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.
Saturday, January 31, 2009
Thursday, January 29, 2009
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.
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.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
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.
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.
Monday, January 26, 2009
Hasslington's Next Few Posts: Several Reasons Why President Obama's Early Decisions In Office Have Been Generally Good Ones
NOTE: FOR MY NEXT FEW POSTS, I PLAN 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).
I am doing this because I am thus far rather impressed with several decisions and/or announcements the new president has made over the past week or so. Though the economic stimulus package--which is an ongoing, momentous undertaking--has yet to come into full focus, a number of other important policy and personnel decisions have been made that should be receiving more major media attention than they are at present. Here is one of them:
DECISION #1
Policy Area: Foreign Policy (Middle East Policy)
Decision/Announcement: George Mitchell as U.S. Middle East Envoy
Just as he did when he was the president-elect, President Obama seems intent on carrying on with the process of surrounding himself with solid, accomplished, broadly-popular people (both at home and abroad). The appointment of former-U.S. Senator George Mitchell (a Democrat from Maine) as the Obama Administration's peace envoy to the Middle East is a case in point.
Mr. Mitchell, who is now in his seventies, was President Clinton's point man in the Northern Ireland peace process, during which he played a key role with much success. (His work in these regards reflected well on the Clinton Administration.) He also took Major League Baseball to task for the black cloud of steroids hanging over it, and the result seems to be a more vigilant MLB testing program and tougher punishments for those who fail the tests.
Domestically, Mr. Mitchell is liked by political kin and respected by political adversaries. He is often seen as being impressively professorial without coming across as having his head stuck in the clouds that surround the Ivory-Towers of academia, which is to suggest that he is also seen as being a relatively down-to-earth, politically moderate elder-statesman.
Given his steady-handed foreign policy work, Mr. Mitchell also carries clout internationally. Though Middle East peace talks are always very, very tricky endeavors, he could help to bring a sense of at least a bit more stability to the proceedings at a juncture when a little more stability is so desperately needed. (As a tangential point, the fact that Mr. Mitchell's mother was a Lebanese immigrant might help him ingratiate himself to some of the principle players in the region, at least a little bit.)
And it's surely the case that his successful foreign policy work for President Bill Clinton will help him when it comes to working with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
I am doing this because I am thus far rather impressed with several decisions and/or announcements the new president has made over the past week or so. Though the economic stimulus package--which is an ongoing, momentous undertaking--has yet to come into full focus, a number of other important policy and personnel decisions have been made that should be receiving more major media attention than they are at present. Here is one of them:
DECISION #1
Policy Area: Foreign Policy (Middle East Policy)
Decision/Announcement: George Mitchell as U.S. Middle East Envoy
Just as he did when he was the president-elect, President Obama seems intent on carrying on with the process of surrounding himself with solid, accomplished, broadly-popular people (both at home and abroad). The appointment of former-U.S. Senator George Mitchell (a Democrat from Maine) as the Obama Administration's peace envoy to the Middle East is a case in point.
Mr. Mitchell, who is now in his seventies, was President Clinton's point man in the Northern Ireland peace process, during which he played a key role with much success. (His work in these regards reflected well on the Clinton Administration.) He also took Major League Baseball to task for the black cloud of steroids hanging over it, and the result seems to be a more vigilant MLB testing program and tougher punishments for those who fail the tests.
Domestically, Mr. Mitchell is liked by political kin and respected by political adversaries. He is often seen as being impressively professorial without coming across as having his head stuck in the clouds that surround the Ivory-Towers of academia, which is to suggest that he is also seen as being a relatively down-to-earth, politically moderate elder-statesman.
Given his steady-handed foreign policy work, Mr. Mitchell also carries clout internationally. Though Middle East peace talks are always very, very tricky endeavors, he could help to bring a sense of at least a bit more stability to the proceedings at a juncture when a little more stability is so desperately needed. (As a tangential point, the fact that Mr. Mitchell's mother was a Lebanese immigrant might help him ingratiate himself to some of the principle players in the region, at least a little bit.)
And it's surely the case that his successful foreign policy work for President Bill Clinton will help him when it comes to working with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Preserving The "Inaugural Moment" For Posterity, While Simultaneously Recognizing That Close, Tough Presidential Scrutiny Must Now Begin
In order to preserve the "inaugural moment"--at least as far as it can be preserved--I have decided to re-post on this blog-site two comments I wrote and posted on the blog-sites of two friends in the hours directly following the moment when President-Elect Barack Obama became President Barack Obama. I do not do this in order to set "in stone" a template for my future mindset regarding the forty-fourth president of the United States, but rather to celebrate the speech he delivered Tuesday to an attentive world, as well as to suggest why his inauguration will benefit the United States in the long-run (and in a number of ways).
Please understand that I am not at all saying that various aspects of life both inside and outside of the United States are likely to change for the better today or next week, or even in a year's time. Instead, I am suggesting that several of the various "policy roads" down which the United States may be ready to embark look to be far more realistic and pragmatic than several of the ones down which the U.S. has traveled for the past eight years and, in some cases, for a longer period of time than that.
I guess what I'm saying is that I was a consistent supporter of Democratic-nominee Obama, and I hope to be an at least fairly consistent supporter of President Obama in the coming years. We'll have to wait in order to see if the latter happens but, for now at least, I remain optimistic on that front.
At any rate, these are the words I posted on "Centrisity" (http://centrisity.blogspot.com) on Inauguration Day:
"What I liked about President Obama's inaugural speech was the fact that his rhetoric inspired but did not soar. He is preparing us for the hard work ahead, and his words were modulated to put us in that frame of mind...at least once the next few days are over.
