Hasslington On Hiatus

It's the summer, I'm back in school (as a student) after losing my teaching job, and I'm in the process of trying to figure out where I go from this point forward.  Obviously, attempting to find another job is high on my list of priorities.

I have also assured a friend of mine that I would read Robert Jordan's "Wheel Of Time" fantasy series during my free hours.  (There are something like a dozen books in that series, and they look quite substantive.)  I've read many novels, but other than the "Lord Of The Rings" books, I've never read a fantasy series before, so it should be a new and hopefully fun summer experience.

Mrs. Hasslington and I may or may not also squeeze in a trip to England in the coming weeks in order to visit her family.  We'll see.

So, I am going to take a few months off from this blog.  I am not abandoning it, however.  I plan to get back to it in September.  Hopefully, at least some of the uncertainty of the moment will be history by then.

Until then, if you wish to contact me, you are welcome to do so at:  hasslington@gmail.com

Back To School...Again, And Again, And Yet Again

A friend of mine once gave me a sweater featuring the line "The Truly Educated Never Graduate." Those who know me might think, "How right he was, and is." Since losing my job due to budget cuts, I have returned to school in order to at least start the process of acquiring another post-graduate degree.

Those who know me will laugh--or simply nod their heads and roll their eyes--when they read this, because I always seem to head back to school after being away from it for short periods of time. I tend to head back as a teacher, yes, but even more often, it seems, as a student.

I'm certified to teach English in Minnesota to grades 5 to 12 (ages 10 to 18, or thereabouts), and I've also taught English at the university level. My educational and work background allowed me to teach English and a few other subjects to high schoolers in England, as well. This time around, I'm hoping to eventually become certified to teach Literacy and Reading to both immigrant children and "struggling" readers whose native country is the U.S. I've done some of this type of work in the past, and found it rewarding.

We'll see how things go. Obviously, financial constraints and employment opportunities will play a big role with regards to how this process plays out. So, too, will the fact that Mrs. Hasslington and I may or may not stay in the U.S. over the long-term. But while I find that my collections of university and post-university degrees (along with my various certifications) continues to grow over time, and while I find that this fact often limits my job opportunities due to pay scale issues, I also enjoy the process of returning to a university setting somewhat regularly.

It's true that in some cases the "truly educated" (whatever that means) do not graduate from school, though it's equally true that many "truly educated" folks have long-since graduated. Hence, it's difficult to pigeonhole people in these regards. It was, however, my grandfather's firm belief that the more formal education you can get, the better, particularly if you "link" it with a mindset that considers informal education as equally important and complementary to formal education. So, here I go again.

Besides, yesterday I took part in a round-table talk that dealt with academic discussions and disagreements regarding what constitutes "multiculturalism" and "authentic multicultural literature," and the extent to which these discussions should "play out" across the disciplines and at all educational levels. Prior to that, I helped a kindergartener add six apples to four bananas. (We managed to get the final sum correct.)

I enjoyed both activities very much.

A Good Man's Life

My maternal grandfather, who grew up during the Great Depression, served his country in World War II, and went on to become a successful electrician, passed away this past Saturday morning. He was eighty-seven years old. His death was expected, as he had battled multiple infections and multiple instances of pneumonia over the last year or so, and had struggled mightily of late. He had recently been transferred to hospice care.

I'm relieved regarding this situation because it has put my grandmother's mind at ease. My grandfather's illness had taken an emotional toll on her, but in the last few days she has already begun to look and sound better, and she has stated that she feels far more at ease now that her husband is at peace. They were married for nearly sixty-seven years.

My grandfather was a fiercely independent thinker. Politically, he voted for Republicans the majority of the time, but he never bought wholesale into exclusively "conservative" or "liberal" political dogma. (He considered those who did buy fully into any given political dogma to be mediocre thinkers at best.) Though he was a strong believer in God, he was nonetheless very skeptical of religious doctrines and the various reasons why people embrace them. Though he was a tireless worker, he nonetheless believed that there was always time to read--and read widely he most certainly did. Though he was a war veteran who was proud of his country, he nonetheless shied away from describing himself as a "patriot," which he considered a juvenile mindset akin to unreasonable jingoism. Though he was consistent and steady in his decisions, he often said that "...when someone says 'it's either this way or that way,' the true answer is often a little of both." Though he was happy and proud of his accomplishments, he rarely spoke of them, and he admitted that he had personal flaws, as do we all.

Though he was my grandparent, I always considered him first and foremost my friend.

My grandfather had what I (and others) might refer to as a "determined mindset." I guess you had to know him to understand fully what I mean. After I learned of his death, I found myself thinking not only of him but of some lines from Winston Churchill (another very "determined" individual, and someone with personal flaws) I memorized somewhere along the way. I don't know why I thought of those lines, except that they are famous, mellifluous, and from an era with which my grandfather was quite familiar indeed. They are the concluding lines are from the "Wars Are Not Won By Evacuations" speech of June 1940, delivered in the House of Commons. Given that they are being written down from memory, I may have accidentally altered a word or two, but as I remember them, they are as follows:

"...we shall never surrender--and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British fleet, would carry on the struggle until, in God's good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the Old."

My grandfather served in the Pacific theater, not in Europe. But, in his own way, he helped to bring into reality Mr. Churchill's wish. He was one of millions of people, from North America and Europe and elsewhere, to do that. Yet the amazing thing is that he and many of his contemporaries never fixated unduly on that astonishing accomplishment, or the horrors they saw as they brought it to life.

Each day, we lose more and more people who grew up during the Great Depression and lived through World War II. This is sad, but it is the natural way of things. It would be far more sad if we forgot the personal stories that they pass on in their own unique ways, sometimes quietly and perhaps only occasionally. I will not forget the personal stories my grandfather told me.

Today, I Have...

1.) ...visited an ill grandparent in the hospital...
2.) ...witnessed two drivers lay relentlessly on their horns in a seemingly endless struggle to determine which of them was more self-righteously moronic...
3.) ...read and responded to what I found to be a thoughtful on-line posting regarding the nature of God (or, if you prefer, "god")...
4.) ...watched fans at Wrigley Field taunt their own player, Milton Bradley, for forgetting the number of outs in a particular inning and looking a bit foolish because of it... ("Way to go, Minnesota Twins!," by the way)...
5.) ...sat quietly for a few minutes, listening to the silence...
6.) ...worried about various things...
7.) ...decided to just let a few other things go...
8.) ...contemplated the idea of reading a novel this evening...
9.) ...contemplated the idea of heading out to the pub this evening...
10.) ...heard what I consider to be the worst popular song in at least the last several years, "Birthday Sex," blaring from a nearby stereo...
11.) ...wondered where I'm headed in the next few years, in a metaphorical sense...
12.) ...wondered where we're all headed in the next few years, in a metaphorical sense...
13.) ...walked by a display reading "Flowers," which sat empty of both flowers and people, and wondered whether that was a good cultural indicator or a bad one, or both...
14.) ...watched the Western World's reliance on oil play out, as always, in a rote and consistent manner...
15.) ...thought to myself, 'What a logical, nonsensical, normal, weird, wonderful, awful, funny, sad, content, desperate, meaningful, superficial world this is.' I'm glad to be a part of it, even on those occasions when I struggle mightily making my way in it. That, at least, I know for sure.

Barack, Paul, Anji, And A Rag-Tag Slew Of Professional Baseball Players

THE PRESIDENT GETS A WORD OR TWO, EVEN DURING THE "SILLY SEASON"

I could go on and on (and on some more) about politics. Or not. It's the summer, so I choose the latter option.

That being said, I think The Economist--which is a fairly conservative magazine, by the way--had a very good recent take on U.S. President Barack Obama's foreign policy performance so far, in the context of former Vice President Dick Cheney's critical remarks.

(Like The Economist writer(s), I think Mr. Obama has done a generally good job so far, though he has not been perfect, of course.)

For what it's worth, here are a few excerpts from the article "Tough Enough?" from the May 30 issue of The Economist:

"...in fact Mr. Obama passes the Cheney test fairly well, providing a well-calibrated combination of toughness and strategic innovation. He may have abandoned Bush-era phrases such as 'the war on terror'... [but] ...he has increased the number of troops in Afghanistan by around 20,000. He has also stepped up drone attacks on what the American army calls the 'AfPak' region. Far from abandoning the war on terror, Mr. Obama is shifting its central front from Iraq to Afghanistan, and doing what he can to sell it better. That hardly counts and naive doveishness.

"Mr. Cheney concentrated his heaviest rhetorical fire on Mr. Obama's opposition to 'enhanced interrogation.' But such opposition is hardly a sign of wimpishness. Large numbers of military and former military officers, including David Petraeus, the head of Central Command, and John McCain, a man who was brutally tortured by the North Vietnamese, have come out strongly against practices such as waterboarding, for both practical and moral reasons. The information that such techniques produce is often tainted, and the damage that they do to America's image around the world is immense....

"[Still], Mr. Obama needs to fill the gaps in his administration as quickly as possible. He also needs to lower expectations about what can be achieved by replacing one American president with another...."

For the text of the entire article, please go to the following web address:

http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13743258

OH, "ANJI," WE HARDLY KNEW YI!

My favorite musical artist is Paul Simon, who will turn 68 this coming October, the same month I turn 34. (I'm not ashamed to admit that my favorite musician is approximately twice my age.) Simon and Garfunkel were great, as was Paul's solo "Graceland" album, but he's done a whole lot more than those two things over his 50+ year career (!). For instance, the web address directly below this paragraph will send you to a clip of Paul and his look-alike brother Eddie doing their take on a classic instrumental piece. "Graceland" it ain't.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBONNx8cvZ4

FANTASY BASEBALL IS NOT ALWAYS FANTASTIC

My fantasy baseball team is awful. Well, that's not entirely accurate. It would be far more accurate to say that my fantasy baseball team was awful. Now--by which I mean the past two weeks--they actually seem to be holding their own.

Playing in any sports fantasy league is fun when you are one of the original members of the league in which you play, because you can "work the rules" in order to allow yourself particular "keepers," who are players that you can keep on your team from one season to the next.

