Crying In Congress Over The Bail-Out Bill; Also, A Little First Presidential Debate Analysis

OH DEAR, SOME OF US ARE JUST SO INCREDIBLY OFFENDED AND HURT BY NANCY'S COMMENTS...and...SOMEHOW, IT DOESN'T SEEM QUITE SO FUNNY NOW, JOHN

U.S. Representative Barney Frank (Democrat, Massachusetts) was right about the dozen or so Republicans who today voted against the Wall Street bailout bill because of what appears to be their over-sensitivity. He suggested that it is utterly pathetic that these folks voted against the bill due to the apparent fact that their "feelings were hurt" over pre-vote statements by the Speaker of the House. I agree.

Ladies and gentlemen, if you think the bill is awful, then of course you should vote against it. If, on the other hand, you think the bill is a necessary evil, you should do the following three things: take a deep breath, pinch your nose, and vote for it. But stop crying about being "deeply offended" by what you perceive as partisan statements by the Speaker of the House. (And let's not even factor-in to the equation the fact that the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives features a constantly-partisan atmosphere--though I for one wish that this were not the case--so members ought to be more than used to a few verbal barbs by now.)

Personally, my emotional response to this bail-out bill is a negative one; it seems wrong that pseduo-"intelligent" financial sector folks should be bailed-out for the dumb speculation choices that so often derive from their own goose-stepping, automaton-esque corporate myopia. (I doubt strongly that many of these ueber-corporate folks are well-rounded, cultured thinkers....) So my first reaction to today's "No" vote in the House of Representatives is one of approval. (After all, if this bill stunk as badly as it seemed to stink, and IF AND ONLY IF some sort of bailout absolutely needs to occur, why not take a step back and begin working to craft a better piece of legislation that is more socially acceptable to the Average Joe and Josephine American taxpayer?) I do, however, admit that I haven't personally seen the bill, so I cannot speak with technical authority one way or the other.

But I feel as though it is certainly fair to criticize crybaby members of the United States Congress who voted against the bill because their feelings were hurt. Either that's an excuse and they don't have the guts to speak in a public manner about why they voted against it (and, given how unpopular the bill seems to be nationwide, why would they be scared to talk about their reasons for voting against it?), or they are so callow they seem to have regressed to a quasi-junior-high level of emotional override. (I wouldn't necessarily bet against that second possibility, perhaps in combination with the first.)

Everyone gets offended. Given how many people don't think much at all, I'm offended in some way, shape, or form nearly every day. But I get over it (and, to a certain extent, I use it for blogging material). And these folks, who were given the honor of being elected to serve at the national level, ought to be adult enough to get over it, too.

Oh, by the way, Senator McCain spent this morning making fun of Senator Obama for "monitoring the situation" regarding this bill. Senator McCain went on to say that, by contrast, he showed leadership by (semi-) suspending his campaign and heading back to the halls of Congress in order to help get the deal done. Yet interestingly enough, two-thirds of his own party's congressional members voted against the bill, while approximately sixty percent of Democratic legislators voted for it.

No matter how you feel about this bill--and it's understandable why so many people are inwardly conflicted about it--Senator McCain's roll of the dice regarding his "leadership" declaration looks absolutely silly right now, as does his having mocked Senator Obama this morning. Perhaps this is a new, post-modern "too-cool-for-school" manfestation of this so-called "maverick leadership" we all keep hearing about? If so, perhaps Senator McCain can now explain the merits of such a confusing thought process to the rest of us.

DEBATE RECAP: SENATOR OBAMA LEADS 1-0 AFTER THREE INNINGS, BUT THERE ARE STILL ANOTHER SIX TO GO

Senator Obama let Senator McCain go on too long about earmarks during the domestic section of last Friday's debate. Or, perhaps more accurately, he let Senator McCain go on too long before pointing out that, while important, earmarks account for a relatively small percentage of domestic spending, and he failed to question thoroughly how well-rounded Senator McCain's domestic plans are if in a nationally televised debate he insists on focusing so heavily on earmarks. (Earmarks and tax cuts seemed to constitute about 95% of Senator McCain's domestic policy statements during the debate.)

When Senator Obama did finally speak to this issue, it was done in a rather timid way. But at least he did it, and at least he followed this up by personalizing and humanizing the economic situation in America in an effective manner. He seemed to be able to draw connections between the struggles of ordinary Americans and the necessity to reform how both Washington, D.C. and Wall Street work; he did this in both a narrative and technical manner, whereas Senator McCain did it in a stodgily repetitive technical manner alone. Perhaps this is why Senator Obama wound up winning fairly soundly the domestic section of the debate, according to several post-debate national polls.

Regarding the foreign policy portion(s) of the debate, I thought that Senator Obama held his own versus Senator McCain on the issues of Iraq and Afghanistan, and it also helped him that Senator McCain failed to hit the ball out of the park regarding the present scenario with Russia. I have no idea whether that means they "tied" one another regarding foreign policy, though several post-debate national polls suggested that this may be close to what happened. (Apparently, when the major polls were taken together in order to find an overall average, Senator Obama scored a few points higher than Senator McCain regarding the foreign policy section of the debate, but given error margins it seems they came out even in this section, generally speaking.)

The big news, as far as I'm concerned, is that while the candidates ran fairly even with male viewers/listeners, Senator Obama seems to have won fairly big with women viewers/listeners. Some polls suggested that he beat Senator McCain amongst women by 20% or so, but even if that's inaccurate and Senator Obama's advantage amongst women was closer to, say, 12%, that may (I repeat, may) indicate that he has made some in-roads amongst independent-voting women who may have been intrigued by Senator McCain's selection of Governor Palin as his running mate.

There were no haymaker knock-out punches this time around, but did anyone really expect any? I didn't think so.... So, using a baseball metaphor, we're through the first three innings of the presidential debate process (the first third of the game; this week's vice presidential debate is in a sense its own game rather than part of the presidential debate game), and so far Senator Obama has managed to scrape enough hits together to push one run across the plate, while pitching proficiently enough to keep Senator McCain off of the scoreboard.

I don't think I need to mention that these two gentlemen have got another six or so innings left to go....

Foreign Policy Questions That Should Be Asked In Tonight's Presidential Debate

Given that the first U.S. presidential debate will occur a few short hours from now, what follows are some questions that I feel should be asked of Senators McCain and Obama regarding U.S. foreign policy. Obviously, the questions asked of the candidates will not sound exactly like the ones I suggest, and the debate will most likely not be long enough to deal with all of them; I'm simply endorsing a few templates.

(* Note: Though tonight's debate is supposed to center on foreign policy, it is only natural that questions regarding the American economy would also be asked, given the presently choppy economic waters through which both the U.S. and other world markets are attempting to navigate. I would suggest, however, that this presents an opportunity for the candidates to show the various critical links between U.S. foreign policy and the state of the U.S. economy, of which there are many.)

HASSLINGTON'S DEBATE QUESTIONS

1A.) If you had to point to one country or geographical location, where would you suggest is the central front in the fight against international terrorism? Why?
1B.) If you had to point to one or two places in addition to the first one you named, where would they be and why are they almost or equally as important as the first?

2A.) What has the Bush Administration done correctly regarding the scenario in Iraq? Why? (Try to find at least one thing they've done correctly.)
2B.) What has the Bush Administration done incorrectly regarding the scenario in Iraq? Why? (Try to find at least one thing they've done incorrectly.)
2C.) How would you handle the scenario in Iraq, after your are sworn in as president? Why? Be specific.

3A.) Iran is an important player in regards to the Iraq scenario, as well as on its own. How would you rate the Bush Administration's performance regarding Iran? Why?
3B.) How will you handle the Iran scenario? Why? Be specific.

4A.) What has the Bush Administration done correctly regarding the scenario in Afghanistan? Why? (Try to find at least one thing they've done correctly.)
4B.) What has the Bush Administration done incorrectly regarding the scenario in Afghanistan? Why? (Try to find at least one thing they've done incorrectly.)
4C.) How would you hand the scenario in Afghanistan, after you are sworn in as president? Why? Be specific.

5A.) Pakistan is an important player in regards to Afghanistan, as well as on its own. How would you rate the Bush Administration's performance regarding Pakistan? Why?
5B.) How will you handle the Pakistan scenario? Why? Be specific.

6.) Explain the present scenario regarding Russia, its neighbors, and U.S. foreign policy, and what you will do regarding Russia once you are sworn in as president. Be specific.

7.) How will you strengthen cultural, diplomatic, economic, and military ties between the U.S. and its European allies? Be specific.

8.) What is the present situation in North Korea, and how will you deal with it? Be specific.

9.) China is in many ways a partner of the United States, but it is also in many ways a competitor. Describe the present state of U.S./Chinese relations, and then describe as specifically as possible where and how you will take U.S./Chinese relations from this point forward, as well as why.

10.) There are many other very important regions in the world. Please name what you consider to be one other very strategically-important region of the world, why that region is important for the U.S., and where and how you will take U.S. relations with that part of the world from this point forward, as well as why.

Presidential Election Map Speculations, Ponderings, Notions, Spit-Balling, And So Forth...

THINGS ABOUT WHICH HASSLINGTON IS CERTAIN...

* If Senator Obama fails to win BOTH Michigan and Pennsylvania, he will lose the election.

* If Senator McCain fails to win BOTH Florida and Ohio, he will lose the election.

* If Senator Obama wins BOTH Michigan and Pennsylvania, and if Senator McCain wins BOTH Florida and Ohio, the national electoral outcome will be very close.