"This was a relatively restrained, thoughtful performance that suggests that this president has a mind that can work in calculated, gritty prose and not just poetry.
"Well done and congratulations, Mr. President and Mr. Vice President. Now, let's see where we go from here...."
--Hasslington
These are the words I posted on "Penigma" (http://penigma.blogspot.com) on Inauguration Day:
"What is naive is to suggest that carrying on in the manner we were (for as long as we did, under the last president) was a pragmatic method of creating future prosperity at home and future goodwill among our very, very necessary friends and allies abroad. It was, of course, something very different from pragmatism; it was the definition of the word 'naive.'
"What is most certainly not naive, however, is the fact that we just inaugurated two of the smartest guys in the room (so to speak) to lead us in uncertain times. Though there are bound to be disappointments, doing what we have just done has given us a better chance at future prosperity at home and good will abroad (which are increasingly interlinked, of course)."
--Hasslington
Please understand that I am not at all saying that various aspects of life both inside and outside of the United States are likely to change for the better today or next week, or even in a year's time. Instead, I am suggesting that several of the various "policy roads" down which the United States may be ready to embark look to be far more realistic and pragmatic than several of the ones down which the U.S. has traveled for the past eight years and, in some cases, for a longer period of time than that.
I guess what I'm saying is that I was a consistent supporter of Democratic-nominee Obama, and I hope to be an at least fairly consistent supporter of President Obama in the coming years. We'll have to wait in order to see if the latter happens but, for now at least, I remain optimistic on that front.
At any rate, these are the words I posted on "Centrisity" (http://centrisity.blogspot.com) on Inauguration Day:
"What I liked about President Obama's inaugural speech was the fact that his rhetoric inspired but did not soar. He is preparing us for the hard work ahead, and his words were modulated to put us in that frame of mind...at least once the next few days are over.
"This was a relatively restrained, thoughtful performance that suggests that this president has a mind that can work in calculated, gritty prose and not just poetry.
"Well done and congratulations, Mr. President and Mr. Vice President. Now, let's see where we go from here...."
--Hasslington
These are the words I posted on "Penigma" (http://penigma.blogspot.com) on Inauguration Day:
"What is naive is to suggest that carrying on in the manner we were (for as long as we did, under the last president) was a pragmatic method of creating future prosperity at home and future goodwill among our very, very necessary friends and allies abroad. It was, of course, something very different from pragmatism; it was the definition of the word 'naive.'
"What is most certainly not naive, however, is the fact that we just inaugurated two of the smartest guys in the room (so to speak) to lead us in uncertain times. Though there are bound to be disappointments, doing what we have just done has given us a better chance at future prosperity at home and good will abroad (which are increasingly interlinked, of course)."
--Hasslington
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Congratulations, President Obama And Vice President Biden
Dear President Obama and Vice President Biden,
Congratulations on becoming the president and vice president of the United States of America. As you are well aware, our country is at a vital turning point in its history (in both a domestic sense and an international sense), and though there are bound to be disappointments and failures during your tenure in office, you are both careful thinkers, which means that the challenges we face will be met by our leaders not just with grit and determination, but also with considerable levels of both insight and foresight. Because of this, though time and history will ultimately determine whether or not your years in office will be considered "successful," I am now and will continue to be proud that the citizens of my country elected the two of you to fill two of the most important jobs in the land--and in the world.
Yours sincerely,
Hasslington
Congratulations on becoming the president and vice president of the United States of America. As you are well aware, our country is at a vital turning point in its history (in both a domestic sense and an international sense), and though there are bound to be disappointments and failures during your tenure in office, you are both careful thinkers, which means that the challenges we face will be met by our leaders not just with grit and determination, but also with considerable levels of both insight and foresight. Because of this, though time and history will ultimately determine whether or not your years in office will be considered "successful," I am now and will continue to be proud that the citizens of my country elected the two of you to fill two of the most important jobs in the land--and in the world.
Yours sincerely,
Hasslington
Sunday, January 18, 2009
Regarding The End Of The George W. Bush Era, And The Beginning Of The Barack Obama Era
This past week, my friend Penigma wrote an interesting piece regarding the legacy of George W. Bush titled "To Sleep, Perchance To Re-Write History," which was posted on his blog-site (http://penigma.blogspot.com/). I'm not going to provide a snippet from it, but I do encourage any interested Hasslington readers to visit his site and read it in its entirety. Whether you agree or disagree with his viewpoint, it's thought provoking, and it prompted me to write this post, which can be read with or without first reading Penigma's thoughts.
At any rate, here are my reflections as we await the inauguration of a new U.S. president:
Given all of the references to Abraham Lincoln being bandied about in the U.S. media prior to Barack Obama's inauguration as the forty-forth U.S. president, and given that now is an appropriate time to start the process of reflecting on the George W. Bush years in their entirety (though we won't be done reflecting on them for many years to come, I'm sure), what I'd like to share in this post is the quote from President Lincoln that springs to my mind in the wake of the Bush Administration's dubious record regarding waterboarding, torture, the Iraq War-of-Choice, and so forth. Mr. Lincoln said the following:
"The monstrous injustice of slavery...deprives our republican example of its just influence in the world--enables the enemies of free institutions, with plausibility, to taunt us as hypocrites."
The United States of America is both a good and great nation, in a number of senses. Yet what President George W. Bush has demonstrated in surfeit is our great "hard power," to the exclusion of many of the other things that make us great, and what he has failed to demonstrate is a reading of the world that takes into account not just good and evil, but also realism, ambiguity, the necessity for constructive international public relations when possible, the pragmatic nature of a number of forms of "soft power," mutual understanding, and the acknowledgment that for the U.S. to continue to exert what President Lincoln would call its "just influence" in the world, its leaders need to recognize and recalibrate how the U.S. displays much of its power.
