Hasslington Will Return After The First Of The Year

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

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

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

My Christmas Wish

by: Hasslington

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Majel Roddenberry Is Once Again With Her Husband

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Fading Nature Of The English Language, Volume 1

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

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

PHRASE: "You are transparent."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regarding America's Troubled Automobile Industry...

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

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

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

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

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

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

--Hasslington

Hasslington Reflects And Recalibrates

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1.) ...wise."

2.) ...boring."

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

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

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

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

7.) ...a pensioner."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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