THINGS ABOUT WHICH HASSLINGTON IS FAIRLY CERTAIN...

* If Senator McCain fails to win BOTH North Carolina and Virginia, he will probably lose the election.

* If Senator Obama fails to win BOTH Minnesota and Wisconsin, he will probably lose the election.

* If Senator McCain fails to win BOTH Indiana and Missouri, he will probably lose the election.

* If Senator Obama fails to win BOTH Iowa and Oregon, he will probably lose the election.

* If one of the candidates wins BOTH Nevada and New Mexico, that candidate will probably win the election.

POSSIBLE GAME-CHANGERS...

* Colorado and New Hampshire, particularly if one of the candidates wins BOTH of them, which could go a long way toward helping that candidate win the election.

DOUBTFUL BUT STILL POSSIBLE "WOWSER!" SCENARIOS...

* Senator McCain pulls off a win in any ONE of the following:  any one of Maine's electoral votes [ME and NE give out electoral votes differently than the other states]; Washington state.

* Senator Obama pulls off a win in any ONE of the following:  Georgia; Mississippi; Montana; Nebraska's Omaha-area electoral district [ME and NE give out electoral votes differently than the other states]; North Dakota; West Virginia.

At Present, Some Of Us Seem To Be Swimming Against The Prevailing Current

I'm a creature of habit.  I think we all are, whether we admit it or not--at least to a point.  (After all, how does one hold any semblance of a sane life together if one is not at least partly a creature of habit?)  I like to jog most days and read as much as I can.  As far as reading is concerned, I don't mind the format (newspaper article, magazine expose, book, etc.), as long as it "gets the job done," as the old saying goes.  That is, if I'm interested in politics (as I usually am), I'm as at ease perusing simplistically-written USA Today articles (no bad thing) as I am reading more in-depth material from, say, The Economist.

From time to time, I might also become engrossed in a book-length political discussion, about topics such as a history of twentieth century British Prime Ministers, about which I read a year or so ago in a well-written, easily accessible book.  I'm rather embarrassed to say that at this moment I cannot recall the book's exact title or its author, beyond the fact that at one point he was a backbench minister from the Labour Party whose politics did not often surface in his rather even-handed reading of the people who have ascended to the role of Prime Minister over the last century or so.  (The exception to this rule occurred during his discussion of Margaret Thatcher, during which I noticed that he often could not help but insert several of his personal political viewpoints, which often ran counter to hers, into the mix.)

At present, I am currently reading as much insofar as politics is concerned as I can from both US and UK daily newspapers (either in printed form or on-line), as well as from US and international weekly magazines.  I try to vary my sources in order to insert several sometimes oppositional viewpoints into the mix.  And I am not hesitant to also say that I have very recently decided, on the spur of the moment (and because they were selling for $1 apiece at a local second-hand bookstore), to read a few Star Wars novels, given my soft spot for science fiction and the fact that I find Star Wars, conceived in the 1970s, to be an interesting post-Vietnam and post-Watergate throwback to a less overreaching, more easily defensible patriotism, that being the sort of patriotism that prompted the creation of the United States from the mighty British Empire.  (The bad "Empire" guys in the Star Wars films often have British accents, except for Darth Vader, voiced by James Earl Jones but acted by British actor David Prowse; the less-overtly powerful but more righteous "rebels" have American accents, the one big exception here being the whiny British-voiced C3PO.  I know several Brits who have long since recognized if not fully accepted this Star Wars trend.  I don't blame them for shaking their heads about it.)

I say all of this because there comes a point when one must break with one's habits, if only to shake things up and inject a little pizzazz into even the most personally sacrosanct areas.  For me, those areas often center on politics and baseball, but they also center on the internet.  You see, I like certain blog-sites (I read about four sites as often as I can) and I like to read the aforementioned news-sites, but that's about it.  Yet I'm often told that there is a world of interesting stuff out there.  So this past weekend I did what I do every once in a great while--I just clicked-away and trolled through cyberspace, moving from one link to the next and from one blog-site to the next for a couple of hours, just to see what I was missing.

Now, perhaps my lucky-dip theory went a bit awry this time around, though I must say that what I encountered this time is about equal to what I found the last few times I sifted through internet blog-sites:  a few interesting gems in a landfill of self-aggrandizing, insultingly dumbed-down trash.  I cannot tell you how many sites I encountered, political and otherwise in focus, that featured a whole lot of absolute "void-ness" (for lack of a more elegant term) because in my astonishment at what I was encountering I lost track somewhere along the way.  Hyperbole seems to be the name of the game in political sites--reading them literally, which would be a massive mistake in most cases, you'd think that Barack Obama or John McCain, or Gordon Brown or David Cameron across the pond, for that matter, are engaged in international plots to eat your children and turn us adults into, well, servants of the Dark Side of the Force, or something along those lines.

In both the political and otherwise personal sites, there is often at present a nearly psychotic level of, like (!), Holy crap!!!!!!, the dumb statement followed by the exclamation point!!! (or exclamation "mark"!!!!!?! for you folks in Britain!!!!!!!!!)!!!!!  Yes, the most superfluous piece of punctuation ever conceived (!) has spawned itself into the trillions and taken over cyberspace (!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)!  SO TOO HAS THE BELLOWING ALL-CAPS SENTENCE, WHICH OFTEN FINISHES WITH INNUMERABLE EXCLAMATION POINTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  So what can one say about this?  Well, here's a nerdy Hasslington allusion: the preponderance of exclamation points is like the classic Star Trek episode "The Trouble With Tribbles," when the furry tribbles spawned to such an extent that they took over an entire space station.  The difference is that the exclamation point scenario features none of the cuteness of those little critters, and besides, it was at least consistently amusing watching Shatner try to keep his hairpiece on without panicking overtly while thousands of tribbles tumbled at him out of airlocks or through doorways and the like.  Insipid fragments followed by exclamation points have no such redeeming quality.

Then there are those sites that feature little more than photos of the site's author.  A few photos here and there can be a fine touch, but hundreds and hundreds of blatantly narcissistic photos of one's self--many of them "quirkily unique" the way the authors of many similar sites try to look "quirkily unique"--sprayed all over one's blog-site seems indicative of a certain type of self-obsession that might or might not stem from personal insecurities.  I, like all generally honest folks, admit that I have my own insecurities, but I cannot imagine why anyone would wish to transmit evidence in a wildly-advertised manner of the fallout that occurs from the sustained buildup of personal insecurities.  But, hey.

Call me a curmudgeon (in some ways, I probably am one) who, as a thirty-something individual, has grown old before his time, but I fail to see how a lot of what makes up this internet version of fingernails-on-the-blackboard noise is helping to "move the discussion forward," as it were.  At the risk of sounding "elite" (a word used in an accusatory manner most often by those who don't really know what it means), I suppose engaging in some form of human dialogue is not the point of the internet for a lot of folks.  That's okay, I guess, but I'm not talking about discussing post-colonial feminist literature through the lens of Harold Bloom (though that's a potentially explosive discussion I'd love to sit in on...).  I'm talking about turning the volume down a bit and finding ways of getting behind and beyond the rhetoric of politics, culture, and the like in order to connect the dots between these and related topics.  Might the internet be useful insofar as that's concerned?  Or is it meant to perpetuate the rhetoric that's already out there and further divide us from each other?  What good is an internet that fails to bring people around the world together more than it divides them with hyperbole and screeching self-interest?

F. Scott Fitzgerald once wrote, "So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past."  I'm sure this post will meet with a certain amount of criticism and push-back (shall we say?), which is fine and probably somewhat healthy, because it might get me to change my opinion on a lot of what is in the blog-o-sphere these days (though I doubt it).  Conversely, it might also get someone who thought the blog-o-sphere was like heaven to reconsider some of their stances on the issue.  One way or the other, I'm ready to carry on with this blog-site, in what I'm sure will often be viewed as an antiquated, overly-verbose style of writing (perhaps it is), in an internet world that I find I don't particularly like.

As Walt Whitman--who, like Mr. Fitzgerald, was a far better writer than I--might put it, "Do I contradict myself?  Very well, then I contradict myself...."

Corporate Bailouts And Common Sense Sustainability

Note:  the following post started in concept when I responded to a few recent posts on my friend Anoka Flash's "Centrisity" blog.  His blog can be accessed by clicking on the link provided in the "Good Blogs" section, located in the left-hand column of this site.

AVOIDING CLOSE ANALYSIS OF THE CONTRIBUTING FACTORS IS NOT THE WAY TO FIX THIS TRICKY PROBLEM

Given the recent volatility of various stock markets (both inside and outside of the U.S.), it's understandable--and ultimately a good thing--that some folks are enjoying discussing the minutiae of geo-finances.  But there's also a broader point that needs to be discussed regarding the situation in the United States and increasingly elsewhere in the world.  The broader point is this:  it's not a "free market" when corporations run roughshod over mainstreet America's (or mainstreet-Britain's, or mainstreet-fill-in-the-blank's) mom-and-pop businesses. And it's not a "free market" when the rest of us have to bail-out these enormously-influential, so-called "free-marketers." That scenario has a different name: it's called "global corporate financial strangle-hold."

Generally speaking, we've got a good economic system in both the U.S. and many other Western countries (as well as in several other emerging markets elsewhere in the world), but increasingly these economic systems are tilted in a direction that one can only truthfully call way, way out of whack. When corporate Goliaths get too bulky for their own good by forgetting how they got so big in the first place (which happens when they make a series of incredibly stupid financial maneuvers given the economic conditions of the day, these maneuvers indicating that they have become less independent of thought and therefore less able to adjust properly to trends that demand innovative thinking), we ought not let them off the hook.