The scenario is quite different when you join the league a few years into its operations, as I did this past spring. I joined because I follow the Minnesota Twins, my favorite Major League Baseball team, in an almost religious manner every year. This also means that I follow quite closely the American League Central division, of which they are an integral part, as well as the entire American League. However, over the past few years I've lost interest in the other roughly-half of the MLB world, the National League (of which the Twins are not a part). I've found myself only really catching-up with them during the last few weeks of the regular season and the post-season.

Hence, I thought that joining a fantasy league would help me to keep interest in the whole of Major League Baseball. It has, and for that I think I made the right decision in joining.

Yet there is a problem with this situation, at least for me: I joined a fantasy league a few years after its inaugural year, which means that most of the other members had "keepers" from last year, such as Albert Pujols, Johan Santana, Mark Teixeira, etc., etc. The best of the best were already taken; I was playing from behind from the start.

This meant that on draft day I was going to have to be very savvy, in order to make up a little ground prior to opening day. Yet things started to go south immediately with my pitching strategy, because my first choice, Roy Halladay of the Toronto Blue Jays, was taken just before I had the chance to select him. Never mind, I thought, I'll select Zack Greinke of the Kansas City Royals, who I was sure would have a great year. People might snigger that I took him so early in the draft, but I'd have the last laugh. But then someone took him, too, just before I could select him for my team.

It's still pretty early in the season, but as of right now, Halladay and Greinke are the best starting pitchers in the American League. One of them will probably wind up winning the Cy Young Award. (My choice as of today would be Halladay by a hair, but as I say, it's too early to speculate in earnest.)

So, with some other great pitchers having already been selected, I settled for Cole Hamels of the Philadelphia Phillies as my first starting pitcher. He won the World Series Most Valuable Player Award last year, and he deserved it. However, my contentment with this choice fell to pieces when he was almost immediately injured and started the season in awful fashion. Then, when he overcame this injury several weeks later and started to pitch well, he sprained his ankle, which set him back another few weeks. Thankfully, he's finally healthy and pitching superbly at present, so I'm happy that I didn't trade him. Still, his godawful early performances hurt my overall fantasy team as much as his solid current performances are helping it.

He wasn't my only pick that went awry in these first two months of this season. I selected an ostensibly "healthy" Lance Berkman as my first baseman (Pujols, Teixeira, and Morneau were already taken). His production tailed off in the final few months of last season, but overall last year was a huge success for him. That has yet to translate to this year, however, as he has started off cold-as-ice at the plate. (His batting average is under .250 right now, and it was under .200 for quite some time; his home run total is 10, which is good for a lot of players but only so-so for Berkman). This may be due to the suggestion that he is, according to a few little birdies who have picked-up some possibly-true information of late, evidently "working-through a few wrist problems early this season." If true, I'd have appreciated knowing that prior to selecting him....

And so it goes. Please let it suffice to say that my team has been awful this season, with a few exceptions. So I dumped a few of my original players and acquired a few other players who have generally helped my team. But--let the sunshine in!--a few of my original players who I've kept have started to really come around of late, too, to the point where I basically tied my opposition of two weeks ago and beat my opposing team of last week. I could still use some starting pitching help, but my relievers are solid and my hitters have woken up of late.

I'm "in the game" again.

The following is my rather rag-tag fantasy team, and how they've done for me so far....

Catcher--JASON VERITEK (Boston). I initially selected Ryan Doumit, but he almost immediately got hurt badly. So I scrambled to get Veritek, who only plays about four or five days a week, but is fairly solid. GRADE: C+

First Base--LANCE BERKMAN (Houston). You've already heard about him. I'm hoping he turns it around. He's certainly capable of doing that. GRADE: D+

Second Base--FREDDY SANCHEZ (Pittsburgh). I tried to take a chance on Mike Aviles, and that proved a bad move. So I switched to Asdrubal Cabrera, who was having a great start to the season, but then hurt his shoulder and is currently not playing. It was pure luck that the talented Sanchez was available, but this is the first week I've played him, so I have to give him a GRADE of INCOMPLETE.

Short Stop--DEREK JETER (New York Yankees). He's always a good choice, and his numbers this year are strong once again. GRADE: B+

Third Base--AUBREY HUFF (Baltimore). He got off to a spectacular start, but he's cooled off considerably of late. Still, he's been openly angry at himself for his recent performances. If he can channel that energy, he should be fine. GRADE: B

Outfielders--ADAM DUNN (Washington, D.C.); CARLOS LEE (Houston); BOBBY ABREU (Los Angeles Angels). Dunn's batting average hardly inspires confidence, but it never really did, so that's par for the course. Anyway, his other numbers are great so far, and that's what matters. Lee is a bit of a mixed-bag, as his average is very strong but he could drive in a few more runs. Still, I'm content with him so far. Abreu seems to have lost (almost completely) the ability to hit for power, but he's made up for it, at least to a certain extent, with his solid on-base-percentage and stolen base numbers, so he's doing fine. DUNN: A-; LEE: B; ABREU: B-.

Bench Players--JASON KUBEL (Minnesota); MIKE NAPOLI (Los Angeles Angels); PABLO SANDOVAL (San Francisco). Kubel is off to a very good start to the season, but he's bothered by knee troubles at present, which is not a good sign. Napoli is in a slump at the plate; I hope he shakes it off. Sandoval is a talented youngster in his second season at the Major League level. KUBEL: B+; NAPOLI: C+; SANDOVAL: B+.

Starting Pitchers--ZACH DUKE (Pittsburgh); COLE HAMELS (Philadelphia); UBALDO JIMENEZ (Colorado); JASON MARQUIS (Colorado); TIM WAKEFIELD (Boston). Jimenez and Marquis are recent acquisitions, though they've pitched fairly well for me in the short while they've been on my fantasy team. We'll see how it goes with them. Duke has been a pleasant surprise so far. Hamels was awful due to injuries, but is now pitching very well. (He's basically gone from F-level to A-level over the past month.) Wakefield plays on a team that wins a lot, which is why he's in my starting rotation. DUKE: A-. HAMELS: C+. WAKEFIELD: C. JIMENEZ and MARQUIS: INCOMPLETE.

Relief Pitchers--RYAN FRANKLIN (Saint Louis); JOE NATHAN (Minnesota). They're both putting up consistent, solid numbers. (Franklin's performance is a bit of a surprise, Nathan's is not). My only complaint is that Nathan hasn't had enough save opportunities, but that will probably turn around in the coming months. FRANKLIN: B+. NATHAN: B.

Bench Pitchers--BRETT MYERS (Philadelphia); ANDY PETTITTE (New York Yankees); RAFAEL SORIANO (Atlanta). I blame myself for selecting Brett Myers, which I felt was a bad idea at the time and still do. I don't know why I selected him, to be honest. Pettitte is solid as always but battling back problems, so his numbers aren't as good as they could be. Soriano is a pleasant surprise, at least so far. MYERS: D-; PETTITTE: C+; SORIANO: B+.

The Beneficial Sound Of A Bit More Silence

I first wrote the following paragraphs as a response to a recent post on Penigma's blog-site (http://penigma.blogspot.com/). You can check-out his site in order to see the original context in which they were written. I only occasionally double-up when it comes to posting my comments, but I thought that these particular comments also do pretty well outside of their original context. So I've decided to reproduce them--with a few changes--and here they are:

I was selected to give the best man's speech at a friend's wedding several years ago. I told the audience that the groom wasn't so much a leader as a superb follower, and this was because he wasn't so much a talker as a quiet, analytical listener.

This is to suggest that, due to the fact that he actually listens closely more often than he talks, he always seems to associate with sensible people. This also means that he avoids the trade-marked trendy crowd, and the culturally-motivated crowd, and the self-righteous people who are likely to look silly a few years from now, but who are at present so myopically attached to their short-sighted viewpoints that they fail to foresee this.

In this way, he's actually not just a great follower, but a follower after whom others can model themselves, if they wish to take a not-exactly-popular but certainly smart "long-view" look on life. So he isn't just a discerning follower, which would be more than good enough. He's also a quiet leader, at least to those who are patient enough to also be discerning.

I think most all of us could benefit by talking less and listening more in this needlessly loud, often uninformed world.

Thankful

Given that layoffs in the district in which I teach take effect in June, my last day at my current job will most likely be either this coming Thursday or this coming Friday, though it is not out of the realm of possibilities that I might have to stop in to my classroom in order to pick up a few of my materials sometime the following week. We'll see.

Once it's all said and done, I will have some time on my hands, some of which I will obviously use in the search for another job. That being said, I also intend to work on my blog-site a bit more often than I have of late. This most likely means, among other things, that a slight shift in paradigm is in the works. This is to suggest that I am considering writing about a wider variety of topics than I have in the past.

Again, we'll see. That's how things are for me these days--work and hope, wait and see. It's true that in a more ideal world things could be better than that, but it's also true that they could be far worse than that. So things aren't really so bad, after all.

For that--and, as always, for the fact that Mrs. Hasslington is in my life--I am truly thankful.

A Note On (The Lack Of) Recent Posts....

Hello, folks. You may have noticed that I have not posted anything for the past few weeks. This is because I am in the process of attempting to secure employment for next autumn. (My present job will be ending soon.)

I will most likely return to writing and posting my thoughts on this site sometime in the not-too-distant future. Thanks for your time and consideration, and I hope all is well with you during these difficult economic times.

Don't Worry About Your Inevitable Worrying. That Way, When You Worry, You Won't Worry So Much About It.

The status of the international economy, it seems, has affected my status as a member of the workforce, at least for the time being.

I say this because I am either at or quite near the top pay grade for a teacher in the state of Minnesota--I'm at an "MA + 60," which means a Master's Degree plus at least another sixty post-graduate academic credit hours. That being said, I was informed this past week that I will be out of work as of the end of this school year. At present, I teach Academic Reading to struggling high school-aged readers, which I can do with my existing English teaching certification if I am also in the process of acquiring a Reading teaching certification. (I am indeed in the process of acquiring that second certification.)

Yet it became clear to certain folks in the district in which I work that renewing my contract each semester during the year-long certification process would have been rather expensive in comparison to hiring a younger worker just out of his or her university experience and renewing his or her contract (while he or she finishes the Reading certification) over the same period of time.