I approve of a strong American military, but I also approve of leaders who use it cautiously and, if possible, with much fore-planning. There are times when I do indeed approve of asserting certain moral absolutes, but only when those who assert them behave in ways that display those absolutes with consistency, and when they acknowledge that there are indeed instances when we must recognize the existence of moral ambiguities and apply multi-layered approaches to the complex developments that spring from those ambiguities. And I do like people who go with their general "gut" instincts, but only when they offset those instincts with a close study of why those instincts are telling them certain things, and whether or not what everything their "gut" is saying is correct.
I guess what I'm saying is this: with alterations in its wording, I feel as though one can plausibly apply the above quotation from President Abraham Lincoln to the legacy of President George W. Bush. In order to do this, one would have to remove "slavery" and insert "torture," or perhaps "cultural myopia," or perhaps "indifference to the concerns of one's friends and allies," or...the list goes on. But the point is that the above quotation is, to my mind, largely applicable to Mr. Bush's presidency, and this is obviously not a positive thing.
I am not suggesting that everything President Bush has done has been disastrous, because that would represent disingenuous hyperbole. I'm also not suggesting that soon-to-be-President Obama will succeed at everything he attempts to do, because reality dictates that he is bound to have setbacks and failures. What I am saying, however, is that on November 4, 2008, my country reversed its trend of the previous two presidential elections when it elected a careful thinker to the presidency. Because of this, whatever the outcome of his years in the White House might be, the fact that Barack Obama will be my president is something of which I am proud.
At any rate, here are my reflections as we await the inauguration of a new U.S. president:
Given all of the references to Abraham Lincoln being bandied about in the U.S. media prior to Barack Obama's inauguration as the forty-forth U.S. president, and given that now is an appropriate time to start the process of reflecting on the George W. Bush years in their entirety (though we won't be done reflecting on them for many years to come, I'm sure), what I'd like to share in this post is the quote from President Lincoln that springs to my mind in the wake of the Bush Administration's dubious record regarding waterboarding, torture, the Iraq War-of-Choice, and so forth. Mr. Lincoln said the following:
"The monstrous injustice of slavery...deprives our republican example of its just influence in the world--enables the enemies of free institutions, with plausibility, to taunt us as hypocrites."
The United States of America is both a good and great nation, in a number of senses. Yet what President George W. Bush has demonstrated in surfeit is our great "hard power," to the exclusion of many of the other things that make us great, and what he has failed to demonstrate is a reading of the world that takes into account not just good and evil, but also realism, ambiguity, the necessity for constructive international public relations when possible, the pragmatic nature of a number of forms of "soft power," mutual understanding, and the acknowledgment that for the U.S. to continue to exert what President Lincoln would call its "just influence" in the world, its leaders need to recognize and recalibrate how the U.S. displays much of its power.
I approve of a strong American military, but I also approve of leaders who use it cautiously and, if possible, with much fore-planning. There are times when I do indeed approve of asserting certain moral absolutes, but only when those who assert them behave in ways that display those absolutes with consistency, and when they acknowledge that there are indeed instances when we must recognize the existence of moral ambiguities and apply multi-layered approaches to the complex developments that spring from those ambiguities. And I do like people who go with their general "gut" instincts, but only when they offset those instincts with a close study of why those instincts are telling them certain things, and whether or not what everything their "gut" is saying is correct.
I guess what I'm saying is this: with alterations in its wording, I feel as though one can plausibly apply the above quotation from President Abraham Lincoln to the legacy of President George W. Bush. In order to do this, one would have to remove "slavery" and insert "torture," or perhaps "cultural myopia," or perhaps "indifference to the concerns of one's friends and allies," or...the list goes on. But the point is that the above quotation is, to my mind, largely applicable to Mr. Bush's presidency, and this is obviously not a positive thing.
I am not suggesting that everything President Bush has done has been disastrous, because that would represent disingenuous hyperbole. I'm also not suggesting that soon-to-be-President Obama will succeed at everything he attempts to do, because reality dictates that he is bound to have setbacks and failures. What I am saying, however, is that on November 4, 2008, my country reversed its trend of the previous two presidential elections when it elected a careful thinker to the presidency. Because of this, whatever the outcome of his years in the White House might be, the fact that Barack Obama will be my president is something of which I am proud.
Saturday, January 17, 2009
With This Post, I May Have Jinxed The Steelers And Cardinals
I suppose I should further embarrass myself with more silly NFL playoff picks. (It is, after all, the weekend.) So here they are:
AFC: BALTIMORE RAVENS AT PITTSBURGH STEELERS
The Baltimore Ravens travel to Pittsburgh tomorrow in order to play the Steelers. Baltimore is something like 5-1 in playoff road games, which is eye-poppingly superb. But Pittsburgh is something like 6-1 in their last seven playoff games, which is just as impressive, and which just might nullify Baltimore's trend. (I may be a bit off with those statistics, but my point is that these teams have impressive numbers heading into this game.) I don't forsee a lot of touchdowns, so it may end up to be a battle of the kickers, amongst other things.
Hasslington's prediction: Pittsburgh 16, Baltimore 13.
NFC: PHILADELPHIA EAGLES AT ARIZONA CARDINALS
I have picked the opponents of both of these teams to win and advance for the past two weeks running, and I've obviously been wrong in each and every case. Now I've got to pick one of these two teams to beat the other. Conventional wisdom says that Philly will win, despite the location of the game. So far this post-season, when I've picked against conventional wisdom, I've been wrong. Yet when I've gone along with conventional wisdom, I've also (usually) been wrong. So I haven't got a clue this time. Here's my guess....