The point of a "free market" is to let small businesses have a fairly even, fairly incentive-laden starting-point so that each can grow according to their talents.  But when they're consistently crowded-out by ueber-corporations, that cannot happen. And when these huge corporations inevitably lose their edge through intellectual laziness and corporate insulation from reality--which is often due to start-ups lacking any sort of leverage to compete with them, and which often manifests itself in the aforementioned lock-step thinking within these huge corporations--the best thing a truly free market can do is let them die so that new mom-and-pop operations (and the like) can replace them and start the process of building wealth and market diversification again.  Yet so often we find ourselves propping these Goliaths up with money that could go into other activities, such as investing in new ideas and new businesses, solving health care problems, and the like.

What about our retirement money, you ask? Well, at the risk of sounding overly glib, that's why there's this thing called "saving money" and this thing called a "social safety net." In America, for instance, our affluence has allowed us to rather blindly and irrationally assume that we can buy endlessly on credit--houses, cabins, multiple cars per family, boats, motorcycles, another car, etc., etc., etc., etc.--and still save money "down the line...somewhere." My suggestion is that we perhaps buy just a few of those things, skip the rest, save some money, and create a stronger, more flexible social safety net--the last of which suggests first and foremost that we solve our metastacizing health care problems through creative, hybridizing, incentive-based means, as well as find a way to keep social security solvent and strong.  If this means tightening the proverbial belt elsewhere, which it most likely does, then so be it.  Hence, though in many ways it would be painful, we would create down-to-earth, realistic solutions to the pressing problems of the day without eradicating the economic system that creates wealth and jobs.

Much (though not all) can be said of many other wealthy countries throughout the world regarding this type of financial scenario....

Of course, as I've already stated, this is not an easy thing to do.  Indeed, with jobs eroding worldwide and the cost of living rising, this will be a difficult thing to pull off, particularly given the more comfortable scenario to which many of us have grown accustomed.  But while I do not advocate anything so regressive as tossing the stock market out the window (which would be like throwing the baby out with the bath water, as the old saying goes), I do advocate a shift in focus and mindset away from "I want all of this now" and toward "I need to plan for what I want, and I need to plan for acquiring what I need in order to get by should the plan for what I want fall through."  So while we might want these financial giants to be propped-up by taxpayer money so that they can carry on for another half-dozen years before the next (perhaps bigger) crisis occurs, we might be better served if we let the more disastrous financial giants wither away while we find a common-sense, streamlined-yet-effective method of non-stifling regulation that will hopefully help lessen the global impact of future corporate meltdowns.

It's one of the least amusing economic ironies of the past few decades that many so-called "conservative free-marketers" immediately rip into the more left-leaning portions of arguments like mine (creating a stronger and more updated social safety net; finding streamlined oversight methods) and miss the more classically conservative portions of these same arguments (stop bailing out mega-corporations; support innovation more broadly), many of which would help save money that could be used elsewhere.  Yet many folks would simplistically term what I and others are suggesting "liberalism" or "big-government nonsense."

I would ask such skeptics to read what I am suggesting once again, minus the personal agendas so many folks impress upon just about everything they read.  I believe that if they do this, they would find that I for one am willing to find common-sense, compromise solutions to the crises that so many folks still refuse to accept as reality.  In fact, I'd prefer compromise solutions, because such a scenario suggests that, since we're all in this together, as many of us as possible should be heard insofar as solutions are concerned.

Others, Both American And Non-American, Agree That Energy Reform As A Unifying U.S. Goal Is A Good Idea

Ben Macintyre of the Times (of London) writes today of the growing necessity for both American leaders--industrial and political--as well as Americans in general to utilize an old sense of patriotism in order to create a new energy portfolio.  He discusses a new book by Thomas L. Friedman that deals directly with this and related issues, but he also suggests that during his travels in the U.S. (Mr. Macintyre is not American) he has recognized the same thing that Mr. Friedman (who is American) has, which is as follows:  the sort of fervor for their country that Americans project on a rather consistent basis (and at a rather generalized meta-level), which in part has created a love of the automobile that is in many ways singularly American and increasingly unhealthy as long as petroleum is used to power automobiles, can now be harnessed to help solve both the burgeoning energy crisis and ease the environmental fallout from increased demands for American-ized lifestyles from people in many presently-industralizing countries around the world.

I'll now provide a representative sampling of this intriguing article (with which I largely agree, by the way, and in saying that I mean that I agree with both Mr. Macintyre and Mr. Friedman).  The first snippet deals with Mr. Macintyre's observations, and the second deals with Mr. Friedman's.  I will say only that what Mr. Friedman in particular has to say sounds an awful lot like what I wrote just the other day (in my September 15 post) and what an awful lot of folks who have seen the necessity for the United States to shift its energy emphasis in order to remain a major geopolitical leader are presently advocating:  make energy transformation a unifying national goal and a source of American pride.

I'll also provide a few comments below the sampling from the article.

From The Times (of London)
September 18, 2008

"Greening the Dream that Drives America"

"...Modern America was born on the road, behind a wheel. The car forged some of the most enduring elements of American culture: the roadside diner, the billboard, the motel, even the hamburger. For most of the last century, the automobile represented what it meant to be American: going forward at high speed to find new worlds. The road novel, the road movie, these are quintessential American ideas, born of abundant petrol, cheap cars and a never-ending interstate system, the largest public works project in history.

"In 1928 Herbert Hoover imagined an America with 'a chicken in every pot and a car in every garage'. Ford Motion Pictures, once the largest film producer in the world, churned out more than 3,000 movies extolling the thrill of driving. James Dean drove a Mercury, Steve McQueen a Mustang. Charger, Blazer, Javelin: the names reflected a society that hurtled onward, never looking back, as the car transformed America from a farm-based society into an industrial giant. The love affair continues. The US now has far more cars than garages. There are 204 million registered cars, trucks and SUVs, but only 191 million drivers.

"The cars that drove the American Dream have helped to create a global ecological nightmare. Europe's appetite for oil has been restrained by high petrol taxes, small cars and more efficient public transport. In America, by contrast, demand for oil has grown by 22 per cent since 1990.

"The extraordinary worldwide rise of the middle class and the demand for an American lifestyle, of which car ownership is a key component, has fuelled a staggering boom. By 2050, perhaps a decade earlier, China will have 130 million cars; Moscow's roads were built for 30,000 vehicles; the city now has three million; India is planning the mass-production of a four-seater car that will cost $2,500.

"The horrors of excessive energy consumption (of which cars are only one part), associated climate change, dwindling biodiversity and population growth are detailed in Hot, Flat and Crowded, a new book by the American writer Thomas L. Friedman. As the title suggests, Friedman fears the worst, but unlike so many books about the changing environment he also hopes for the best. His book is not about hand-wringing, slowing economic growth, moral censure or a radical change in lifestyles, but about harnessing American expertise, ingenuity and cash to the next great industrial revolution - finding solutions to the energy crisis that make economic sense.

"Friedman points out that the green economy is a huge investment opportunity, and a chance to reassert American national strength. 'The ability to design, build and export green technologies for producing clean electrons, clean water, clean air and healthy and abundant food is going to be the currency of power in the Energy Climate Era - not the only one, but right up there with computers, microchips, information technologies and planes and tanks.'

"The imperative here is avowedly patriotic: 'Green is the new red, white and blue.' America, with its entrepreneurial capitalist systems, research universities and history of innovation is uniquely placed to win this race, and where America leads, he says, the rest of the world will follow....

"...Weaning America from the motorcar is a cultural gear-change that will never happen. Environmental issues have hardly touched the US election. At the Republican convention, Rudy Giuliani led delegates in a chant of 'Drill, Baby, Drill'.

"Yet Friedman suggests that a new route is opening up by purusing American self-interest, harnessing the raw power of American patriotism and tackling 'a great opportunity disguised as an insoluble problem'. The solution lies not in finger-pointing and self-flagellation, but in persuading America to solve a problem caused, in large part, by America and the great American automobile.

"As Henry Ford remarked: 'Don't find fault, find a remedy. Anybody can complain....'"

Back to Hasslington's comments:

What Mr. Friedman in particular (he works for the New York Times now, but he's still a good Midwestern boy at heart) is advocating is the leveraging of our (if you happen to be American) penchant for displays of national pride, many of which are healthy (and some of which I would argue are not, such as the ueber-repetitive bellowing of "U.S.A.! U.S.A.!" at the Republican National Convention; one or two of those instances are just fine, but dozens of them are indicative of intellectual laziness and its accompanying cultural myopia, at least to my mind). When healthy displays of national pride are focused in a few areas vital to both the sustainability of geo-leadership and a sense of creative resurgence, the country undertaking this focus is bound to find that its accomplishments are respected at increased levels both at home and abroad.

For Americans to leverage this old notion of national pride, sometimes called patriotism, into a new area of focus, in this case energy independence and transformation, is a particularly good idea given that the United States is a country which prides itself on independence of thought, spirit, and innovation. (Given the history of how the United States came to be an independent country, this is understandably the case, and rightfully so.) If linked to the idea of the renewal of the American spirit and American leadership, particularly as it relates to energy procurement, security, and use in the twenty-first century, it can work. And, as the above article (and my post from this past Monday) suggests, at present, as the U.S. goes with energy, much of the rest of the world is sure to follow.

To my mind, this type of transformational undertaking is necessary, but whether or not you agree with that sentiment, surely we can agree that it's most certainly worth a try.