Hence, the younger worker was hired, and I am being let go. This is clearly a blow from a personal monetary standpoint--which is a huge concern, obviously--but it also stings because I enjoy my job. (I'll bet that if I disliked my job, I'd have been offered it indefinitely--isn't that just the way of things?...)

I've got a job interview lined-up for later this week--this one for an English teaching position in the same district--so we'll see how that goes. Yet I can't help but think that my academic background is going to be a barrier to acquiring a long-term teaching position in Minnesota, given the status of the economy and the fact that in Minnesota a given district must by law pay teachers what their academic credentials demand--as well as what their teaching background demands. (Private schools can get around some of this, but they tend to pay considerably lower wages than publicly-financed schools--and their health care packages can be rickety in comparison, as well.) One can see, then, why in the state of Minnesota a law that is supposed to protect highly-qualified teachers' pay standards often encourages districts to pass-over those folks in favor of newly qualified teachers when the economy sags.

(At present, I'm in the odd position of waxing nostalgic regarding the fact that publicly-financed schools in England often ignored teachers' advanced degrees, which meant that they didn't necessarily pay teachers quite what they were "worth," but they didn't tend to shy away from hiring highly-qualified candidates, either. I had no problems getting jobs when I lived there, though the cost of living in England is on average far higher than it is in most of the U.S....)

At any rate, this scenario is not my fault and it is not the fault of the newly qualified teacher who will be taking over my position. It is also not the fault of the people who work in this district's Human Resources department, though I tend to dislike the unjustifiably inflated egos often displayed by human resource workers. (By the way, I say let's either call it "Personnel" again, or simply mothball the H.R. fleet. Who's with me?...)

At any rate, like a lot of people in this financially-unstable era, I've been worrying about things more often than I might normally do. This has prompted me to "create" a still-rough-around-the-edges philosophy of worrying in the last week or so--I put "create" in quotation marks because I know it's probably been said in various forms many times before, and therefore I'm not really the originator, as it were. Anyway, it goes like this (and, yes, I know that I lazily substituted "they" for "him or her," so try not to get worked-up about that):

1.) Don't tell someone who is worrying about something that they shouldn't worry about that thing, because then they'll worry about why you're dissuading them from worrying. It'll simply make things worse, at least in the short run.

2.) Similarly, don't tell them to "try" not to worry, because that's like telling someone to try not to think of the color red--it has the opposite effect from what one intends. So saying this is probably worse than saying #1, above.

3.) So I guess all you can do is acknowledge verbally that worrying is sometimes an inevitable part of life, and then follow this up by saying, "I've found a certain amount of personal success in not worrying so much about my inevitable worrying." That way, when they inevitably worry, it might not bother them quite as much as before.

Hey, that's probably a rather small victory, but in this worry-filled age, it might be an essential victory nonetheless.

At any rate, it seems to be working--a little bit--for me.

In An International Context, American Specificity Can Lead To Pragmatic Results, Whereas Generalizations Often Fail To Deliver The Goods

Here are two recent comments I posted on my friend Flash's "Centrisity" blog-site (http://centrisity.blogspot.com/). They have to do with the "War On Terror" moniker, which I despise, even though I agree with eliminating al Qaeda as best we can. I reproduce them here (with a few corrections for clarity, as I initially wrote and posted them quite quicky) in order to document where I stand with regards to this on-going issue.

First, here are two notes regarding what I wrote:

1.) In COMMENT #1, I put "BIG SPENDERS" in all-caps because that's one of the accusations being leveled by some people at President Obama, even though the Iraq War, for instance, has required enormous payments of both American blood and American taxpayer money.

2.) The point of view is mine, which is to say that of one American citizen, so when I say "we" I am often referring to the United States.

And now, here are the comments....

COMMENT #1

I'd be more willing to consider a given argument about how to combat the dangers of the modern world if we all finally dropped the "War On Terror" title and got more specific regarding who and/or what we are fighting.

Terror is a tactic, not an enemy.

For example, when one attempts to "shock and awe" (as we did in Iraq) one is attempting to terrify, among other things. When one flies a plane into a building (as the al Qaeda terrorists did in New York), one is attempting to terrify, among other things.

Hence, terror is a strategic tactic that can be used for several purposes, good or bad. I obviously support our use of it when it makes sense, and I obviously disapprove of al Qaeda's use of it always.

But keeping this naive title "War On Terror" (which is so unspecific that it hasn't worked with public opinion outside of the U.S.) is what creates the sort of mass mental fuzziness that allowed the Bush Administration to conduct a war in Afghanistan as well as a war in Iraq.

The Afghan fight is the right one, and ought to be supported, whereas we mumbled ourselves into the Iraq fight by attaching it to this generalized "War On Terror."

If we are meant to fight actual, identifiable groups of radical Islamic terrorists (and those inspired by such groups), then let's always be specific about it and drop the junior-high "War On Terror" sloganeering. Thankfully, the Obama Administration seems to be moving in a direction that requires more specificity in these regards.

If we'd have done that before, maybe we'd have focused better on necessary targets and avoided being such BIG SPENDERS by attaching expensive wars of choice (Iraq) to necessary existing wars (Afghanistan).

--Hasslington

COMMENT #2

"War On Terror" is so diffuse that it allows for multi-trillion-dollar wars of choice (Iraq) to be grouped in a general way with actual, necessary wars (Afghanistan).

Why is it that a lot of folks on the political right will complain (often legitimately) about the lack of specificity in domestic spending proposals, but are nonetheless happy to endlessly fund unspecific notions in the foreign policy arena, even though several such unspecific notions (leveraged with bogus discussions of patriotism) have proven to be incredibly costly, in more ways than one?

(The Iraq War and its aftermath, as it turns out, is more expensive than the domestic stimulus package. Meanwhile, Afghanistan has slid to the back-burner ever since the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and as a result is at present a mess.)

I also disagree with this antique notion that suggests those who take issue with the knee-jerk conservative stance regarding this debate are somehow "worried about what others think more than what is good for America." I find that argument to be binary and overly-simplistic.

Let's wake up and smell the coffee, folks. Of late, more specificity (something like "...we are currently going after al Qaeda cells and groups inspired by them in the following countries/regions, and might expand that later, hopefully in careful consultation with other nations, if logic dictates it...") and less generality (encapsulated by such titles as "War On Terror," which sounds like a ride at Disneyland, along the lines of "Pirates of the Caribbean") has resulted in increased European pledges of military support for the Afghanistan scenario since President Obama took office. That seems like good, old-fashioned American pragmatism to me.

The reality is this: we're not always right, and neither are our allies. For instance, many of them should have gotten on-board the Afghan fight earlier, to be sure. But a lot of them were put-off by our subsequent sojourn into Iraq and by President Bush's incessant use of the term "War On Terror." (Hearing that, many wondered just what other country was the next to be invaded, and therefore wondered just what they might be getting involved with.) They were often petulant and condescending, which was annoying, but we were often naive and callow, which wasn't helpful, either.

Recent history suggests that others are sometimes willing to help in such endeavors when they are given specifics and are lent an ear, so to speak. Yet they tend to be unwilling to get caught up in expensive fights where reality is replaced with fuzzy sloganeering, even if the fight might be the right one.

So, the question we are left with seems to be this one: are we to continue projecting a self-aggrandizing and reductively righteous motif, which might leave us fighting alone? Or are we to show a bit of flexibility with our allies, and probably have more teammates with which to work, even if we are annoyed by them sometimes and only get 90% of what we want, instead of 100%?

Before we answer that, let's consider this: in the coming years, this will become an increasingly multi-polar world. This means that we are going to have to be increasingly savvy in an international context. That's not a liberal thing to say, or a conservative thing to say. That just IS.

--Hasslington

Cultural Trends That May Or May Not Be Suggestive Of Something More Significant

Mrs. Hasslington and I agree on these Anglo-American cultural trends:

In England, if you are new in town, hardly anyone will say hello to you as you walk down the street, but a lot of people are happy to talk to you in the local pubs.

In Minnesota, if you are new in town, a lot of people will say hello to you as you walk down the street, but hardly anyone will talk to you in the local pubs.

The Democrats Are On A Roll, But Will They Overstep Themselves?

At a national level, the Democrats are on a roll right now--electorally and legislatively--and the Republicans are struggling to find their footing. The power vacuum in the Republican party is pretty bad, to the point where Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich are helping to fill in insofar as voices of the "party leadership" are concerned. John McCain's run as Republican party leader fizzled, Sarah Palin is considered untenable to a solid majority of the American people in just about any national poll conducted of late, Mitt Romney is a fake conservative with fake hair; the situation looks dire for the Republican party....

This kind of reminds me of when the economy recovered its footing in late-1983/early-1984.

Back then, the left-wing of the Democratic party seemed almost completely out of gas, because momentum had been clearly wrenched away from them, largely by President Reagan. (The center-right at that time was happy with Reagan, and the center-left wasn't exactly stirred to anger about him.) The difference is that back then the Democrats still had the likes of Tip O'Neill and company to steady things a bit....

Bringing the discussion back to the present, a similar phenomenon seems to be happening now, though this time the right-wing of the Republican party seems to be running on fumes, and their disapproving reactions to the president's job performance, whether occasionally legitimate or not, often sound somewhat desperate and petulant as a result.

I should point out that the above scenario is not the case with every right-winger, but rather a general trend. It seems to me that the lack of a charismatic, steady, electorally-intriguing conservative leader--or a few of them--is likely part of this problem. The Republican party faithful are wandering in the desert, looking for a few people to voice their concerns, and they're getting frustrated as the weeks slip by without that person or those persons being found.

For their part, most of those in what might be called the political "center" of the country (an always important group of people whose numbers seem to be expanding) aren't at present nit-picking with regards to the president. Instead, they're taking the whole domestic/foreign political picture into account, and have thus far largely decided the following: 1.) they kind of like the president, and 2.) at any rate, they think he's an improvement on the last guy. To be sure, they're not thrilled with everything the president has done, but they seem to be quite content with a lot of it.