Hasslington's prediction: Arizona 17, Philadelphia 14.
AFC: BALTIMORE RAVENS AT PITTSBURGH STEELERS
The Baltimore Ravens travel to Pittsburgh tomorrow in order to play the Steelers. Baltimore is something like 5-1 in playoff road games, which is eye-poppingly superb. But Pittsburgh is something like 6-1 in their last seven playoff games, which is just as impressive, and which just might nullify Baltimore's trend. (I may be a bit off with those statistics, but my point is that these teams have impressive numbers heading into this game.) I don't forsee a lot of touchdowns, so it may end up to be a battle of the kickers, amongst other things.
Hasslington's prediction: Pittsburgh 16, Baltimore 13.
NFC: PHILADELPHIA EAGLES AT ARIZONA CARDINALS
I have picked the opponents of both of these teams to win and advance for the past two weeks running, and I've obviously been wrong in each and every case. Now I've got to pick one of these two teams to beat the other. Conventional wisdom says that Philly will win, despite the location of the game. So far this post-season, when I've picked against conventional wisdom, I've been wrong. Yet when I've gone along with conventional wisdom, I've also (usually) been wrong. So I haven't got a clue this time. Here's my guess....
Hasslington's prediction: Arizona 17, Philadelphia 14.
Friday, January 16, 2009
"Miracle" On The Hudson? Okay, Fine. But More Than That, It Was A Life-Saving Vindication Of Modern "Renaissance" People
I have no problem with nearly every member of the major U.S. media outlets echoing New York's major politicians by calling yesterday's emergency water-landing of the New York to North Carolina jet--which resulted in no deaths--a "miracle." After all, such a title sounds nice, and I'm sure those who survived that very dangerous scenario most likely think that such a term is completely appropriate when used to describe the outcome.
Yet I struggle with the "miracle" designation for one reason--it obscures what seems to me to be the most important aspect of the pilot's superb accomplishment, which is that he is not only an expert on planes, but also an expert in the fields of crisis management (above and beyond that which is necessary to become a licensed pilot) and gliders (above and beyond that which is necessary to become a licensed pilot).
Not surprisingly, passengers and crew from the flight report that the pilot, whose name is Mr. Chesley Sullenberger, was as calm and focused as possible during and after the incident. And it should be pointed out that he didn't fly the plane into a crash landing in the Hudson River so much as he glided it to a surprisingly smooth landing there.
Modern Renaissance people, who follow one area of interest into a tangential area of interest--and in turn follow that into another tangential area of interest, and so on--are often thought of as outside the mainstream, and sometimes marginalized by others for the number of their various interests, as well as for their intensity regarding those interests. (Many so-called "mainstream" people study up on what they do for a living, and are interested in very little of detail beyond that.) Yet Mr. Sullenberger is clearly a modern Renaissance man, and because of this he performed a staggeringly important service on the Hudson River that few others could provide, at least not as well as he did.
Might we call this emergency landing a "miracle"? Okay, fine. But to me it is every bit as much--and probably far more--a story of life-saving personal and professional accomplishment from someone who clearly follows his interests far more extensively than most other folks ever do.
Hmmm....
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Hasslington's Republican To Watch Over The Next Several Years: U.S. Senator John Thune
(In my previous post, which can be found directly below this one, I wrote about an American Democratic politician who I think may play an increasingly large national and international role over the next several years. Today, I am writing about an American Republican politician who may play a similarly increasingly large national and international role over the next several years....)
It genuinely surprises me that U.S. Senator John Thune, a Republican from South Dakota, has been virtually ignored in both the press and the blog-o-sphere over the last year or so, particularly given the fact that he was quite well-positioned to become Senator John McCain's running mate during the 2008 presidential campaign season. As it turned out, however, when potential McCain running mates were scrutinized, a lot more folks focused on people such as former Pennsylvania Governor Tom Ridge, U.S. Senator Joe Lieberman, Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, and ultimately Alaska Governor Sarah Palin (who was eventually selected to be Senator McCain's running mate). I focused on Governor Palin in particular, and I went so far as to suggest that Senator McCain would indeed select her to be his running mate.
Though I was right about Governor Palin, I also focused on the possibility that Senator Thune might be selected for the aforementioned role (at one point, I put him just behind Governor Palin as the #2 possibility to be selected), mostly because of how his relative youth (at present, he is forty-eight years old, and he looks youger than that) and relative conservative values (social and fiscal) would have contrasted well with Senator McCain's "maverick," bi-partisan trademark. (Senator McCain's "maverick" status has since been muddied, though probably not beyond recovery, in the wake of his wobbly and clench-fistedly conservative presidential campaign.) That Senator Thune is from the Midwest might also have contrasted well with, and complimented, Senator McCain's status as a senator from the Southwest.
Senator Thune is well-spoken in televised interviews, during which he tends to be not only oddly convincing in his smoothly-delivered arguments to those (like me) who might otherwise disagree with a number of his conservative stances, but also strangely compelling due to what appears to be his genuinely quiet, calm manner. Might these be some of the reasons why South Dakotans selected him over incumbent Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle in 2004, which was the first time in a long, long time that such a powerful member of the U.S. senate lost a re-election bid? (Conservative leaders and commentators still celebrate Senator Thune's rather remarkable win.) And might these be some of the reasons why murmurs are finally starting to gather in rather quiet corners of the internet regarding the possibility that he might run for president in 2012 or 2016?