For the text of the full article, please see the following address:  

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/ben_macintyre/article4776122.ece

Fellow Americans, Let's Connect The Dots Regarding Our Oil Addiction, Both At Home And Abroad

...OR, LET'S STOP FEEDING THE PETRO-AUTHORITARIAN STATES BY FINALLY ACTING LIKE INNOVATIVE AMERICANS AGAIN AND TRYING SOMETHING NEW (WHICH IS TO SAY SOMETHING OTHER THAN IMPORTING OIL AND/OR MASSIVE INCREASED DOMESTIC DRILLING...).

The United States buys oil from Venezuela. Yes, we also buy oil from ourselves and the Canadians and the Saudis and others throughout the world, but we buy a not-insubstantial amount of oil from the Venezuelans, as well. Our money helps to feed the Venezuelan economy, which to a certain extent is a good thing, but it also increasingly helps to line the pockets of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. Unless you're some sort of cloistered academic long into your tenured years, you must recognize that Mr. Chavez is no feel-good, left-wing messiah, but rather a megalomaniac pariah with delusions of grandeur who utilizes socialist rhetoric in order to do little more than attract sketchy friends for sketchy reasons.

I bring all of this up because Mr. Chavez has long-since attempted to purchase admittedly aging but still functional Soviet-era nuclear submaries from the Kremlin, in order to begin to challenge the United States in both the Caribbean Sea and the Gulf of Mexico. He's been very open and vocal about this, and he's been at it for years now. At first, I'm sure his bellowings seemed rather silly to the higher-ups of various Western nations--indeed, some openly laughed at him, which of course attracted more naive folks to his cause, particularly given the unnecessary and counter-productive bellicosity of the Bush Administration's foreign policy. Yet slowly but surely, he's getting closer and closer to his goal, and alarms are starting to go off (if only occasionally at present) in Washington, D.C. and in the seats of other Western powers.

Though hardly reported at all in the American press (oh, what that must say about American cultural insularity at present...), an announcement was made a few weeks ago stating clearly that the Russian navy would conduct what it termed as "joint exercises with Venezuela" in the Caribbean Sea sometime this fall. The Economist magazine has a concise description of what will supposedly occur:

"...Russia has confirmed that it will be sending [to Venezuelan waters] the flagship of its Baltic fleet, the nuclear-powered cruiser 'Peter The Great.' In all, there will be four Russian ships, with a combined crew of 1,000...."

Russia has also sent a few bombers to the area, ostensibly in retaliation for the U.S.'s involvement in the Georgia fiasco. The U.S., for its part, has woken-up to the threat (at least to a certain extent), and has decided to resurrect its "Fourth Fleet" from the dead for the first time since 1950 (!) in order to "patrol the area."

Of course, this is not a re-run of the Bay of Pigs; at present, it's not even close to that knife-edge scenario. Yet this has been in the pipeline (pun intended) for years now. Once again, according to The Economist:

"Venezuela has already spent over $4 billion on Russian weaponry. This includes dozens of helicopters, 100,000 Kalishnikov rifles and 24 Sukhoi-30 fighter-bombers--among the world's most sophisticated fighter aircraft. On his latest arms-buying trip to Moscow, in July, Mr. Chavez said Venezuela was...[Russia's] 'strategic ally' and shared 'the same vision of the world.'"

Now, some of the purchases Mr. Chavez has made from Russia are technological jokes (and those leaky submarines have yet to fully make an appearance), but some of them are not. Certainly, too, all of these purchases combined cannot challenge the might of the American military. But they are a worrying trend in two respects: first, they suggest that a sustained Russian military presence, in one form or another, in the Caribbean Sea is being worked-out between the two countries (rumors of Russian military bases on Venezuelan territory are rampant, and Venezuela's denials of such a situation have been limp, to say the least); secondly, some of these Russian arms are being purchased by Venezuela with U.S. funds, derived from the sale of oil to the United States. (Obviously, as previously stated, they sell oil to other countries, as well.)

Last spring, I posited that the U.S. and Europe would coalesce more than they have over the previous decade or so in order to counter a rising threat from Russia. While many other folks have been screaming about China in a sustained manner, I suggested that coalescing with Europe and India would be a strong step to confronting a possible Russian-Chinese alliance. That FINALLY seems to be happening, slowly but surely, in a number of manners, which suggests that the Bush Administration is actually half-listening to those, primarily Democrats and Independents, who have been calling for a change of course; it will surely accelerate once the derided Bush Administration, still not trusted by many of our strategic partners, has left the White House.

My hopes were that the U.S would also step up its efforts to continue to bring China, slowly but surely, into the fold, while also pressuring the Chinese to level-out the economic playing field a bit more, which is an admittedly tricky thing to pull off. Interestingly enough, both Senators Obama and McCain argue in a forthcoming edition of the U.S. business magazine "China Brief" that the U.S. and China need to consolidate their partnership to a greater extent on issues of trade and nuclear proliferation. Some of this must be due to the alarms that the Kremlin is presently setting off in Washinton, D.C....

With the Russians taking advantage of the U.S. being bogged-down in Afghanistan and Iraq by invading Georgia, and with the Ukraine, Moldova, Belarus, and the Baltic states presently in an extreme state of worry that any one of them might be next (when I lived in the U.K. from 2005 to late 2007, Russia turned off the gas lines to Ukraine on a few occasions...in the middle of the harsh Ukrainian winter, after Ukraine disagreed with it on a number of policies), the Russian Bear is indeed beginning to make noise and crash around again. And it's not crashing around in a haphazard manner; unlike Ukraine, Moldova, Belarus, and the Baltic States, Georgia is not at present located very close to European NATO countries, which suggests that Russia is on the move in militarily soft, geographically nebulous locations at present (which we see in their stepped-up effort near previously militarily-soft Venezuela, and the U.S.'s very recent response to it).

Hence, the worry regarding Venezuela and, by extention, Russia. Both Venezuela and Russia are oil-rich countries, and both are benefitting massively at present from a worldwide transfer of wealth from other countries to them. So, the answer is to drill extensively here in the U.S. in order to detach ourselves from petro-authoritarian states (many of which I have not even discussed in this post), right?

Wrong. Or at least mostly wrong. I, for one, would accept congress legislating some limited amounts of accelerated domestic drilling if it meant a far more rapid transition to alternative forms of energy, including wind, solar, bio-fuels (hopefully not overly corn-based), nuclear (and, yes, folks, Senator Obama did indeed suggested that increased "safe nuclear power" must be a part of a new American energy package; anyone who suggests otherwise didn't see his convention speech, because it was right there in it), and the like. Senator Obama has suggested that this is the way to go. Senator McCain says heavy amounts of drilling must accompany this.

Setting the environment and global warming to the side for a moment, on paper, Senator McCain might look to be right. But his strategy misses a huge point, one I've made before but one that I'm not sure many of my fellow Americans understand fully: at present, the U.S. sets the global trends. We are still the monster economy of this world, and as we go, so too does much of the rest of the world (developed and developing). I cannot tell you how many foreign countries I've been in where folks have had one eye (at least) on Washington, D.C., in order to see where the U.S. would go strategically insofar as energy is concerned, because they knew that wherever the U.S. went, they would largely have to follow. People can deny it to themselves all they want, but it's reality.

But it may not be reality for much longer, given what Fareed Zakaria correctly terms the present "rise of the rest" of the world. We're still the big boy on the block--by far--but a decade down the line we're not going to look as big as we do now (especially if we fail to recognize this fact and adjust accordingly). So we've got a sort of "power-window" at present, and during this window we can help to set a worldwide template for energy use in the twenty-first century. (What we have at present--in much of the world--is a flabby extention of twentieth-century energy use.) This template could be an extention of our addiction to oil (which has been a cheap source of energy for a while, so it's understandable that we're a bit scared about dropping it so quickly), at which point nearly everyone else extends and expands their oil policies. In that scenario, if we don't buy Venezuelan or Russian or Iranian oil, someone else certainly will, which will continue the massive transfer of wealth to such petro-authoritarian states. Or....

Or we can act like Americans again, which is to say we can coalesce internally and with our strategic partners the world over in order to create a truly new energy revolution that will be painful in many ways but less painful (and less dangerous) than the long-term consequences of doubling-down on our dependency on oil. We can put our innovation to the test again, as we did when we put a man on the moon, and just as we did during that moment in history, we can find a common cause around which we can unite first as a nation and secondly as a conglomeration of free-thinking peoples and nations around the world. In doing so, we can shift (probably more rapidly than we at present think) the international paradigm regarding energy procurement, security, and use, and the Hugo Chavezes of the world will fade--if little by little, and slowly but surely.

There are no perfect energy strategies, but there is an energy crisis, and it will most likely continue to get worse in a steady manner in many parts of the world (including many parts of the U.S.) if we stick with the same old strategies and paradigms for much longer. My suggestion is that we bite the bullet now and show the rest of the world that Americans are not the intellectually lazy, creatively deprived, decadent individuals we are so often perceived to be, but rather strategically-thinking, innovative people who can do as we have done in the past--adjust, sometimes slightly and at other times massively, to fit the needs of the day. The need for energy adjustment is growing exponentially now, and it will be far more massive down the line. Why not start today by actually weaning ourselves off of oil rather rapidly?

Impossible, huh? Well, people once thought the same about going to the moon....

Various Notions, Volume 12: A (Somewhat) New America; Baseball Is (Sort Of) British; Interesting Names For Aspiring Politicians

A NEW AMERICAN PARADIGM IS UPON US, WHETHER WE LIKE IT OR NOT. (I, FOR ONE, LIKE THE IDEA....)