Yet we are, of course, talking about politics here, so things are certainly not guaranteed to stay this way. But given the rough first two or three months both President Bill Clinton and President George W. Bush had with a substantial percentage of the American public (particularly President Clinton, whose unpopularity lasted through the 1994 mid-term elections), I'm left rather impressed by the steady start President Obama has had. I am therefore presently glad that I voted for him.

We'll have to wait and see if the president's seemingly centrist-friendly start has staying power. And we'll also have to wait and see if the Democrats overstep themselves legislatively at the congressional level, which they are quite capable of doing with leaders such as Nancy Pelosi, who seems to have set her mind on pushing a whole lot of legislation through congress over the next year or two. That latter possibility--congressional overstep--is at this point the bigger possible danger to the idea of the inclusive, "big tent" national Democratic party.

Meanwhile, U.S. Senator John Thune (of South Dakota), who is in his late-forties, is waiting in a very quiet and patient manner in the middle of the presently chaotic Republican leadership queue, so to speak. I get the sense that a few years from now he will emerge much closer to the front. Everyone--Democrat and Republican--would be well-served to keep an eye on him. He could make a run at the #2 spot on a not-too-future presidential ticket. Or the #1 spot....

Have You Read It In Its Entirety? Really?

I'm a teacher.  (I've taught at the junior high, high school, and university levels in the U.S. and the U.K.)

Regarding the suggestion that certain books should be banned from libraries, school curriculums, etc., it has been my experience that this type of debate usually comes down to two general groups of people.

The first group is composed of folks who wish to ban the book in question, whatever that book happens to be.  If you push them on the subject, one discovers that most of these folks have not read the book they wish to ban--or they have read only certain excepts which, shorn of context, can be used to argue for just about any agenda, political or otherwise.

The second group is generally composed of folks who have read the entire book in question and, regardless of whether they "like" it or not, do not want the book to be banned.

So far in my career, I've always been in the second group; it would have to be a very, very odd situation indeed for me to stand with the first group.  Yet what I cannot imagine ever doing is making a decision one way or the other regarding a particular book without first having read it carefully and in its entirety, away from those who would like to whisper their agendas in my ear.

2009 Baseball Interlude, #1: Delmon Young Or Jason Kubel (Or Both) Could Tip Things One Way Or The Other For The Minnesota Twins This Year

If forced to choose, I would say that pitching and fielding is often slightly more important than hitting and run-scoring in baseball, which I consider the greatest of all sports.

That being said, I am going to make an exception this year when it comes to what may or may not make the ultimate difference for my hometown Minnesota Twins. So, here goes: if either outfielder Delmon Young or designated hitter/outfielder Jason Kubel has a breakout season, the Minnesota Twins will most likely make it to the playoffs this coming October. If neither of them distinguishes himself from his past accomplishments, the Twins probably won't make the playoffs.

For Delmon Young, this might mean a .300 average, 15 or more home runs, and 80+ RBI. Alternatively, it might mean a .280+ average, 18+ home runs, and about 90 RBI or therabouts.

For Jason Kubel, this might mean a .290 average, 20+ home runs, and 90+ RBI. Alternatively, it might mean a .275+ average, 25 or so home runs, and 90+ RBI.

These two players have great potential, but up to this point they have yet to fulfill expectations. Still, they're both relatively young (especially Delmon Young, who is still under the age of 25), and they both are presently healthy. I'd love to see both of them step it up a notch or two this baseball season, but this is not a perfect world. Hence, I'd be happy if one of these two players has a very good season at the plate.

With a hopefully healthy Joe Mauer (.328 last season) joining Justin Morneau (129 RBI last season) and company in the Twins line-up a few weeks from now, the team will most likely be in the playoff mix throughout the 2009 baseball season. (Obviously, the pitching staff also needs to do well in order for the team to compete.) So if Delmon Young or Jason Kubel can add to this mix by providing consistent pop at the plate, the Twins' chances look good. If not....

Delmon Young: http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/profile?playerId=6138

Jason Kubel: http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/profile?playerId=6102

The Hasslington Blog-Site Turns One Year Old; also, A Comment On Comments

ONE YEAR OF BLOGGING HAS ENDED AND ANOTHER ONE HAS BEGUN....

Yesterday, this blog-site had its first birthday, though I was too caught up in the Minnesota Twins baseball game to write a post about this milestone. (The Twins won, by the way.)

This whole experiment is still a work in progress, which I consider a good thing in that it has allowed me to post my thoughts regarding a range of topics--political, cultural, and otherwise--as opposed to staying focused on one particular area of personal interest. It has also allowed me to experiment with post lengths and posting frequency, a process of evolution that I am by no means finished exploring.

So what might Hasslington's second year have in store as far as the look, feel, and content of this blog-site are concerned? At this point, I'm not sure. So stay tuned.

COMMENTS ARE WELCOME BUT WILL NOW BE SCREENED; THANKS FOR YOUR PATIENCE.

From this point forward, all comments written on the Hasslington blog-site will be read and approved (by me) before being posted, due to the fact that I have banned one individual from posting comments here.

This is the first instance in which I have banned someone from commenting on this site, and I hope that it is the only instance in which such a "banning" occurs from this point on. (This particular individual has been banned from at least one other site in the last couple of months, though that didn't make the decision any easier, since I'm generally wary of taking such an action.)

If readers wish to challenge, refute, and/or question anything I have to say--or if they wish to agree with, affirm, and/or extrapolate upon what I say--the comments section will remain open and welcome to your thoughts. It's simply the case that I will read what you have to say prior to it being posted, which will require a little more patience on your part.

I don't anticipate having to ban future comments from anyone who wishes to engage in a substantive exchange of ideas that are displayed in a challenging but mature manner, because that seems to me to be the basis of a healthy debate. What I won't accept are comments characterized by an overly smarmy, juvenile tone and designed mainly to start the internet equivalent of a playground fight.

(For context, 175-or-so comments were posted on this site during 2008, though some of them were my responses to comments left by Hasslington readers. None of those comments were erased by me, and only a few of them were erased by the authors of those comments themselves.)

This Is What Happens When Bloggers Are Interested In Nothing Outside Of The Blog-O-Sphere....

FACT:

Ronald Reagan's approval ratings were relatively poor for the majority of his early time in office, up to and including the 1982 mid-term election cycle. (The obvious exception to this is the brief period of time after he was shot and was recovering in the hospital.) Yet he went on to become a two-term president who today is admired by a majority of American citizens.

FACT:

Bill Clinton's first two years in the White House were wildly uneven, and his approval ratings were in the toilet up to, including, and just after the 1994 mid-term elections, which saw a Republican wave sweep into the U.S. congress. Yet he left office with high approval ratings, and is seen as a successful president by a majority of Americans today.

FACT:

Other than the period of time just after September 11, 2001--and around and just after the invasion of Iraq in 2003--George W. Bush's approval ratings were either fairly poor, poor, or so poor they threatened to re-write the definition of "poor U.S. presidential approval ratings." He left office to a worldwide sigh of relief.

OBSERVATION:

Despite the aforementioned historical context, internet blog-sites seem to be abuzz with one complaint after the next about President Obama's job performance. Take a stroll through the right-wing blogs and you would think that the president has caused all of America's problems single-handedly and with "liberal malice" in his heart. Take a stroll through the left-wing blogs and you would think that the president has joined the Bush dynasty and declared an all-out war on nearly every "important goal" of the Democratic party.

OPINION:

Settle down everyone (especially, but certainly not only, Glenn Beck-like, emotional tantrum-throwers on both sides of the political spectrum, all of whom might benefit from a bit of international travel and study, as well as a lot of historical perspective, in order to acquire what adult thinkers call "context"). This president inherited an enormous political mess, in both the domestic and international arenas--the latter arena being the one which I would argue is even more important than the former, since this is an increasingly international world more than a domestic and/or provincial one.

In two-and-a-half months in office, President Obama has begun to calmly and systematically steady our international relations (often using capable surrogates such as Vice President Biden, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and Special Envoy George Mitchell, amongst others). His administration has, for instance, begun in earnest the hard work necessary to renew old alliances (such as those with our European allies, as well as Australia, Canada, etc., etc.) in ways that tend to be both more flexible and more sustainably strategic than the often outdated geo-strategic models employed by the Bush administration.

The president has also worked to begin to repair relations with countries that could cause us and our allies headaches (such as Russia) and could tip the balance-of-power equation (Russia; India) in an increasingly multi-polar world. Far from working counter to U.S. interests, this mindset could eventually better position the U.S. to lead in both "new" and "old" ways in what is obviously an increasingly complicated global power structure. (And it would not hurt to have Russia and India, for example, as solid allies.)

He has extended "olive branches" that are incentive-laden (initially in a necessarily general sense, which over time will become increasingly specific, once talks commence in earnest) with adversaries of the U.S. with whom some diplomatic progress may make a difference in the long run (Iran; North Korea; very moderate Taliban groups). At the same time, he has renewed U.S. commitment to opposing vociferously those adversaries of the U.S. with whom diplomatic progress would be impossible and/or counter-productive (al Qaeda; hard-line Taliban groups; etc.).

In the midst of an enormous Western-world credit problem, due in large part to "affluenza" (the economic influenza, characterized by awful investment decisions, brought about by sudden and meteoric amounts of affluence purchased on credit), the president has vowed to work in both a national and international context to address the issue on a number of fronts. I may not agree with all of his stances insofar as this very complicated situation is concerned, but I do very much agree with him that outdated energy procurement, use, and security paradigms will have to be addressed (along with health care costs, etc.) in order to soften the economic drag when the U.S. and world economies begin to recover.

(For one example amongst many, just wait until the presently low petroleum prices shoot sky-ward again when the developed and developing worlds recover from this economic downturn and, say, India, which has recently been introduced to its new, cheap car, demands more and more and more oil each month...as does China, South America, Africa, Eastern Europe, etc., etc.... Drill, baby, drill all you want--that will not cover the difference in lost fuel resources for Westerners in a world in which billions more people demand transportation and fuel. As far as that's concerned, it's time for Americans, for instance, to think like Americans again and actually innovate in a creative manner by diversifying the energy portfolio so that petroleum is one of many different, equally-utilized fuel options.)

