest salary) and I have since worked as a teacher both here in the U.S. and abroad (during which time I have made a similarly modest salary), and I could still afford to travel. Sure, I could not afford to purchase an SUV or the like, but I could and have been able to make ends meet without accumulating debt while still traveling abroad on as regular a basis as possible. Many of the folks with whom I went to high school, for their part, came from either middle class families similar to mine or upper class families whose resources vastly outstripped my family's, and many of them make much, much more money per year than I do and have fairly generous vacation plans. Hence, what they are saying is nonsense.

Robin Oakley, in the article to which I refer above, writes, "...anybody with the money to own an SUV, hunt moose, and drive a snowmobile has the money to travel." He's right. So this is not about "not being able to afford" to travel--not for the folks to whom I refer. It's about priorities; it's about where the money goes. I do not wish to own an SUV, and I care very little about whether or not folks with whom I attended high school, etc., own SUVs or snowmobiles or retro-fitted houses in the suburbs. They are obviously free to do so. What does bother me, however, is this "I can't afford to travel abroad" nonsense. Actually, they don't wish to travel abroad, at least not enough to sacrifice a few creature comforts.

Again, that's their prerogative. But I wonder how many of them would be as focused relentlessly on the accumulation of ever more and greater creature comforts as they seem to be if they took the time to ditch the excuses, purchase plane tickets to some place outside of the country where they've never before been, and went there....

The wider world is not for a select few, folks; it's not the domain of a few "elites." On the contrary, in this international era, nearly everyone who can afford to should explore it. And those who cannot afford to should be helped to do so. I guess this is my way of saying that I care about my country enough to want to see its fine people better understand our unique role in the world not only from our perspective at home, but from the perspective of an American abroad. We do a lot well, but we also get the leaders we deserve, and to that end we could use a lot less of what we've had over the last eight years. A bit more international savvy and less of a tin ear to the developments of the day would help us to recalibrate our focus so that we can continue to provide new and different--and important--leadership in an ever-changing world.