In today's (September 12, 2008) edition of the Times (of London), Justin Webb, who happens to be the BBC's North America Editor, argues that American social conservatism is on the wane, and both naturally and irreversibly so. This, he argues, is because the idea of overarching social conservatism--and its various accompanying social meta-agendas--has clashed one too many times with governmental conservatism, which suggests that any massive expansion of the powers of government is anathema to a properly-functioning society. He ultimately suggests that these two very different conservative forces, who had combined for so long to win Republicans congressional and presidential elections (and may yet do so again this time around), have finally decided that their differences are irreconcilable. The only question is when exactly the divorce will be recognized at the national level.

Mr. Webb is an interesting journalist. He has, for instance, clashed with his bosses at the BBC on a number of occasions for what he has perceived to be ingrained anti-Americanism at that powerful news agency. Though Mr. Webb certainly hasn't endorsed everything the American government has endorsed, he nonetheless has pointed out on a number of occasions that too many European news agencies view the United States through a cliche'-filled kaleidoscope. Though some of those cliches are indeed grounded in a certain amount of truth, the United States, which is filled with over three-hundred million people spread-out over an entire continent, cannot be socially and/or politically encapsulated in a few trademarked, culturally-motivated offhanded remarks.

Now, before we all start waving the stars-and-stripes and singing "America The Beautiful," let's please remember what I am reminded of often when someone here in the U.S. meets Mrs. Hasslington for the first time, hears her accent, and proceeds to rather lamely articulate another in a long line of British cliches.' What comes to mind during those instances is that one of the biggest problems in this world, both at home and abroad, is the often dangerous power of culturally-motivated, intellectually lazy stereotypes. Given our relative cultural ubiquity (in some though certainly not all ways), we struggle mightily with this situation here in the U.S., to be sure. But so too do many other folks elsewhere in the world, and we ought to keep that in mind in order to retain a sense of perspective on the issue. This is not to suggest that it's "okay" to be culturally lazy--far from it, in fact. Instead, I mean to suggest that we all have a lot to consider, no matter where we're from, or where we've been. It's a struggle, but in one important sense it's one we're all in together.

Here are three snippets from Mr. Webb's article, with the link to full article appearing below these snippets:

Snippet One:

"It doesn't matter who wins! Seriously, guys, America is about to become, once again, the coolest place on earth.

"An era is ending. If you still think the US is home to all that is fatty and unwholesome and militaristic and cloth-eared and generally low-grade, and not much else, it may be time to give the Yanks another chance.

"Politically, socially, culturally, America is--as we watch transfixed and, in spite of ourselves, impressed--being born again...."

Snippet Two:

"...Nothing the voters decide this November will change this dynamic. Not even the fantastic Mrs. Palin--the Iron Lady of Alaska--who is on the Republican ticket to serve a purpose but not, frankly, to serve in office. Mrs. Palin's views are certainly of the hard-line Religious Right but the party is not intending that they become policy and the party would be destroyed if they did.

"The idea (which Mrs. Palin backs) that abortion should be illegal even in cases of rape and incest was tried out on the people of South Dakota recently. South Dakota is no friend of abortion but even these conservative voters nixed the plan.

"No, America is changing and a new era is beginning: a post-Reagan era in which social conservatism (galvanizing Republicans and terrifying Democrats) is replaced as the driving force in U.S. politics by...well, we don't know [yet]...."

Snippet Three:

"Americans hunger for mobile phone networks that work. For rapid transport that whizzes. For bridges that don't fall down. They do not hunger for government but they do hunger for efficiency, for a governing infrastructure that serves a modern economy; for a health system that delivers medicine without bankrupting companies and individuals. Both John McCain and Barack Obama know this. Each is under pressure to deliver.

"America is imperfect. It has no divine right to be the world's leading nation. And yet--in this glorious political year--something about it sings.

"And as the American Olympic team reminded us when we looked at it and wondered at is multicolour, multi-ethnic vibrancy (more than thirty members were born abroad), this nation is ours. There is nothing wrong in wishing it well."

The text of the full article can be found at the following address:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article4735147.ece

"TAKE ME OUT TO THE (BRITISH) BALL GAME, TAKE ME OUT WITH THE (ENGLISH) CROWD...."

English lawyer William Bray, who lived during the 1700s and early 1800s, kept a diary. It's lucky for baseball fans and (especially) people who, like me, love baseball history that he did so. Though still in the final stages of authentication, it seems increasingly the case that he referred to the American pastime of "Base Ball" (as he put it) way back in...1755, a full twenty-one years prior to the U.S. becoming a country. And the "Base Ball" game to which he referred, and in which he played, took place in his native England. (The first competitive American baseball game took place in the 1840s, with the first American professional team playing in 1869.)

The famous English author Jane Austen also referred to the sport around the year 1800, and, as more information is being unearthed (sometimes literally) as each year passes, more and more evidence points to the theory that baseball, which in many respects derived from cricket (and perhaps rounders), was conceived and developed in England, and it was developed in no small part as its own, stand-alone sport.

Now, it's of course the case that baseball was "perfected" (as it were) in the United States, and it is here in the U.S. where its history is so rich and storied. As such, it will always be a very American sport first and foremost. (It will also always be my favorite sport, with ice hockey coming in at second place. Baseball and ice hockey--it seems that no matter where I travel and/or live, I cannot shake my Minnesotan roots. But, I don't want to, either.)

I'm reminded of what a superb English professor once told me about Shakespeare's plays. "The brilliance of Shakespeare," he said, "was in interpretation, re-invention, and perfection. It was not in conception, as his best plays were often based on existing stories by other writers. He simply made those stories his own by making them much, much better than they were before. He's the greatest writer of all time, but the irony is that he became the greatest writer because other people wrote the mediocre rough drafts of many of his greatest plays before he perfected them."

It has long since been my opinion, backed increasingly by historical evidence, that the United States did not conceive of baseball. But we interpreted, re-invented, and perfected it. As far as I'm concerned, as baseball continues to spread throughout the world, it will always be an American sport. And, lest my many British friends get snooty about it (I doubt they will, but just in case they're tempted to do so), I'd like to point out that the Chinese are finding historical evidence of their own that golf is not British in origin, but rather Chinese. Then again, the British (and, it seems, specifically the Scottish) certainly interpreted, re-invented, and perfected golf. So....

An article describing this baseball scenario can be found at Sports Illustrated's web-site, and specifically at the following address:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/baseball/mlb/09/11/baseball.england.ap/index.html


PRIMARY DAY YIELDS A CORNUCOPIA OF FUN NAMES

This past Tuesday was primary day in many states throughout the country, during which some final selections were made regarding who would officially represent their party in some of the forthcoming elections to be held the first week in November. Reading the full list of candidates in one of the local (Twin Cities) papers, and seeing a few of them on my ballot on Tuesday, I was struck with the thought that my name is fine but hardly exciting, and so are most other people's names.

There were, however, several names on my ballot--and several more names in the paper, which means they were on ballots elsewhere in the metro area--that did not fit this middle-of-the-road pattern. I hope my readers take this in the spirit in which it is intended--which is to say one of fun, not of mockery--as I now present to you some of the more interesting names of Twin Cities candidates from primary day. (Perhaps these names serve to show the variety of thought that Justin Webb suggests does indeed exist in the United States?...)

Here they are, in no particular order:

--Richard Rich Bloodgood. (Apparently, he enjoys stressing wealth and pedigree.)
--John Santa Hollander. (He lost his primary; no gifts for you today, Mr. Hollander.)
--Ole Savior. (Norwegian messiah?)
--Priscilla Lord Faris. (Evidently not "Priscilla, Lord Faris" as in "Alfred, Lord Tennyson.")
--Randy Johnson. (I take it this is not the famous baseball pitcher. The other interpretation of this name is rude, but funny.)
--Tony Bennett. (He's still got it, folks--he left his heart in San Fran, but he won his Twin Cities primary!)
--Brian Beany Drews. (I don't know what to say about this name, exactly, except that it seemed to belong on this list.)
--John Booth. (Not surprisingly, he didn't feel as though he needed to provide his middle name....)
--Heidi L. Huckleberry. (Ol' Sam Clemens is smiling contentedly....)
--Bobby Joe Champion. (Didn't he lose to Stallone in one of those Rocky films?)
--Gail Chang Bohr. (Lots of right and left turns in that name.)
--Augustine Willie Dominguez. (Somehow, that's a really cool name.)
--Lucky "Tiger Jack" Rosenbloom. (If you think his name is interesting, you should see him interviewed....)
--Tim Lies. (Oddly, his opponent won rather handily on primary day.)

And here's my personal favorite:

--Nicole M. Infinity. ("I hear she's the perfect politician--she promises everything to everyone....")

What Might Have Been?... Alternative Democratic Nominees And Their Alternative Running Mates

I am a political nerd (a designation of which I am rather proud, by the way), and perhaps hopelessly so, given the fact that I speculate not only on the current political "scene" but also on what might have been. I guess I simply find such speculation interesting, and I don't think I ought to be ashamed of that--much to the contrary, actually, as I find that exploring "could-have-been" scenarios keeps the political grey cells active.

I am quite happy with this election cycle's U.S. presidential choices, Democratic nominee Barack Obama and Republican nominee John McCain. (Of the two, I support Senator Obama.) But I often think to myself, "Okay, that's reality, and it's a good one. But what might have happened if [...fill-in-the-blank...] were to have won the Democratic or Republican nomination? Who would that person have selected to be his or her running mate?"