But very little of this seems to matter to a lot of "dedicated bloggers." To them, the president sucks, just like his predecessor sucked, just like his predecessor sucked, just like.... Hey, folks, this president is nowhere near perfect, and he is going to stumble from time to time, but he's a hell of a lot better than the myopic fellow who proceeded him in that office, which in and of itself is a reason to smile. Besides, this president actually seems to take the long-view on a fairly consistent basis (see my international comments, above). I consider this a good thing, though many bloggers--who seem to suffer acutely from a massive lack of attention-span capacity--don't think likewise.

They ought to turn their computers off (for once) and read a book in order to calm down and learn the art of strategic patience. It's what I try to do as often as possible, and what I will do once I'm done composing this message.

NOTE FOR TWITTER USERS:

For those who love to use Twitter, the above posting is condensed to the following:

"OMG! its gr8 2 put yer randum tweets away 4 a wile! no 1 cares much anyway! LOL!!!!!!!!"

I Dislike Dumb, Flag-Waving "American Patriots," But I Love The United States. And Yes, People Can Hold Both Opinions Simultaneously.

It continues to astound me how many otherwise intelligent people go completely off-their-heads with anger when it is suggested to them that simply picking up an American flag, waving it in the air, and screaming incessantly "U.S.A.!  U.S.Aaaaaaaaa!" is a bit embarrassing and certainly not pragmatic in this current era.  But many people do go off their heads when this is suggested, so what follows is my response to them, or rather to at least one of them, whose name has been changed to "Patriot!" for the purposes of this posting.  (Because these so-called "patriots" tend to hate, say, Europeans for hyperbole-laden and not concrete reasons, I thought I'd start this post by mentioning a favorite target of theirs:  France.)

IF YOU REALLY LOVED YOUR COUNTRY, YOU'D STOP EMBARRASSING YOURSELF

I sometimes like to picture "Patriot!" being dropped in the middle of, say, Paris or Lyon, or just about any city in France, and left to his own devices.

It's my belief that within minutes, his cultural myopia would be on full display, as he attempted to negotiate what he would most likely consider "60 million gay pinko moonbats," or whatever, while trying desperately to find some type of "weaponry, any weaponry" so that he could feel "patriotic, dammit!"

Our pal "Patriot!" is so insular that his bluster is really just a way of displaying his personal neurotic tics and not really indicative of someone who is willing to reply seriously to any points anyone else feels free to suggest. (When his conservative internet overlords point him in a particular, talking-points heavy direction each day, I'm sure he breathes much more easily, and his blood pressure most likely drops back into the human range.)

Doubtless I'll be made fun of by "Patriot!" for being an "elitist moonbat" who "hates America," or whatever, for having written this, but let's remember this: it's not like his attention-span even made it to this paragraph, because he tends to craft his simplistic responses after he's about three words into anyone else's posts. He's got the political version of attention-deficit disorder....

As this is the case, I guess I'm free to switch gears somewhat.  So, regarding President Obama's recent news conference, I'm just glad we've got a leader who thinks and speaks in complete sentences. He'll stumble from time to time, and I don't agree with everything he suggests, but I do like his steady nature, his intellect, and the fact that he takes the long-view into account so consistently while serving in what one might tend to view as a short-view dominated occupation.

Despite what the "Patriots!" of the world will surely continue to suggest, I and others like me do think that the U.S. (and other Western nations) should continue to display strong leadership in this world in a number of ways (some liberal and some conservative). But we need to do so by ratcheting-down the dumb, "U.S.A.!, U.S.Aaaaaaa!"-screaming flag-waving, and replacing that outdated mindset with a ratcheting-up of careful international study and accompanying strategizing.

After all, dumb flag-waving puts on display the suggestion that you agree with just about everything we do, whether you consider it good or bad. Careful strategizing, on the other hand, suggests that you wish to continue what is working, but end what is not working in order to better yourself and your country.

Hence, the former mindset suggests a "carry-on no matter what" approach, whereas the latter suggests studying the reality of this international world carefully before deciding where to carry on as we have up to now, and where to make needed adjustments to better position ourselves for the future.

Since many of us continue to insist on using this particular term, which of the above two options, I ask you, is truly more patriotic?

It Seems As Though We're All Weighing-In On The Twitter Phenomenon, So...

...this is what I wrote regarding Twitter on my friend Marsha's blog-site (http://blogomarsh.blogspot.com), with a few minor adjustments:

What you say about the practicality of Twitter's 140 character limit is interesting, Marsha, because I tend to have the opposite reaction to it--I tend to think that such a limit encourages the production of overly-general, rather arbitrary nonsense. It seems to promote insubstantial thinking.

Take, for example, the president's recent "State of the Union Address." During this event, certain congresspeople were twitting (or whatever it's called) such things as "...I just sent a shout-out to Ruth Bader-Ginsburg." Well, I'm glad she's doing well, too, but we simply don't require a congressperson twitting that to us "in real time," or even at all. It's useless and strikes me as being juvenile and narcissistic. (And, if certain people feel it necessary to share such a general notion with us, why don't they simply wait until after the speech to do so?)

That, I think, is my biggest problem with this Twitter phenomenon: it somehow suggests that people's relatively random thoughts are worthwhile to the rest of society. I disagree. What seems to me to be worthwhile is when people take some of their random thoughts and construct something practical out of them, which means that they build upon them and present what they've built in an impressive and thoughtful manner.

Then again, I've never found "quick conversational marketing" to be interesting; I find it to be dull. What sells me on something is a thoughtful argument as to why I ought to give that thing my attention. If someone twitted me something like "Did you see that hilarious [insert company name here] beer commercial?," I wouldn't care--it would not entice me to see that particular commercial. If, on the other hand, they took the time to let me know why seeing a particular commercial was worthwhile, I might keep my eye out for it. But for me, the "why" needs to be included in the initial sales-pitch, and not just in a "by-the-way" manner; the "why" needs to be the central component to the argument being made. Otherwise, the person sharing her or his thought(s) is doing so in a rather childish and off-handed manner in that it's just like someone saying, "Did you see that car? Do you see that bird? Do you want to hear me talk about other random stuff?"

I realize, however, that a big percentage of society sees things much differently than me; they like the quick sloganeering and tend to roll their eyes at what they probably see as "boring" argument construction. That doesn't make them worse or better than me, just different. For them, Twitter must be like eating a seemingly endless piece of delicious candy, because it lets them sift through what amounts to a lot of very quick commercials, whereas for me it's like eating the air--there's no substance to it, so why bother?

Re-Building Leverage In An Increasingly Multi-Polar World: The West And Russia In A Geo-Political Context

About a month ago, I wrote the following regarding the Obama Administration's relations with Russia, as seen in a geo-political context: "Russia might very well be needed as a potentially leveraging factor [in the emerging multi-power world structure]." I was writing most specifically about China, and I still believe that the Obama Administration is attempting to bring Russia into the Western fold to the extent that Russia can help provide a regional counterbalance to China's emerging power status. (India is another emerging regional rival to China.) But Russia (and Georgia, where recent Russian aggression was a major geo-political worry for the West) is located fairly close to Iran, too, and the Kremlin has long-since kept a worried eye on that politically volatile Middle Eastern country and its nuclear ambitions.

Hence, by attempting to create a new political and working template with Russia, the Obama Administration is seeking a geo-political partnership with the Kremlin insofar as it can help diffuse some of the tensions with multiple countries in Russia's general region (as in the possible case of Iran), or, if rising tensions are in some cases inevitable (as in the possible case of China), insofar as it can provide leverage for the U.S. and much of Europe and against the emerging opposition.

Now, this is not to suggest that tensions between the West and, say, Iran will inevitably ease over the next few years, or that tensions between the West and China will inevitably escalate over that period of time, but the possibilities of those two outcomes exist. If I had to choose the one that is "more likely," I would say that tensions between the West and China will inevitably increase. For its part, tensions between the West and Iran may ease, but right now it looks as though they are just as likely to increase. At any rate, the West would be best served if it had a solid set of plans to deal with the simultaneous increasing of tensions between the West and both China and Iran. In that case, surely working to bring Russia a bit more into the Western fold would be a major part of those plans, for geographical and geo-political reasons. (And, in a best-case scenario, if Russia's geo-political mindset were to become a bit more aligned with the West's, tensions in presently-volatile Eastern Europe might ease, which could help the West to project a stronger, more united front against any of a number of potential challenges.)

Yet with the worldwide financial crisis in full roar at present, economic instability is expanding both inside of Russia and inside of many of its neighboring countries (such as recently-industrializing Eastern European countries and former Soviet states to its west and south, as well as China to its south-east, and so forth). This will surely make what would already be a difficult, volatile process of attempting to create more genuine and coordinated Western-Russian cooperation even more difficult and volatile. The Obama Administration has taken a calm line on this so far, which has helped, but both the West and Russia are going to need a little luck to pull-off such increasingly necessary cooperation over the coming years. Stay tuned, folks, and hold onto your seats--this ride is going to stay bumpy for some time to come.

I Am Going On A Brief Sabbatical From The Blog-O-Sphere, But I Will Return Relatively Soon

The "Hasslington" blog-site started in April of 2008, which means that I have today reached the relatively round-number total of 150 posts in less than a year's time. These posts have dealt with political, social, cultural, artistic, and even sport-related themes, and it is therefore the case that this site has provided me with a platform from which to voice my concerns about, questions regarding, and advocacy for a variety of things from a variety of topic areas.

Yet there comes a time when just about everyone needs to take a break from even some genuinely good habits (which I usually consider blogging to be), and, having reached my 150th post, I feel as though this is as good a time as any to take a few weeks off in order to catch-up on such things as that old-fashioned art of reading books (as opposed to computer screens). Indeed, over the last few months, I've noticed that I've read one book for every two I've added to my "evening reading" stack; these days, the pile has long-since reached such a height that it's a wonder it hasn't toppled over, to the point where I have recently found it necessary to divide it into multiple piles.

Hence, I'm not going to post anything for a few weeks, during which time I'll enjoy being blog-free. That being said, I plan to return to fairly regular blogging patterns (at least by my standards) sometime in March. (Events--both national and international in focus--that occur between now and then ought to give me plenty to write about when I return....)