Up to this point, Senator Thune has managed to come across as both a genuine conservative and a genuinely decent fellow most all of the time, though this may have something to do with the fact that, though he serves on a number of important senate committees (such as the Armed Services Committee), his work has been conducted in a rather under-the-radar manner so far; his profile might simply not be high enough to challenge the accepted notion that he is a well-liked and genuinely pragmatic guy. (He simply fits the role of "young, clean-cut conservative," which has thus far seemed to serve him well with his colleagues and the few elements of the press who have paid attention to him.) When his profile rises, as it is bound to do, it will be interesting to see if he can, and if he will, sustain this image.
Senator Thune may run for the U.S. presidency in 2012. Yet given his age, he could also easily wait to run for president until the 2016 election cycle if it looks as though President Obama will cruise to re-election in 2012. One way or the other, he may very well find himself on a Republican presidential ticket in either 2012 or 2016. He may even be at the top of one of those tickets.
It genuinely surprises me that U.S. Senator John Thune, a Republican from South Dakota, has been virtually ignored in both the press and the blog-o-sphere over the last year or so, particularly given the fact that he was quite well-positioned to become Senator John McCain's running mate during the 2008 presidential campaign season. As it turned out, however, when potential McCain running mates were scrutinized, a lot more folks focused on people such as former Pennsylvania Governor Tom Ridge, U.S. Senator Joe Lieberman, Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, and ultimately Alaska Governor Sarah Palin (who was eventually selected to be Senator McCain's running mate). I focused on Governor Palin in particular, and I went so far as to suggest that Senator McCain would indeed select her to be his running mate.
Though I was right about Governor Palin, I also focused on the possibility that Senator Thune might be selected for the aforementioned role (at one point, I put him just behind Governor Palin as the #2 possibility to be selected), mostly because of how his relative youth (at present, he is forty-eight years old, and he looks youger than that) and relative conservative values (social and fiscal) would have contrasted well with Senator McCain's "maverick," bi-partisan trademark. (Senator McCain's "maverick" status has since been muddied, though probably not beyond recovery, in the wake of his wobbly and clench-fistedly conservative presidential campaign.) That Senator Thune is from the Midwest might also have contrasted well with, and complimented, Senator McCain's status as a senator from the Southwest.
Senator Thune is well-spoken in televised interviews, during which he tends to be not only oddly convincing in his smoothly-delivered arguments to those (like me) who might otherwise disagree with a number of his conservative stances, but also strangely compelling due to what appears to be his genuinely quiet, calm manner. Might these be some of the reasons why South Dakotans selected him over incumbent Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle in 2004, which was the first time in a long, long time that such a powerful member of the U.S. senate lost a re-election bid? (Conservative leaders and commentators still celebrate Senator Thune's rather remarkable win.) And might these be some of the reasons why murmurs are finally starting to gather in rather quiet corners of the internet regarding the possibility that he might run for president in 2012 or 2016?
Up to this point, Senator Thune has managed to come across as both a genuine conservative and a genuinely decent fellow most all of the time, though this may have something to do with the fact that, though he serves on a number of important senate committees (such as the Armed Services Committee), his work has been conducted in a rather under-the-radar manner so far; his profile might simply not be high enough to challenge the accepted notion that he is a well-liked and genuinely pragmatic guy. (He simply fits the role of "young, clean-cut conservative," which has thus far seemed to serve him well with his colleagues and the few elements of the press who have paid attention to him.) When his profile rises, as it is bound to do, it will be interesting to see if he can, and if he will, sustain this image.
Senator Thune may run for the U.S. presidency in 2012. Yet given his age, he could also easily wait to run for president until the 2016 election cycle if it looks as though President Obama will cruise to re-election in 2012. One way or the other, he may very well find himself on a Republican presidential ticket in either 2012 or 2016. He may even be at the top of one of those tickets.
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Hasslington's Democrat To Watch Over The Next Several Years: Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer
Governor Brian Schweitzer of Montana is fifty-three years old, which means that from this point forward he has a solid two decades (or thereabouts) to make a big impact on national and international politics. He is charismatic, intelligent, and ingratiatingly "Western" both in look (what he wears in particular) and mindset. This is a man who won re-election to the governorship of Montana in 2008 by a landslide, despite the fact that he is a Democrat heading a culturally conservative state.
(In fact, Governor Schweitzer most likely helped then-Senator Obama come quite close to Senator McCain's vote totals in Montana. On November 4, 2008, Senator McCain carried Montana by a margin of only about 2.25%, with a vote total of 242,763 to then-Senator Obama's impressive vote total of 231,667. That's a very close and very competitive presidential race in such a conservative-leaning state.)
Governor Schweitzer has pushed for the rapid development and national deployment of Montana's energy capacity--which is to say that he has pushed emerging "clean coal" technology to a great extent in the last several years--as a means of detaching the U.S. from foreign sources of oil. He has gained national recognition in this area in the last few years. At present, he is most likely watching events in places like Eastern Europe closely; Poland, for instance, has a lot of coal but would need clean-coal technology to use much of it, due to Europe's strict rules regarding CO2 emissions. (At present, Poland needs to rely on Russian gas, and the political consequences of it, to a far greater extent than its people would prefer.) This may provide a future lucrative business opportunity for Montana and, in a more general sense, the U.S. as a whole, which might in turn raise Governor Schweitzer's national and international profile to a considerable extent.
Consider this: Governor Schweitzer whipped the rather liberal delegates at the 2008 Democratic National Convention (as well as the founder of the left-wing blog-site "Daily Kos") into a cheering frenzy with both his sarcastic remarks regarding Senator John McCain and his Western "whoo-wee!" interjections (the latter of which are quite alien to a lot of Democratic-leaning voters, but seemed to fire-up such groups regardless...). At the same time, his approval ratings in Montana (which is hardly "Kos" territory) remain consistently sky-high. This suggests that he has a lot of cross-over appeal, culturally and politically. This combined with the fact that he continues to position himself as a national leader on energy procurement, use, and security issues suggests that he may very well become an increasingly important player on both the national and international stage over the next several years, in any of a number of capacities.