In the interests of letting my imagination run (once again) in the direction of alternative political universes, I have decided to share some of my ideas regarding who other "Democratic nominees" may have chosen to be their running mates--and why--and I invite any and all readers to do likewise. (I may or may not do something similar relatively soon with the Republicans.) Please indulge me, folks--such speculation placates a relatively active corner of my political mind....

1.) "Democratic nominee" Hillary Clinton's potential running mates: Wesley Clark; Barack Obama; Bill Richardson.

This is obviously the best person with which to start, as she gave Barack Obama a real run for his money in the primaries, and then some. Given this tightly-contested situation, Hillary Clinton would surely have selected Barack Obama to be her running mate, due to his insurgent campaign's strength and wide-ranging support. But who would she have selected if she ran away with the nomination, wrapping it up far closer to Super Tuesday in early February?...

Two names leap to mind, the first of which is General Wesley Clark, who would have helped her in the South and with military families, as well as with some skeptical independent-voting men, and men and women for whom national security is a big priority. The second is Bill Richardson, who in this scenario would not have endorsed Barack Obama. He worked in several important capacities for President Bill Clinton, and this time around would have helped her with the emerging Western swing-states. He would also have consolidated and expanded her already considerable popularity among Hispanic voters.

(*Note: I can certainly see Hillary Clinton as the president, but I find it hard to envision her as vice president, for a number of different reasons, which is why she won't appear later in this posting.)

2.) "Democratic nominee" John Edwards' potential running mates: Chet Edwards; Jack Reed.

John Edwards came in (a distant) third in the primary process this time around, so it's natural at this point to discuss who he would have selected to be his running mate (despite the fact that his on-going extra-marital affair would have probably destroyed his chances of winning the presidency.)

This is a tough one, as I'm not sure many folks would "mesh" well with him. Still, I've come up with two names, the first of which is U.S. Congressman Chet Edwards, who happens to be from Texas. (The "Edwards/Edwards" and "Edwards x 2" slogans would be easy to remember, at least....) He may have helped his potential boss with veterans and perhaps military families, for whom he's advocated in congress for years, and he'd probably have helped with moderates who think of John Edwards as being "too liberal," as well. He could also perhaps have helped with a few South-Western states and at least distract John McCain enough in Texas to put the ticket over the top somewhere else.

U.S. Senator Jack Reed, somewhat boring but solid insofar as credibility and integrity are concerned, might also have been a good running mate for John Edwards. Though a North-Easterner, Reed's military background and good-guy persona would probably have been enough to overcome any "elite liberal" labels the Republicans would have tried to hang on him. Like Chet Edwards, his no-frills speaking style might also have helped off-set John Edwards' overly-slick speaking style.

3.) "Democratic nominee" Bill Richardson's potential running mates: Evan Bayh; Wesley Clark.

Bill Richardson would have been a fun nominee because of his gregarious (almost to a fault) nature. Yet because of this aspect of his political personality, he would have required a quieter, rather uncontroversial, somewhat boring running mate. U.S. Senator Evan Bayh, from Indiana, fits the bill almost perfectly, and he's from a traditionally red state that his (statewide) popularity could have helped turn blue, as well. A former governor and now senator, he and Richardson (a former congressman, U.N. Ambassador, Energy Secretary, and current governor) could rightfully have declared themselves to be one of the most experienced presidential tickets in recent memory, and, given Richardson's paradigm-shifting time as New Mexico's governor, agents of change, as well. Plus, Richardson would have appealed to Hispanics while Bayh would have appealed to white suburbanites--and they'd both have appealed to some moderate Republicans. That would have been one hell of a strong ticket.

Given Governor Richardson's liberal-leaning stances on the Iraq War and Mideast policy, he might have also selected Wesley Clark as his running mate, in order to bolster his credentials amongst military families and skeptical Southerners.

4.) "Democratic nominee" Joe Biden's potential running mates: Barack Obama; Brian Schweitzer.

I am a huge fan of the Obama/Biden ticket, and I would have been an equally huge fan of a Biden/Obama ticket. These guys compliment each other nicely, and in a number of ways: the fired-up political conviction of Biden and the always-cool political conviction of Obama would have (and, in its present form, does) off-set each other very well; the international political experience of Biden would work nicely alongside the international personal experience of Obama; the political experience of Biden at the national level would work well alongside the working-his-way-up political outsider status of Obama; Biden's life-long Catholicism would compliment the more complex religious journey Obama took in order to become a Christian; etc.

Oddly, I think another fired-up individual, Brian Schweitzer (the present governor of Montana), would also have been a strong running mate for Biden. Normally, I would counsel against two such folks running as a team, but I'd make an exception in Schweitzer's case, for a number of reasons. First of all, he's a Westerner (and obviously so, given his Western-themed dress sense) who could help Biden compete in a lot of Western (and nearby) states--Montana, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, Oregon, Alaska, even North Dakota--not all of which have been swing-states in the recent past. Secondly, his "Woooo-ieeeee!" style of oratory was a hit at the Democratic National Convention, and it is a lot different than Biden's more Eastern type of hard-hitting oratory, in which he mixes blue collar tough-talk with academic words like "metastasize." Hence, the two styles would not be likely to clash, but rather compliment each other. What a "wowser" team this one would have been....

5.) "Democratic nominee" Chris Dodd's potential running mates: Tim Kaine; Brian Schweitzer.

Chris Dodd is the only remaining Democrat who had a chance (though it was certainly a long-shot) at somehow pulling a rabbit out of his hat and winning his party's nomination. It didn't happen. If it had, however, I think that Tim Kaine, the governor of Virginia, would have made for a fine running mate. This is because Governor Kaine would have helped with the Catholic vote, the Southern vote (particularly in Virginia and--perhaps--North Carolina), and the blue collar vote. That he was born in the Midwest might also have been a bonus with a few critical voters from Midwestern swing-states, of which there are several. Kaine is less overtly cerebral--and is therefore often seen as less "elite"--than Dodd, which would have benefited the ticket, as well.

If not Tim Kaine, perhaps Brian Schweitzer would have made a good running mate for Dodd, for many of the same reasons he would have made a good running mate for Joe Biden. And, given that Dodd's appeal does not necessarily extend to as many blue collar voters as does Biden's, Schweitzer could have helped in that area, as well.

* Final Note: Of course, there are other folks who would have made fine running mates, as well, such as Mark Warner, Kathleen Sebelius, Jim Webb, etc., etc....

Anti-Governor Palin Sentiment Is Not Anti-Small Town Sentiment

IT'S SENATOR McCAIN'S JUDGMENT THAT IS IN QUESTION

In today's (September 8, 2008) edition of USA Today, letter writer Luz Gonzalez Maribona of Miami, Florida states that "...the continued criticism of [Alaska Governor Sarah Palin's qualifications for the vice presidency] illustrates the prejudice elected officials from small towns deal with. Many Americans are from small towns, and it does not, as some think, automatically disqualify them from leadership."

I, for one, am tired of hearing this sort of crap. Before I continue, let me say first and foremost that, though I grew up in a metropolitan area, I have absolutely no problem with small town America or the vast majority of people who, like Luz, have spent a considerable percentage of their lives in small towns. During my university and graduate school years, I made many friends who had been born and raised in small towns, and I found them to be every bit as intelligent as folks from backgrounds like mine.

But intelligence and anti-small-town prejudice are not the pertinent issues here--at least not to me. What is at issue is the background of candidates insofar as their internationalist credentials are concerned. That is, I believe that it's absolutely essential for our president and vice president to have had a lot of direct exposure to as many countries and cultures as possible prior to stepping into the White House. I could care less whether they come from New York City or a Kansas farm or any of the innumerable small towns scattered throughout the United States. What matters is that they understand how our country and culture fit into the international world, particularly in this rapidly-changing, increasingly multi-polar world, where political, economic, and cultural competition from multiple geographical locations is increasing daily.

I agree with Kathy Robinson from Middlesex, New Jersey, who writes in today's edition of (what I'm sure will be pointed-out is the "liberal") New York Times that "...we live in a world of staggering complexity. As the last eight years have shown, we ignore that at our own peril." George W. Bush downplayed his lack of international immersion in 2000, and it has resulted in a Cold War-oriented, one-size-fits-all foreign policy that has affected adversely our standing in the world and our economy at home. His father, by contrast, was an internationalist, and though he spent only one term in the White House, he positioned the United States to deal with a post-Cold War world in far more proactive manners. (As a quiet acknowledgment of these accomplishments, President Clinton continued along the paths of many, if not all, of the first President Bush's international policies.)

Both the first President Bush and President Clinton had spent considerable time overseas, though in very different capacities. The same is the case with Senators Biden, Obama, and McCain. But Governor Palin, for all of her honorable qualities, has traveled overseas exactly once, and, though the reason for her trip was a positive one in that she visited U.S. troops from Alaska who were stationed in Germany and Kuwait, I can tell you that, having been on U.S. bases in Germany before, I'd hardly call that "visiting Germany." (The culture on those bases is full-on American, not German.)

I don't mean to pile-on Governor Palin, but I do mean to question Senator McCain's judgment in the wake of selecting her to be his running mate. Though I endorsed her for that role back in July, I made the big mistake of assuming that, as the governor of an energy-producing state located near Russia, she would have traveled at least relatively extensively outside of North America on fact-finding excursions and the like. I was wrong to assume that, given that it turns out she has hardly ever been outside of North America. I would not have endorsed her had I known this.