So, as a snapshot of my feelings for where things stand right now, at least with regards to the Obama presidency, I have this to say: overall, I believe that President Obama has done a good job in the presently very difficult foreign policy arena in his first month in office, and though only time will tell regarding the eventual impact of his recent domestic policy decisions, I believe that he has navigated those very choppy waters with an impressive sense of what might be called "presidential bearing." (Whether or not that will make a difference, we'll just have to wait and see.)

I'm more interested in U.S. foreign policy than U.S. domestic policy, probably because I consider foreign policy to be the only true "big picture" area of politics in this international era. This is because even the domestic policy realm in a country as large as the U.S. is dependent heavily upon foreign policy decisions and realities, as anyone paying attention knows. As this is the case, with this post I am providing a "foreign-policy-themed" poll in which I encourage folks to cast their well-considered vote, as I hope to use the results in a post to be published soon after I return to blogging. (And, yes, I know I included one country twice, due to its direct involvement in two different scenarios.)

Until then, I wish you all the best.

Is Hasslington The Judge And Jury? No, He's Just A Member Of The Jury.

It was bound to happen sometime, and that sometime proved to be this past week....

At the age of thirty-three, I have finally been told by the powers that be that I am to show up to a local courthouse for a week in late March in order to join a pool of potential jury members.  (I had hoped that this might happen when I was living in Europe--and I would therefore be unable to attend--but, alas, it happened now.)  The week in question happens to be "Spring Break" week in the educational district in which I work, so Mrs. Hasslington and I have cancelled our plans for a brief Midwestern road trip in order for me to spend my week off of work reading dime store novels while waiting to be placed on a jury.

I suppose we could have asked for a deferral, but we decided not to, as we plan to travel back to England for an extended visit this coming summer.  That's the most important trip for us this year, so we decided to scupper our March vacation plans.  At any rate, this scenario will most likely allow us to save more money than we otherwise would for the summer trip.

I'm actually looking forward to "jury duty," even if it will be an often tedious experience with little chance of actually sitting on a jury, as I have been told it very well might be.  At any rate, it will probably provide me with enough time to catch up with the latest books published by some of the authors I enjoy.  In these rather lean, frugal times, such simple pleasures mean an awful lot, which, when you think about it, isn't a bad thing at all.

Curtail The Purchasing Of Unnecessary, Lavish "Techie" Items, Sure, But Please Keep The Libraries Open

Due to the worldwide economic downturn, I understand that some tax-supported services will have to be curtailed and others even cut altogether, at least for the time being, despite the stimulus plan that looks set to take effect in the U.S. This is, after all, the way of things in rather anemic economic times such as these. As a (tax-supported) teacher, I have seen my educational district tighten its economic belt over the last few months, which is to be expected as part of the reality of the present local, state, national, and international situation.

Yet, at the risk of sounding "nit-picky" and a bit overly-precious, I'm worried about the reported potential library closings in the Twin Cities metro area. (I assume that many other metro areas around the world are currently wrestling with related potential closings.) This may seem "squeamish" of me, but here's why: each year I teach English--and I've done it for a decade or so now, both in the U.S. and in the U.K.--I notice that more and more students (and their parents) compensate for a lack of an extensive vocabulary by using what I rather inelegantly term "filler non-words," and this compensation process is happening to an alarming extent. The following might be an example of someone struggling with this phenomenon: "She, like, told us, um, that, like, we should go, ya' know, over there...." Again, these sentences are not just uttered on a consistent basis by youngsters; just listening to adult discussions in restaurants, stores, and so forth would inform anyone who cares to pay attention that people in their twenties, thirties, and even early forties are now often tending to talk like this...and not just in the United States, either.

Just ask any teacher worth his or her salt and that teacher will tell you that, along with other factors, a rather limiting vocabulary is often a contributing factor to school violence. The reason for this is obvious, if you think about it: we all want to be understood, and rather precisely, because we all want to get our unique perspectives across. Those who cannot do that well--often due to lacking the words necessary to make their points explicit--tend to become very frustrated. When frustration bubbles over, violence can burst forth. And it does, as pushing and shoving takes the place of argument construction. (A technical way of putting this is as follows: individuals who for whatever reason do not possess a consistent conceptual framework for argument construction tend to show how they "feel" about something in a rather base-level, physical manner more often than those who do possess a consistent conceptual framework for argument construction.)

Furthermore, I've personally found that individuals who show a proclivity toward consistent pushing-and-shoving during their formative years often display similar attitudes later in life. (This is not necessarily the case for individuals who show only occasional, innocuous levels of these types of behaviors.) Having spoken about this recently with several other current-educators and former-educators I know, I've discovered that most of them seem to feel the same way.

I know, I know--this is "liberal nonsense," blah, blah, blah. Well, whether we care to acknowledge it or not, this happens with, and to, people of all ages. In both good economic times and bad, I feel that we need to ensure that our libraries remain open and accessible. Though many people will not visit them, many others will, and those who will visit them are not just the folks one might imagine would be "library types." We don't need any potentially avoidable negative factors contributing to an already tense time in our world just now--and I use the term "world" in both a micro- and macro- sense. Though at present the world economy is in a state of regression and recession, we cannot afford to simultaneously regress in a literary sense. If we wish to curtail expensive visual and technological elements of libraries in the name of fiscal restraint, I'm just fine with that, but we need to keep the rent-able books accessible to those who both can and cannot afford to buy them on a fairly consistent basis.

Wanderlust

No matter what their political affiliation or where they are from, I have found that adults who travel eagerly to new places fairly consistently--both inside and outside of their native country--have a strong tendency to hold both realistic and complex viewpoints regarding national and geopolitics, society, and life in general. They also tend to display their viewpoints in manners that are respectful, intellectually impressive, and culturally insightful, and they tend to be open to other viewpoints if they are displayed in similar manners.

On the other hand, I have found that many adults who lead almost exclusively provincial lives, despite having the resources to travel fairly widely (and there are many people who fall into this group, though they will disingenuously claim that they "can't afford to travel"), tend to display their viewpoints in repetitious, bluster-filled, slogan-esque manners that are somewhat juvenile in nature. (I am not speaking of those folks for whom travel is indeed economically impossible; they are obviously exempted from my critical viewpoint regarding this issue. I simply dislike middle class Americans who insist that they don't have the means to travel; they often have far more than "middle class" folks from other industrialized countries, and yet the non-American folks often tend to travel more than their American counterparts.)

Travel, it seems to me, is indeed important. I've always gravitated toward people who have a mindset that tends toward wanderlust. Having returned to Minnesota relatively recently, I simply cannot wait to begin traveling extensively again (and maybe, a year or so down the line, living and working abroad again...or perhaps simply elsewhere in the U.S.). This is not due to a "dislike of Minnesota," as a cynic would suggest, but rather a sense that there is always a whole wide world out there to explore. Because she is from England, Mrs. Hasslington and I plan to fly across the Atlantic in order to revisit our old British stomping grounds this coming summer. That being said, though she has explored the West Coast and has been to New York and parts of Canada--and though we currently live in the Upper Midwest--Mrs. Hasslington has yet to travel extensively in many parts of North America.

Hence, we're in the early stages of planning brief trips, via car and via plane, to various cities across the U.S. that we find "intriguing" for one reason or another. (We'll likely expand this to include Canada and elsewhere from there.) Though we have far from a lot of travel funding--we're "teacherly" types, after all--we're excited to save money in order to visit what we gather are "up-and-coming" places in the forthcoming months. Here are a few of the "up-and-coming" places we are considering visiting, though in what order we've not yet decided:

--Boise, Idaho (...we've heard great things about its attraction to book-readers of all varieties, as well as its beauty...)
--Natchez, Mississippi (...cycling The Trace seems like fun...)
--Omaha, Nebraska (...I cheated just there, as I went to university in that city; still, I haven't been back for a visit in a half dozen years, and I hear that it has changed quite a bit over that span of time...)
--Portland, Oregon (...it's been "up-and-coming" for years now, but we added it anyway...)
--Santa Fe, New Mexico (...and its larger nearby neighbor, Albuquerque...)

--Also, Maine's coastal towns, and Bangor (...none of which might at present be considered "up-and-coming," but which have always seemed interesting nonetheless...)

Then there are the "places-of-the-moment," as it were (Austin, Texas; Charlotte, North Carolina; etc.), which also look intriguing.

I have traveled quite a bit outside of my own country over the past several years, but in part because of this I have scaled-back on traveling inside of the U.S. So, I'm really looking forward to spending a weekend here or there when the funds become available in order to better "rediscover" my nation from the point of view of a former (and perhaps future) expatriate. Mrs. Hasslington--who is an extensive world traveler--is British, so she looks forward to exploring the vast American landscape, which is far different from her native country.

I simply cannot for the life of me see why more people don't travel more often, even if just for a few days here and there. A fellow teacher, who happens to be married with two young children, once told me, "The worst thing parents can do is be boring. It sets a bad example for their kids to emulate." His growing family travels quite often. They aren't perfect--no one is--but they certainly aren't boring, and neither are their kids.

Vice President Biden Scores In Germany, But The "Russian Situation" Is Far From Over

The most important U.S. political event from this past weekend, which was so under-reported by the U.S. news media as to be almost unreported, was not the work done on behalf of the congressional "economic stimulus" plan, but rather Vice President Biden's trip to, and subsequent speech and meetings in, Germany regarding U.S. strategic relations with Europe and Russia. (The stimulus plan will be enormously important news when it comes up for a vote, of course. I don't mean to discount its importance, but rather to show that other news items are being under-reported due to the media's fixation on it.) The Russian response to Mr. Biden's words was positive in nature in that their representatives seemed genuinely impressed with Mr. Biden's sincerity and generally impressed with his calming, realistic comments regarding U.S./Russian relations.

Quite frankly, Russia's piggy bank is smashed to pieces right now (what with the low price of oil and the worldwide financial collapse), so they can't really afford to be as belligerent in tone towards the West as they were in the recent past. For its part, the U.S. government realizes the necessity to avoid getting caught up in any sort of strategic conflict with Russia at present, given the various powder-keg Middle East issues with which it must deal, as well as the potential for increasing tensions with China and an understandably jittery India desperate to avoid getting dragged into any of these messes.