...Check-in soon for "Hasslington's Republican To Watch Over The Next Several Years"....
(In fact, Governor Schweitzer most likely helped then-Senator Obama come quite close to Senator McCain's vote totals in Montana. On November 4, 2008, Senator McCain carried Montana by a margin of only about 2.25%, with a vote total of 242,763 to then-Senator Obama's impressive vote total of 231,667. That's a very close and very competitive presidential race in such a conservative-leaning state.)
Governor Schweitzer has pushed for the rapid development and national deployment of Montana's energy capacity--which is to say that he has pushed emerging "clean coal" technology to a great extent in the last several years--as a means of detaching the U.S. from foreign sources of oil. He has gained national recognition in this area in the last few years. At present, he is most likely watching events in places like Eastern Europe closely; Poland, for instance, has a lot of coal but would need clean-coal technology to use much of it, due to Europe's strict rules regarding CO2 emissions. (At present, Poland needs to rely on Russian gas, and the political consequences of it, to a far greater extent than its people would prefer.) This may provide a future lucrative business opportunity for Montana and, in a more general sense, the U.S. as a whole, which might in turn raise Governor Schweitzer's national and international profile to a considerable extent.
Consider this: Governor Schweitzer whipped the rather liberal delegates at the 2008 Democratic National Convention (as well as the founder of the left-wing blog-site "Daily Kos") into a cheering frenzy with both his sarcastic remarks regarding Senator John McCain and his Western "whoo-wee!" interjections (the latter of which are quite alien to a lot of Democratic-leaning voters, but seemed to fire-up such groups regardless...). At the same time, his approval ratings in Montana (which is hardly "Kos" territory) remain consistently sky-high. This suggests that he has a lot of cross-over appeal, culturally and politically. This combined with the fact that he continues to position himself as a national leader on energy procurement, use, and security issues suggests that he may very well become an increasingly important player on both the national and international stage over the next several years, in any of a number of capacities.
...Check-in soon for "Hasslington's Republican To Watch Over The Next Several Years"....
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
A Polite Political Disagreement Between Friends
A few years ago, a British journalist (I think it was Jonathan Freedland, though I could be wrong about that) suggested that the internet was increasingly becoming the province of "point-scoring males" whose very sarcastic tone, combined with their unwillingness to engage in the give-and-take of polite discourse, was stifling the very exchange of information that the internet is suppose to support. In other words, rather aggressive folks who use ruthless, somewhat brutal language were taking over the internet and discouraging more sensible folks from taking part in productive, civilized discussions.
I think that the above opinion was largely correct then and I think it's largely correct now. This is why I try (and admittedly sometimes fail) to disagree with others over the internet in a relatively polite manner. In other words, I think one can make one's points clear without being rude.
I write this because I have a relatively long-standing disagreement with a friend about the reasons behind the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. (And, yes, that event still matters, in a historical context as well as a present-tense context.) He does not think that oil was a big factor in the decision to go to war, whereas I think it played a very significant role in the decision--though I do not think it was the only reason why the invasion occurred.
Our disagreement continues to this day, but, at the risk of sounding self-congratulatory, I believe that it has remained polite and point-oriented (as opposed to hyperbole-oriented) throughout its duration. In fact, I've found that I'm more likely to take his points into consideration because of the respectful, thoughtful manner in which he words them, and I hope the same is the case from his standpoint.
At any rate, what follows is my recent response to his viewpoints regarding Iraq, oil, and the 2003 invasion. I don't think it's appropriate to quote his words, because I haven't secured his permission to do so, but let it suffice to say that he stands by his view of the situation, which I described above. So, the following two paragraphs represent my viewpoint (when I write "we," by the way, I mean the U.S. government and many Americans in general, but I do NOT mean every American, or this one):
"I believe that when it comes to Iraq and oil, intentions and reality are two separate things. We went into Iraq in part because of oil (though we told ourselves it was 'fully' to 'liberate Iraq'); things just didn't work out well, because we refused to study history prior to heading in. We wrapped ourselves in anthemic words like 'freedom' and called those who disagreed with the policy 'unpatriotic,' and we willfully ignored the realities of the region. We were caught up in fuzzy romantic fantasies of 'Democracy,' which are good if they have at their foundation a sense of history, etc., but are often disasterous if there is little beyond the chest-thumping and sloganeering.
"Perhaps we won't be quite as childishly simplistic about this stuff in the future. I think that hiring Barack Obama to be our nation's chief executive is a good step toward us becoming a bit more sophisticated about foreign policy; he, Joe Biden, and Hillary Clinton will most likely steer us further in the direction of realistic gradualism in our foreign policy. That is, romantic sloganeering will most likely give way to a closer examination of the evidence insofar as U.S. foreign policy, and the advancement of U.S. interests, is concerned. The extent to which this happens is at this point anybody's guess (and there are bound to be setbacks, which is also a part of reality), so we'll have to wait and see."
I think that the above opinion was largely correct then and I think it's largely correct now. This is why I try (and admittedly sometimes fail) to disagree with others over the internet in a relatively polite manner. In other words, I think one can make one's points clear without being rude.
I write this because I have a relatively long-standing disagreement with a friend about the reasons behind the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. (And, yes, that event still matters, in a historical context as well as a present-tense context.) He does not think that oil was a big factor in the decision to go to war, whereas I think it played a very significant role in the decision--though I do not think it was the only reason why the invasion occurred.