It's 2008. In this era, there are four jobs for which I find a strong grasp of the international world absolutely essential: President of the United States, Vice President of the United States, Secretary of State, and Secretary of Defense. I find it extraordinary that some folks, no matter what their political affiliation, don't think such a requirement matters for these particular jobs. I am not the most nuanced of world travelers, but I have done a lot of traveling outside of the U.S., and I have also lived and worked and paid taxes elsewhere (during which time I did not work with fellow Americans). When I speak with people who have had similar experiences to mine, their views on presidential and vice presidential qualifications almost always mirror mine, even if their political affiliations don't necessarily mirror mine.

I would humbly suggest that those who have not traveled abroad extensively--and especially those who have not lived and worked abroad, which is far different from being an extended tourist--listen to the viewpoints of their fellow countrymen and -women who have spent considerable time overseas and wish to see the United States retain a lot of its international influence, the vast majority of whom I've found feel it is essential for our leaders to have international gravitas prior to stepping into their extraordinarily important roles.

I would also suggest that we stop simplifying this issue into the misleading discussion of "anti-small town bias." Such a discussion may be necessary, but not in the context of who is president and vice president, because it misses the point entirely. After all, I'd rather have as the president a foreign policy expert who has lived much of her or his life on a farm in Iowa, but who has also spent extensive time overseas, than someone from, say, Minneapolis who has never traveled abroad, or perhaps gone abroad on a short vacation only once or twice.

That's not unfair discrimination. It's realism.

I'm Not A McCain Supporter, But He's Better Than His Party And Its Delegates Deserve

My grandfather fought in the South Pacific during World War II. Growing up, he didn't talk about it often, though when I grew older he did share with me occasional stories from the war, many horrific in nature. He never glorified these stories, and made sure that I wouldn't, either. When I was about eighteen years of age, he gave me his navy uniform (I still have it, of course), and a few years ago he showed me some pictures from his time at war, and discussed the circumstances behind those pictures, some of which were humorous, many of which were not. He still discusses such stories with me occasionally. I'm very lucky to be able to say that he's still alive.

One of the things that my grandfather--who became a successful electrician and, later, a successful businessman after the war--made sure I understood is that strong people do not project their strength in loud, bellicose, simplistically sloganeering manners, because such projection is indicative of both ignorance and insularity, and it is embarrassing and, ultimately, counterproductive. Instead, he told me (as he sometimes still tells me) that strong people display their intelligence through hard work and hard study, as well as careful thought. Strong people convince others of their ability and willingness to listen and digest what others have to say, which in turn convinces others to listen to them in similar ways. We need not always agree, of course, but only in that way does real understanding and progress occur.

Similarly, he says, strong countries do not shove their flags down other people's throats and scream their call letters ("U.S.A.!, U.S.A.! U.S.A.!") at the top of their lungs for all the world to see. Instead, they prove their worth through matching intelligent words to intelligent deeds, and accept humbly other people's respect. That's real strength, because it stems from strength of character first, and all other types of strengths afterwards. That's the type of respect to which people tend to respond in positive manners.

My grandfather is a Republican, though, as you might have guessed, of a very independent mindset.

I say all of this because, watching Senator John McCain's speech tonight at the Republican National Convention, I found that I admired the candidate but loathed what I view as his alarmingly jingoistic, rather stupid convention audience. Oh, I'm not going to vote for Mr. McCain (I disagree with him on a few too many issues--and I admire Senator Obama's foresight and judgment--too much to do that), but I admire him nonetheless. Sorry, fellow Democrats, I can't help it.

The crowd listening to him at the Xcel Energy Center, on the other hand....

Having sat down at my computer, I meant to write about Senator McCain's speech--which was broadly effective, if filled with more than a few instances of misleading hyperbole regarding Senator Obama's positions on various critical issues, foreign and domestic--but in the wake of this evening's events I find my mind recirculating back to the innumerable amount of times the crowd broke into bellowed shouts of "U.S.A.! U.S.A.!," most of which were delivered at the top of their lungs.

I don't mean to be a party-pooper (after all, I fly the stars-and-stripes on the Fourth of July, too), and I'm sure some folks will refer to me as a "left-wing, cool-aid-drinking, pinko moonbat" for saying this, but this almost obsessive-compulsive loop-tape of "U.S.A., U.S.A.!" chants strikes me as ignorantly jingoistic, junior high-level nonsense masquerading as feel-good love of country. That it was viewed simultaneously all over the world intensifies my worry, because these chanting people, who were doubtless fully aware of the international coverage of the event, often decided to forego enthusiastic cheers that would show people all around the world the healthy patriotic enthusiasm their candidate of choice can inspire, and instead decided to shove their insularity down people's throats in a bragging fashion. No one likes a braggart, folks, except other braggarts.

I did not serve my country in a military capacity like people such as my father, grandfather, and Mr. McCain did, and I therefore do not claim to have fulfilled such a dangerous and honorable method of service. But I'd like to think that I did serve my country at least somewhat by being the only American to teach in the two particular British schools I worked in when I lived in England. In doing so, I found that hard work, an ability and willingness to listen and adapt so that others might listen and adapt to me, and a willingness to learn as others learned from me won both me and, more importantly, my country more than a few initially cynical but ultimately grateful fans--students, teachers, and parents alike. I surely made my fair share of rather dumb mistakes, but in general I found that displaying a resolved yet humble, open-minded, creative mindset encouraged others to think of folks from United States as something other than arrogant and insular.

Tonight, however, I saw healthy cheering morphing into consistent chants of "U.S.A.!, U.S.A.!," complete with robotic fist-pumps, from the crowd gathered at the Republican National Convention. In the wake of this I find myself thinking that a lot of what I and many, many others have done in many countries in order to display in proactive manners why the United States is a fine and intelligent place was largely swallowed up in one fell swoop by people for whom such considerations apparently don't matter because, well, we're apparently "the gosh-darned best" and some of us evidently feel as though we need to tell it to everyone in a...loud, bellicose, simplistically sloganeering manner.

This is not my grandfather's Republican party, and, watching Senator McCain's face tighten during a few of the more outlandish "U.S.A.!" moments, I got the sense that it's not his ideal conception of the Republican party, either. Say what you will about my shortcomings, or about Senator Obama's perceived "academic aloofness," or about "wimpy" Democrats and/or "mushy" Independents in general, but at least the Democrats didn't break into aggressive and divisive shouts of "U.S.A., U.S.A.!" while their nominee spoke at their convention, and I know very few independent voters who would do that, either.

That might be because they don't seem to require constant shouted reminders of who they are and what they stand for, and they don't feel as though the best ways to show to themselves and the world what makes America great are to be found in such obsessive chants. And, lest the "U.S.A.!" screamers might suggest otherwise, let's get one thing clear: every American I know--Democrat, Republican, or Independent--thinks America is great. The only difference is that some people are a little more discerning than others about how such greatness should be displayed.

Oh, I know what I'm saying is "unpatriotic nonsense" to many people. I've heard that accusation before, but that particular bucket has sprung more than a few leaks of late--it's holding less and less water these days.

Notes On Vice Presidential Qualifications, Followed By Notes On Governor Palin's Republican National Convention Speech

NOTES ON VICE PRESIDENTIAL QUALIFICATIONS

First of all, here is a slightly-revamped version of the comments I wrote today on my friend Anoka Flash's "Centrisity" site (http://centrisity.blogspot.com/):

I know I said that John McCain had to shake things up by adding Alaska Governor Sarah Palin to the ticket, but I was surprised to discover just yesterday that she has traveled outside of the U.S. and Canada exactly once in her life (on her relatively recent trip to Kuwait in order to visit U.S. troops from Alaska).

I have no problems whatsoever with anyone who hasn't traveled extensively outside of the U.S. and Canada, except when it comes to the national chief executive team. As someone who has traveled--and, as importantly, lived and worked and paid taxes--extensively abroad, it is completely unacceptable to me that in the 21st century we would be willing to put in the White House, in either the presidential or vice presidential office, someone who has shown little or no appetite for learning first-hand what much of the rest of the world is like.

It is essential that in this international era we have a leadership team that has spent extensive time abroad, in whatever capacity they've done it. (Both Senators Obama and Biden have spent extensive time abroad, albeit in different capacities.) Anyone who thinks this is not essential does not understand that only a savvy understanding of the nuances of various world cultures--which need to be learned first-hand and over time--will allow the United States to position itself effectively in order to retain its status as the world's democratic leader in our current, very small world.

I genuinely admire a number of things about Governor Palin--including her wit, tenacity, and very-Alaskan outdoors pursuits. But it's 2008, and the folks on the major party presidential tickets need to know how their country works in the context of the wider world.

It's therefore the case that someone ought to tell the Republicans presently engaged in remarkably consistent, screaming chants of "U.S.A.! U.S.A.!" this week in the Xcel Center that if they really cared about the future of American democracy, they should toss some of the repetitive, juvenile, and increasingly embarrassing jingoism aside for a little real-world realism. Only that will allow the U.S. to consistently retain much of its massive influence in the world, and to do so in pragmatic ways. What I see coming out of the Xcel this week amounts to little more than simplistic, self-aggrandizing sloganeering unfit for mature, proactive minds.

But that, I'm sure I'll be told, makes me "elitist." What a sad, sad situation....

--Hasslington

NOTES ON GOVERNOR PALIN'S REPUBLICAN NATIONAL CONVENTION SPEECH

Now, the above section notwithstanding, this evening Governor Palin delivered an admittedly appealing and generally confident convention speech that was nonetheless a bit overly condescending in tone for my taste, given that she was basically introducing herself to the American people. (Her police-escorted caravan passed by Mrs. Hasslington and I as we exited our Saint Paul dinner spot of choice this evening, about an hour and a half prior to her speech.) What follows is a slight re-working of the notes I jotted-down regarding each section of the speech as she delivered it:

1.) She began her speech by introducing what seemed like at least half of her extended family, at considerable length.