If worst came to worst and the situation in one or more of the potentially crucial Middle Eastern and/or Indian Subcontinental countries (Israel/the Palestinian territories; Iraq; Iran; Afghanistan; Pakistan; etc.) deteriorates badly, or if relations with China sour over China's perceived artifical currency valuations, the U.S. will want to avoid any sticky situation with Russia, whether it would have to do with Eastern Europe or the region including and around Georgia. (And if the present financial squabbles between the West and China escalate, Russia might very well be needed as a potentially leveraging factor against China, particularly with India's attention turned at present in the opposite geographical direction.)

Yet given that U.S. military equipment is bound for Poland sometime soon (though proposed interceptor missiles are not bound for that region, at least for the time being), this will be a delecate balancing act to pull off. So far, so good, so score one for Joe.

Not that anyone in the rather myopic major U.S. media outlets seemed to notice....

Ten Heavenly Reasons To Daydream About Spring

I love George Harrison's spring-themed Beatles tune "Here Comes The Sun," in which he sings, "...it's been a long, cold, lonely winter." Anyone who has spent a dark, damp, chilly winter in England could tell you why such a line resonates with everyone there. Though I lived in England for some time, at present I'm back in my native land--the Twin Cities, Minnesota, U.S.A. Minnesota winters are far colder and far snowier, but also far sunnier and (thankfully) far less damp, than English winters. Hence, I found that in moving to England I simply exchanged one "not-to-be-sniffed-at" set of winter circumstances for another, and I've found in recently moving back to Minnesota that I have simply closed the winter loop; I'm right back where I started.

While the song is obviously set in England ("...it seems like years since it's been clear..."), anyone who has spent a winter in Minnesota might be forgiven for thinking that Mr. Harrison also had our neck of the proverbial woods in mind ("...I feel that ice is slowly melting..."). As I spent my university years in Nebraska, which features a winter that is milder than in Minnesota but still often quite vicious, it's the case that Mr. Harrison's song is ubiquitous when measured against the winter experiences of folks in the three places I've lived for years at a time.

There is a lovely line in the song that cannot help but bring about in the listener the same change that the people in the song are undergoing as winter morphs into spring, as Mr. Harrison observes, "...the smiles [are] returning to the faces." I say this because even Minnesota has occasional winter thaws (though for some odd reason folks here insist on referring to the word "thaw" as "un-thaw," which when you think about it would seem to mean, uh, "freeze"). In the midst of a cold, classic winter, this coming weekend is predicted to feature a few days of above-freezing temperatures and thawing snow banks. It will also certainly bring smiles to the faces of my fellow Twin Citians, and it will most likely send our thoughts in the direction of spring, which is still many weeks away but for a few days might seem deceptively near.

So, what follows are ten heavenly reasons for me to daydream about the coming springtime, which, to borrow Mr. Harrison's words, "...seems like years since it's been here." These reasons are listed in no particular order. Here they are:

1.) I'm a runner. I run outdoors year-round (even in Minnesota's "freeze-your-rear-end-off" winter). Running in the springtime leaves me with a sense of vitality and renewal unmatched by even my favorite season, which is autumn.

2.) Listening to Major League Baseball on the radio is one of my favorite past-times, and something I missed terribly while away from the United States.

3.) I miss riding my bicycle during cool springtime mornings and/or evenings, meandering through the local neighborhoods with no real destination in mind.

4.) Here's a yearly Hasslington ritual: reading Jim Bouton's book "Ball Four" prior to Major League Baseball's opening day. I defy today's athletes to try to write as effectively as did Mr. Bouton, a former major league pitcher.

5.) Just thinking of sitting outside on the patios at the local pubs makes me hope that the winter blows itself out early this year, though I'm sure there's not much of a chance of that happening.

6.) "How will the Minnesota Twins do this year? What are their strengths and weaknesses? Let's speculate...."

7.) The prospect of the forthcoming summer vacation is always an appealing thought to teachers. Lucky for me, that's what I do for a living.

8.) "Shall we go inside and buy something or just stay out here? I guess it doesn't matter. What matters is that we suddenly don't feel compelled to automatically go inside, so I vote for staying out here."

9.) A lot of local cats will be released from their necessary all-indoor winter living arrangements. As I love watching cats trot around town, this is an appealing thought.

10.) "It's spring. I guess we should plan our forthcoming trip back to England, and our forthcoming road trip to somewhere here in the U.S.A...."

K.B.O. Through The Detritus Of Cyberspace

I have recently inserted a "blurb" or "tag-line" under the title of this blog, due to the fact that sarcastic responses such as "Obama's going to save the world!" have found their way onto the comments section of this blog-site of late. Of course, such unhelpful comments are part and parcel of the blog-o-sphere, and I therefore accept some of them as the waste product from an otherwise useful communication tool.

What I do not accept, however, is the notion that people who wish to engage in actual political give-and-take should be forced into simultaneously engaging in such emotionally-stunted exchanges, which are the domain of point-scoring individuals who seem either incapable of or unwilling to discuss differences of opinion in manners that are constructive. Yet this may be the ultimate point for some people, who for whatever unfortunate reason would rather hide behind the moniker "Anonymous" while writing things to which no adult would ever want their name attached than carry on actual discussions with their peers. After all, real conversations tend to frighten them.

I find it one of the least amusing ironies of the internet that those who would lower considerably the conversational bar in a given blog-site are also sometimes that blog-site's most consistent readers. ("After all," they must think, "how else can we spread the angst around so efficiently?") I also find that open-minded, adventurous people who tend to read widely and travel widely both inside and outside of their own country tend to shy away from the childish, emotionally-stunted crowd. Then again, saying this will elicit little more than blathered shouts of "Elitist!" from the aforementioned culturally myopic crowd, so....

If anyone is interested in seeing how someone might approach an actual adult conversation (whether it focuses on agreement with or disagreement between two people), they might be interested in modeling the tone of--and the language in--the comment posted by "Travis" on my January 21st post called "Preserving the 'Inaugural Moment'...." Then again, anyone who is willing to view that exchange in an open-minded manner is not likely to need to model it, because they most likely write (and talk, and think) in an adult manner already.

As for my "gut" response to this latest bit of depressing childishness, I'll use a Winston Churchill term that the man himself used many times: "K.B.O." For Mr. Churchill, this stood for "Keep Buggering On." I'm no Winston Churchill, to be sure, but I have the feeling that he'd let me borrow his term for this particular occasion. So, I'll keep buggering on, and on, and on. And on some more.

Call me presumptuous, but I have the sense that I am most certainly not alone in the blog-o-sphere in my willingness to K.B.O., despite those who would rather force everyone into neatly-labeled, trademarked groupings so that they don't have to deal with those wonderful traits called "complexity" and "ambiguity" that are where the real fun is at. They just don't know what they're missing. Or perhaps they do know what they're missing, but for whatever reason they refuse to engage in it, anyway.

President Obama's Environmental And Political Pragmatism

The Bush Administration worked actively to obstruct states from setting up many of their own tough environmental standards, particularly insofar as carbon emissions are concerned. Given that the incoming Obama Administration was clearly more left-leaning in these regards, the question that consistent political observers tended to ask themselves was not whether or not President Obama would work to tighten and toughen environmental standards having to do with CO2 emissions, etc., but rather how he would go about the process of tightening and toughening them. We now have an early answer to this question (with more to come, I'd guess), and this answer is probably indicative of a savvy sort of political pragmatism that President Obama is at present applying to a number of items on his political agenda.

The new president did not, for instance, push for increased environmental regulations at the national level in his initial moves in this policy area. (He may eventually push for tougher nation-wide standards, but he's yet to do it.) Instead, he eased a number of Bush Administration obstructions placed on states that were designed to discourage certain states from setting their own tougher standards. (California is often mentioned as a state that might quickly work to establish its own tougher standards, perhaps even in the current economic climate.) That is, instead of raising national standards across the board--which might have proven to be a political liability, even in this increasingly "green" era, given the dire national economic outlook--President Obama has thus far left existing national standards in place and encouraged states to set higher standards on their own.

This is savvy from a number of perspectives. First of all, it appeases a solid chunk of the environmentalist crowd (at least for the time being) who abhorred President Bush's policies and wanted President Obama to take some quick action to counter them, while at the same time it avoids a lot of the "business-vs.-environment" fighting that surely would have occurred in this financially-difficult time had national legislation been proposed. (Business groups, large and small, may have soured quickly on the new administration if they felt they were going to be squeezed financially due to increased national environmental standards.) Secondly, it allows states in which stricter environmental measures are at present a popular idea to move toward setting tougher standards, which would tend to prove politically beneficial to both environmental groups in those states as well as the president himself, who will surely be listed among the reasons that such statewide-standards were able to be put in place.

Then there's this third pragmatic reason why such a move makes political sense: it doesn't hurt the president's popularity in states that would rather avoid setting tougher emission standards for the time being, because those states will be allowed (again, for the time being) to stick with the existing standards and avoid the necessity of raising their standards considerably, the latter of which would come as part and parcel of national legislation. So, let's say California raises its environmental standards, but for the time being Ohio does not; in theory, the president looks okay on the issue to a majority of people in both states. In theory, then, this is a "win-win" scenario at a time when the president needs to stay popular in order to more effectively deal with the national economy, foreign policy, and so forth.

Cynics from both sides of the political aisle may initially dislike this "wishy-washy" strategy, but to me it seems to come from necessity, political and otherwise--the president clearly wants to toughen environmental regulations, but he also knows that he needs to be politically careful for the forseeable future. For the time being, then, he's attempting a "middle-way" approach to the environment and several other policy areas, knowing that even very centrist policies will seem quite progressive in the wake of the Bush years. As to whether these policies will work in the long-run or will have to be altered sooner as opposed to later, we'll have to wait and see.

Will The Boss Help Deliver A Super Bowl Upset?