Our disagreement continues to this day, but, at the risk of sounding self-congratulatory, I believe that it has remained polite and point-oriented (as opposed to hyperbole-oriented) throughout its duration. In fact, I've found that I'm more likely to take his points into consideration because of the respectful, thoughtful manner in which he words them, and I hope the same is the case from his standpoint.
At any rate, what follows is my recent response to his viewpoints regarding Iraq, oil, and the 2003 invasion. I don't think it's appropriate to quote his words, because I haven't secured his permission to do so, but let it suffice to say that he stands by his view of the situation, which I described above. So, the following two paragraphs represent my viewpoint (when I write "we," by the way, I mean the U.S. government and many Americans in general, but I do NOT mean every American, or this one):
"I believe that when it comes to Iraq and oil, intentions and reality are two separate things. We went into Iraq in part because of oil (though we told ourselves it was 'fully' to 'liberate Iraq'); things just didn't work out well, because we refused to study history prior to heading in. We wrapped ourselves in anthemic words like 'freedom' and called those who disagreed with the policy 'unpatriotic,' and we willfully ignored the realities of the region. We were caught up in fuzzy romantic fantasies of 'Democracy,' which are good if they have at their foundation a sense of history, etc., but are often disasterous if there is little beyond the chest-thumping and sloganeering.
"Perhaps we won't be quite as childishly simplistic about this stuff in the future. I think that hiring Barack Obama to be our nation's chief executive is a good step toward us becoming a bit more sophisticated about foreign policy; he, Joe Biden, and Hillary Clinton will most likely steer us further in the direction of realistic gradualism in our foreign policy. That is, romantic sloganeering will most likely give way to a closer examination of the evidence insofar as U.S. foreign policy, and the advancement of U.S. interests, is concerned. The extent to which this happens is at this point anybody's guess (and there are bound to be setbacks, which is also a part of reality), so we'll have to wait and see."
Monday, January 12, 2009
A Hasslington Rule Of Thumb
RULE OF THUMB #1
It's generally a good idea not to drink rum-and-cokes as though they were pints of beer.
...BRIEFLY...
...I may be an above-average prognosticator of American vice presidential running mates, but I continue to be a below-average prognosticator of American sports results. (We all have strengths and weaknesses, I guess.) Witness my NFL playoff picks from this past Saturday, most of which I managed to get completely wrong (the only exception being the Pittsburgh/San Diego game). This means that, when the January 4 Minnesota/Philadelphia game is factored into the equation, I have been right about one playoff game and wrong about four....
...Feel free to check-in with this blog-site sometime soon in order to see my selections for "Democrat to Watch" and "Republican to Watch," which will be about two American politicians who I believe might be positioning themselves to play big roles on the national and international stage over the next decade or so....
It's generally a good idea not to drink rum-and-cokes as though they were pints of beer.
...BRIEFLY...
...I may be an above-average prognosticator of American vice presidential running mates, but I continue to be a below-average prognosticator of American sports results. (We all have strengths and weaknesses, I guess.) Witness my NFL playoff picks from this past Saturday, most of which I managed to get completely wrong (the only exception being the Pittsburgh/San Diego game). This means that, when the January 4 Minnesota/Philadelphia game is factored into the equation, I have been right about one playoff game and wrong about four....
...Feel free to check-in with this blog-site sometime soon in order to see my selections for "Democrat to Watch" and "Republican to Watch," which will be about two American politicians who I believe might be positioning themselves to play big roles on the national and international stage over the next decade or so....
Sunday, January 11, 2009
Would You Like A Free Sample Of Our Ridiculous Marketing Infusion?
Recently, while sitting in a local coffee shop and sipping what used to be called "coffee" but is now apparently called "light roast" or "dark roast" or "Honduran/Bolivian-blended roast with a twist of latte," or whatever, an employee of that establishment offered me and the other attendees a free sample of what she termed "Cider-Chai Infusion."
It went like this...
Coffee Store Employee: "Would you like to try a sample of our Cider-Chai Infusion?"
Hasslington: "I'm sorry. I must have heard you incorrectly. What did you say?"
Coffee Store Employee: "Would you like to try a sample of our Cider-Chai Infusion?"
Hasslington: "Oh, I guess I did hear correctly."
And there they were on a platter she held in her hands--small cups of a strangely unscented, steaming brownish liquid.
Now, it seems to me that when it comes to this sort of scenario, there are five types of people in this world:
A.) Those who, upon seeing "Cider-Chai Infusion" written on the display behind the counter where one orders food and drink, would purchase it. These folks would also try the Cider-Chai sample offered by the employee.
B.) Those who, upon seeing "Cider-Chai Infusion" written on the display behind the counter where one orders food and drink, would purchase it, but who are quite skeptical of "free samples" and would therefore not try the Cider-Chai sample offered by the employee. (This group has admittedly few members.)
C.) Those who, upon seeing "Cider-Chai Infusion" written on the display behind the counter where one orders food and drink, would not purchase it. These folks would also not try the Cider-Chai sample offered by the employee.
D.) Those who, upon seeing "Cider-Chai Infusion" written on the display behind the counter where one orders food and drink, would not purchase it, but who would say "Why not?" and amusedly try the sample offered by the employee.
E.) Those who would never attend a coffee shop.
I am a member of Group "D." The sample, by the way, tasted about how you might imagine it would taste....
It went like this...
Coffee Store Employee: "Would you like to try a sample of our Cider-Chai Infusion?"
Hasslington: "I'm sorry. I must have heard you incorrectly. What did you say?"
Coffee Store Employee: "Would you like to try a sample of our Cider-Chai Infusion?"