2.) She said a few feel-good (if generic) words about small town America.

3.) She made a few "hockey mom" (for areas where ice hockey is not played, read "soccer mom") quips, one of which was admittedly quite funny.

4.) She recirculated (already?!?) back to small town America, about which she offered a few more generalized comments.

5.) She totally misrepresented Senator Obama's "bitter" comment regarding the experiences of some small town people, but such a situation is to be expected in a national political convention setting.

6.) She made a few passing jabs at Senator Obama's former community organizer job; again, that's fair game in a political convention scenario.

7.) She tauted her lack of national political experience as a positive aspect, which is fine but contradictory after Rudy Giuliani earlier criticized Senator Obama for what he viewed as the Democratic nominee's lack of national political experience.

8.) She discussed her efforts at Alaskan ethics reform, though she rather oddly referred to ethics violations as "self-dealing." This section of the speech started well, with her discussion of how she sold what she saw as a superfluous state airplane on e-bay, but then it slid into piffle-making with a joke about how her kids missed the personal chef that she also jettisoned, which was so feather-light and insubstantial that I admit I zoned-out for the next few minutes.

9.) She reminded us that she opposed the "bridge to nowhere," while neglecting to mention that she initially supported it; this is also par for the course in a national convention setting. (I feel as though I need to take a trip to Alaska to see this nationally famous bridge, given its astonishingly consistent level of celebrity staying power.)

10.) Regarding oil, she correctly noted that the United States cannot be "at the mercy of foreign" oil distributors. (Though she did fine syntactically, her voice was less confident in this short section of the speech than elsewhere, perhaps because it has been revealed that she has been outside of the U.S. and Canada once in her life, which I find alarming in a vice presidential running mate, male or female, young or old.)

11.) She spoke generically and, it seems, simply out of obligation about environmentally-friendly, renewable sources of energy. (This section of the speech lasted all of thirty or forty seconds; make of that what you will.)

12.) She admittedly landed a couple of solid political punches on Senator Obama, but immediately followed this with a cheap joke about the columns used at the Democratic National Convention, which had the effect of taking a lot of the starch out of those punches.

13.) She basically, if indirectly, sanctioned torture, or at least muddied the waters insofar as the "legal rights" of detainees are concerned by sarcastically criticizing Senator Obama's apparent wish "to read [terrorists] their rights."

14.) She ripped into Senator Obama's tax strategies. Listening to her talk about this issue, you'd think the U.S. would be headed immediately and quickly toward a state of total economic communism should Senator Obama be our next president. This suggestion required the use of a hell of a lot of hyperbole, but, again, that's to be expected at a national political convention. (She also managed to shove the names of no less than ten swings states into the mix at this point, if in a rather slapdash and inelegant manner.)

15.) She suggested that Senator Obama believes in "change to promote [his] career," whereas Senator McCain believes in a "career that promotes change." This shot certainly scored, though it could have scored to a greater extent if it was followed by focused and pointed material; instead, the pages of the speech seemed to lose a bit of focus and waft away at this point.

16.) These sort of speeches usually if not always include an awkward transition or two, and some of them include an awkward turn of phrase or two. This one certainly contained an awfully awkward turn of phrase, in the form of a sort-of metaphor designed to suggest that Senator McCain is a maverick politician, which was delivered at this point and was as follows: "Our nominee doesn't run with the Washington herd." Let's just move on.

17.) She delivered a few more jokes about "community organizers," at which point I pondered that term in the context of politics, which led me to the conclusion that, to a certain extent, politicians--Democrats and Republicans, legislators and chief executives--are basically, well, community organizers....

18.) She spoke about Senator McCain's prisoner of war experience and how it relates to the office of the presidency. This is certainly legitimate material, though the crowd seemed a bit confused with some of the more oddly-phrased connections between the two. It's almost as though this section was pasted into the speech at the last minute.

19.) She delivered a few surprisingly perfunctory concluding words, which might be further evidence that the last two sections of the speech were tacked-on somewhat haphazardly at the eleventh hour.

What Happens When Authentic People Wish To Interview For Increasingly Bureaucratic Teaching Positions?

...OR, CAN YOU EVER REALLY GO HOME AGAIN?...

Though I've worked in some interesting, short-term contract teaching jobs since I returned to the U.S. last autumn, since this past spring I've turned my attention towards seeking long-term teaching employment. As an English teacher who is certified to teach at both the junior high and high school level in my home state of Minnesota, and as someone who has recently taught at various educational levels in the United Kingdom, I thought the job market would be seeking someone like me. Wow, was I ever wrong. After innumerable job interviews (at both public and private local high schools and junior high schools), I have been left without a single job offer, and will once again work short-term contract jobs and/or substitute teach until another round of prospective jobs opens up.

Truth be told, I'm probably being undersold by youngsters just now leaving their various universities, which I suppose is just a part of life these days. But I sense that, despite my best efforts at showing folks that I am a down-to-earth person, something else is at work, and that something is far more insidious and viral than simply being undersold by cheaper labor: the teaching profession is refusing to evolve from a provincial pursuit to a worldly one. I say this because my unsuccessful attempts to find full-time teaching employment seem to mirror those of other individuals I know whose lives have not been lived in one geographical area and whose experiences have been varied both culturally and intellectually.

Prospective employers--that is, the heads or head employment departments of local junior high schools and high schools--seem not only myopically dismissive of foreign teaching and living experiences, which is tragically counter-productive given this increasingly international world, but downright frightened of anyone whose life and career have been informed by more than stale, bureaucratic "rubrics" that have little or no basis in Socratic learning methods, and they seem even more frightened of self-actualized people who interview for teaching positions, because such people are not as impressionable and "moldable" as are newly qualified teachers. Self-actualized people, quite frankly, are what teachers used to be, and there is nothing that frightens entrenched educational bureaucrats as much as inventive, discerning, nuanced people who understand educational history. (Don't cheer, conservatives--George W. Bush's "No Child Left Behind" nonsense, though not initially responsible for this bureaucratic mess, has contributed to it greatly.)

It's extraordinary to me how little prospective employers care about one's foreign teaching and living experiences. (Some employers get bored with such discussion, while others are immediately suspicious of someone who has lived and worked abroad, as if the prospective employee has some weird form of "secret knowledge" he or she will use to take their jobs away and take over the school.) Rational people would think that in this increasingly international world, the best background a teacher could possibly have would be one in which he or she has lived and taught abroad (preferably for several years, so that an adoptive culture can be fully absorbed; if an adoptive culture is not fully absorbed, you're basically just a glorified tourist).

Several years of living and working abroad makes sense from the standpoint of being able to view things through different lenses in order to make proper comparisons and avoid being a one-trick-pony, culturally speaking. Such a mindset in a teacher would allow her or his students to have a jump-start on others who are taught to view things through one cultural lens or in one context only, particularly given the shifting nature of today's marketplace and the fact that workers are increasingly needing to be multi-faceted in order to evolve with the times. (And, no, local "diversity" lessons do not fully deliver to students other cultural lenses, because, though certain minority cultural strains are indeed present in American society, the majority culture is also always present and is often overriding in nature. Only foreign teaching immersion can properly equip a teacher to fully give students a taste of what the wider world is like.)

Yet American educational bureaucracy has created a scenario in which provincial teachers--those who start and stay in one district for the duration of their careers--are rewarded financially, while nomadic teachers--those who shift geographical locations and cultures in order to get a necessarily new perspective on things--are punished with lower pay and the suspicion of their provincial peers. Regardless of how hard nomadic teaching candidates work to show their prospective employers (and many of their prospective colleagues) how "normal" and "down-to-earth" they are, suspicions will likely remain as long as the system works to further provincialize people who, given the fact that they are educators, need to be the exact opposite.

This scenario has now become viral in that provincial attitudes are presently teaming up with new-wave bureaucratic attitudes, and the anti-innovative results are spreading rapidly. It seems to me that the first order of business is for national and state legislators (both Democrats and Republicans) to admit that they have very little idea how education works, and then admit that they will therefore stop trying to over-legislate what they often term "excellence." This so-called "excellence" inevitably ends up being little more than less-than-satisfactory bean counting in which exams are diluted in order to show what legislators and bureaucrats rather pathetically term "increased levels of learning," and the profession of teaching is reduced to delivering a few disjointed facts in flabby, corporate, rather self-aggrandizing (and almost always embarrassing) manners.

Removing excess legislative influence from the educational system, however, is not likely to happen anytime soon. So it's up to the rest of us to keep trying to acquire teaching jobs (otherwise, pre-packaged, rather vapid pseudo-"teachers" will step into jobs authentic teachers might otherwise acquire) and to remember what a teacher is supposed to be--intellectually curious, extemporaneous in delivery, and suspicious of just about anything that smacks of mediocre, creatively-deprived bureaucracy in the classroom. In other words, teachers are supposed to be what my favorite teachers always were: individuals for whom learning widely was a way of life, and for whom narrow and shallow directives from the powers that be were something to be mocked and dismissed. After all, you rarely need rubrics and directives when learning is already part of who you are.

Only when we reclaim and demand the more classical, adroit Socratic definition of a teacher and marry it to individuals who pursue modern, wide-ranging, geographically- and culturally-varied personal experiences will we be able to truly suggest that our students are being prepared properly for an ever-changing world.