While in the midst of a cold, classic winter, we tied an all-time record high temperature in the Twin Cities today: 46 Fahrenheit, which is about 8 Celcius or so. We hadn't been above the freezing point prior to today in three or four weeks, and many days this winter have seen highs way, way below the freezing point (as in 0 Fahrenheit, or about -17 Celcius). So I'm in a very good mood today.

It's therefore the case that if it's "nuance" (or what passes for it) you're after, check out my January 26, January 27, and January 29 posts. If, on the other hand, you'd like to giggle at someone's shot-in-the-dark football prediction, today's posting might be just the ticket.

So, here are my Super Bowl thoughts: a lot of folks are talking about the fact that Pittsburgh has won multiple Super Bowls, whereas Arizona has never been to one. Some people seem to think that matters, while others do not. I don't really think it matters, due in large part to so many players shifting teams so often these days; in a sense, there really are no "set" teams from year to year anymore. This is sad in a way, but it also means that each season (and post-season) is more of a unique adventure than was the case, say, fifteen or twenty years ago and prior to that.

This would seem to mean that Arizona has a shot at winning the Super Bowl this year. Yes, they do. Yet Arizona is the feel-good, quirky club in this year's Super Bowl equation, whereas Pittsburgh is simply the more solid all-around (if also more boring) team. History suggests that the more solid all-around team wins more often than not. Hence, I pick Pittsburgh to win, though I must admit that I will hope for an Arizona victory...and a great halftime show by Bruce Springsteen. (It may be more likely that we get the latter than the former....)

Hasslington's Super Bowl Prediction: Pittsburgh Steelers 20, Arizona Cardinals 17.

Part 3 Of: "Several Reasons Why President Obama's Early Decisions In Office Have Been Generally Good Ones"

In addition to the topics about which I wrote in my first two installments of this series--which can be found directly below this post--I believe that there have thus far been a few other early Obama Administration decisions/announcements that are generally impressive in nature. (Remember, please, that I number them only to differentiate them from one another, and not necessarily in order of importance.) Here is another one of them:

DECISION #3

Policy Area: Foreign Policy/Russian Policy

Decision/Announcement: The U.S. will review the feasibility of its proposed Eastern European missile defense system prior to deciding whether or not to move forward with it.

Analysis: Russia is being hit hard by the worldwide economic crisis both because of the bad geopolitical state of trade and commerce and because of the low price of oil at present. (Much of Russia's recently-generated wealth comes from oil revenues.) Hence, it has been looking for political "cover" in order to suspend its recent missile development project, which was a very expensive program meant to counter U.S.-backed interceptor missiles and accompanying radar technology in Eastern Europe.

This week, the Obama Administration gave Russia the "cover" it needed to save political face by suggesting that the U.S. will take time to review carefully its interceptor missile program prior to deciding whether or not to move further with the program. (The Bush Administration, by contrast, planned to move steadily forward with the program.) Furthermore, the general tone of this Obama Administration announcement was one of skepticism regarding the workability of the technology associated with the program. Russia's response to this was an almost immediate announcement that it planned to suspend its own program.

In the recent past--such as the period just prior to the worldwide economic crisis--Russia would never have made such an announcement simply because an American administration made its own announcement to review its plans in what seemed to be a skeptical manner. Instead, Russia most likely would have waited in order to see what the ultimate decision of the U.S. was, and then countered that decision in a like manner in order to show the "West" that it will counter any perceived "aggressive" maneuvers regarding what it considers its area of influence. In other words, the Russian "Bear" would have been skeptical of America's new-found skepticism regarding its Eastern European defense program.

But "The Bear" isn't as bullish in these regards as it was even a few short months ago, and this is basically because of dwindling amounts of capital. Russia simply doesn't have the resources at present to reasonably counter an expensive Western missile program with one of its own, which would have to be of a comparable caliber if it were to be taken seriously in an international context.

So the Obama Administration, which was seeking an at least temporary end to Russia's plans for a counter-program, got what it wanted when it gave Russia enough political wiggle room to drop its plans without looking like too much of a paper tiger in the process. As a result, the U.S. received a temporary "thaw" in its relations with what had been an increasingly belligerent and troublesome Russia, and the U.S. needs such a thaw right now, given the various other geopolitical crises with which it must deal, in the Middle East (which is not too far from Russia's southern border) and elsewhere. For its part, cash-strapped Russia avoided embarrassing itself with what may very well have turned out to be a clunky, Soviet-style, "mend-and-make-do" type of missile system aimed in the direction of a more state-of-the-art Western missle system.

For a day, at least, both the U.S. and Russia were able to breathe a sigh of relief about a mutually-beneficial (at least for the present) decision made by the other side. As to whether this temporary thaw in relations continues, particularly given recent developments in increasingly-democratic and independent Russian satellite countries like Georgia and Ukraine, only time will tell.

Part 2 Of: "Several Reasons Why President Obama's Early Decisions In Office Have Been Generally Good Ones"

NOTE: WITH THIS POSTING, I CONTINUE TO HIGHLIGHT DECISIONS THAT PRESIDENT OBAMA HAS MADE IN WHAT MIGHT BE CALLED HIS "FIRST SEVERAL DAYS IN OFFICE" THAT MIGHT BODE WELL FOR HIS PRESIDENCY OVER THE LONG-TERM. THESE DECISIONS WILL BE NUMBERED, BUT ONLY TO HELP READERS DIFFERENTIATE THEM FROM ONE ANOTHER. THEY WILL NOT NECESSARILY APPEAR IN ORDER OF "IMPORTANCE" (WHICH IS SOMETHING ONLY TIME CAN SORT OUT, ANYWAY).

DECISION #2

Policy Area: Foreign Policy/Middle East Policy

Decision/Announcement: Vice President Biden engages early and often with a number of Middle East scenarios. Also, President Obama gives an exclusive interview to al-Arabiya television.

In his previous capacity as a sitting U.S. senator and the vice president-elect, Joe Biden traveled to Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Kuwait in order to sit down with various political leaders of those countries and other influential people in the region (Americans and non-Americans) with the intent to set a transitional tone and begin to create an accompanying template from which the Obama Administration would operate in and around the region. (It astounds me that his trip was somewhat ignored by the major U.S. media outlets, at least in comparison to the levels of attention it should have received.)

According to the few media reports that saw the public light of day, many of the political leaders he met were left with a dual sense of continued U.S. resolve to root out radical Islamic terrorist cells and a renewed spirit of cooperation (to a far greater extent than present in the Bush Administration's policies) with the principle regional players.

This was an important step toward sending the following messages: 1.) the U.S. will not back down from necessary fights; 2.) the U.S. is not looking for any more unnecessary fights that would serve to distract from the necessary ones; 3.) the U.S. will stay very actively involved in the region; 4.) that involvement will be both military and non-military in nature, and the nature of both types of involvement will likely shift over the next several months, in some cases in minor manners only, and in other cases in major manners; 5.) the U.S. will continue to push its agenda aggressively, but it is increasingly part of the U.S. agenda to listen to the concerns of its partners and integrate some of them into many of its strategies; 6.) the Obama Administration will be savvier regarding the Middle East and the Indian Subcontinent than the previous administration, and it is willing to consider more options as being potentially "viable" ones; 7.) hence, the Obama Administration will have done its collective homework and will not likely be hoodwinked by pie-in-the-sky thinking, but rather it will be ready to engage in complex thinking in order to calibrate better how American might (cultural, military, economic, etc.) is brought to bear in the region.

Following this trip and after the inauguration, Vice President Biden told the major U.S. media outlets that American casualties will surely rise in Afghanistan, due to the fact that the U.S. needs to reinforce its personnel there in its (and NATO's) flagging fight against al-Qaeda-inspired Taliban forces and the like.

The above Biden-related decisions represent careful, strategic thinking on the part of the Obama Administration, because they send two accompanying messages to people in the U.S. and throughout the world: 1.) that the U.S. is ready to alter some of its policies in the Middle East in order to better handle the various complications in that region, which will appeal to foreign policy progressives and pragmatists; and 2.) that the U.S. needs to prepare itself to fight necessary fights, such as the post-9/11 Afghanistan fight, even as it seeks methods of curtailing its military (if not political) activities in fights-of-choice, such as the Iraq scenario. The first message is likely to appeal to left-leaning folks (and those on the right who stress the root word "conserve" in their definition of the political term "conservative"), and the second message is likely to appeal to moderates from all political backgrounds whose takes on the struggles in Afghanistan and Iraq differentiate greatly from one another.

Ultimately, the Obama Administration, through the mouthpiece of Joe Biden, is suggesting that Americans are now not only ready but also willing to paint the Middle East with less of a broad brush than U.S. policy might have suggested was the case until now. This, then, suggests that, broadly speaking, Americans are now willing to back a multiplicity of different strategies to deal with the complexities of the region.

IN A RELATED UPDATE: today President Obama took part in a major "sit-down" interview with al-Arabiya television. In the context of the ongoing worldwide fight against extremist Islamic elements, the president said the following: "The language we use matters. And what we need to understand is, is that there are extremist organizations – whether Muslim or any other faith in the past – that will use faith as a justification for violence. We cannot paint with a broad brush a faith as a consequence of the violence that is done in that faith's name."

(Note: I became aware of the President Obama's "broad brush" statement after writing my "broad brush" statement above.)

The president is doing a few things here, and they all relate to the following: he is working to recover the idea of American moral authority by speaking in an articulate manner about tolerance with a Muslim news organization. He is putting his presence forward as representing what the Obama Administration would like the Muslim world to see as being the "real" American majority viewpoint on these matters. This is another move to put the pressure and focus back on the extreme ideology of radical Islamist terror groups, and take it off of what has been perceived throughout much of the world as the rather myopic, tone-deaf nature of the Bush Administration's policy on these matters. One ultimate reason for doing this is to place blame for international terrorism back squarely on the shoulders of international terrorists themselves by making the U.S. look intellectually and humanely reasonable to those in the buffer zones of world opinion who were vascillating between where to place to blame.

It surely makes sense, too, that President Obama went on al-Arabiya television in order to do this, as al-Arabiya is often seen as a more moderate upstart challenging the Middle East media might of al-Jazeera. If al-Arabiya gets a prolonged ratings boost out of this, that might be a smart marketing move insofar as U.S. public relations in the region are concerned.