Hasslington: "Oh, I guess I did hear correctly."
And there they were on a platter she held in her hands--small cups of a strangely unscented, steaming brownish liquid.
Now, it seems to me that when it comes to this sort of scenario, there are five types of people in this world:
A.) Those who, upon seeing "Cider-Chai Infusion" written on the display behind the counter where one orders food and drink, would purchase it. These folks would also try the Cider-Chai sample offered by the employee.
B.) Those who, upon seeing "Cider-Chai Infusion" written on the display behind the counter where one orders food and drink, would purchase it, but who are quite skeptical of "free samples" and would therefore not try the Cider-Chai sample offered by the employee. (This group has admittedly few members.)
C.) Those who, upon seeing "Cider-Chai Infusion" written on the display behind the counter where one orders food and drink, would not purchase it. These folks would also not try the Cider-Chai sample offered by the employee.
D.) Those who, upon seeing "Cider-Chai Infusion" written on the display behind the counter where one orders food and drink, would not purchase it, but who would say "Why not?" and amusedly try the sample offered by the employee.
E.) Those who would never attend a coffee shop.
I am a member of Group "D." The sample, by the way, tasted about how you might imagine it would taste....
Saturday, January 10, 2009
Hasslington's Soon-To-Be-Mocked NFL Playoff Predictions
If you're looking for hard-hitting political analysis (or what passes for it, at least), read my post from this past Thursday, January 8. If you're looking for something in the "a little different but somewhat thought-provoking" category, read either my post from this past Wednesday or my post from this past Friday (January 7 and January 9).
If, on the other hand, you're looking for slightly silly NFL playoff predictions, look no further.... I failed with my Vikings/Eagles pick last weekend, so I figured why not fail with four separate picks this weekend?
In all seriousness, I don't think I've picked horribly this time around, though, looking at my selections, I don't think I've got much of a chance to get every game correct, either. You see, I find that I've picked the home team to win in every instance, which is not a good sign, given how one visiting team or two is almost sure to win. (The Baltimore/Tennessee game was the toughest pick for me this time around, followed by the Philadelphia/New York game....)
At any rate, here they are...so get ready to to laugh in a mocking manner, sports fans:
HASSLINGTON'S PICKS FOR SATURDAY'S PLAYOFF GAMES
Baltimore Ravens (12-5) at Tennessee Titans (13-3) -- Tennessee 23, Baltimore 20.
Arizona Cardinals (10-7) at Carolina Panthers (12-4) -- Carolina 31, Arizona 17.
HASSLINGTON'S PICKS FOR SUNDAY'S PLAYOFF GAMES
Philadelphia Eagles (10-6-1) at New York Giants (12-4) -- New York 24, Philadelphia 20.
San Diego Chargers (9-8) at Pittsburgh Steelers (12-4) -- Pittsburgh 20, San Diego 17.
If, on the other hand, you're looking for slightly silly NFL playoff predictions, look no further.... I failed with my Vikings/Eagles pick last weekend, so I figured why not fail with four separate picks this weekend?
In all seriousness, I don't think I've picked horribly this time around, though, looking at my selections, I don't think I've got much of a chance to get every game correct, either. You see, I find that I've picked the home team to win in every instance, which is not a good sign, given how one visiting team or two is almost sure to win. (The Baltimore/Tennessee game was the toughest pick for me this time around, followed by the Philadelphia/New York game....)
At any rate, here they are...so get ready to to laugh in a mocking manner, sports fans:
HASSLINGTON'S PICKS FOR SATURDAY'S PLAYOFF GAMES
Baltimore Ravens (12-5) at Tennessee Titans (13-3) -- Tennessee 23, Baltimore 20.
Arizona Cardinals (10-7) at Carolina Panthers (12-4) -- Carolina 31, Arizona 17.
HASSLINGTON'S PICKS FOR SUNDAY'S PLAYOFF GAMES
Philadelphia Eagles (10-6-1) at New York Giants (12-4) -- New York 24, Philadelphia 20.
San Diego Chargers (9-8) at Pittsburgh Steelers (12-4) -- Pittsburgh 20, San Diego 17.
Friday, January 9, 2009
"Go Away For A While. You'll Always Be Welcomed Back By Those Who Matter."
Two colleagues and I agreed on the following statement a half dozen or so years ago, and these days I believe in its truth even more than I did then:
...Individuals who are more willing than most to stretch themselves geographically tend to be more willing than most to stretch themselves intellectually, as well....
I often say the following to people--young and old and those in between--who say they are thinking of living far from their home town or city or state or country for a while:
"Go away for a while. If you stay away, fine. If, after a time, you feel like coming back home, that's fine, too. You'll always be welcomed back by those who matter."
...Individuals who are more willing than most to stretch themselves geographically tend to be more willing than most to stretch themselves intellectually, as well....
I often say the following to people--young and old and those in between--who say they are thinking of living far from their home town or city or state or country for a while:
"Go away for a while. If you stay away, fine. If, after a time, you feel like coming back home, that's fine, too. You'll always be welcomed back by those who matter."
Thursday, January 8, 2009
The Clinton/Biden Foreign Policy Factor
The very dangerous, very tricky scenario currently taking place between Israel and the Hamas-led Gaza Strip, which has been anticipated for some time by many observers of the region, is one of the reasons why Hillary Clinton was chosen to be President-Elect Obama's incoming Secretary of State. (She'll almost certainly be confirmed for the role, of course.) She has been hawkish on Middle East issues and is a long-standing strong supporter of Israel. This gives President-Elect Obama a foreign-policy face that is seen as "tough" both at home and abroad, and it will therefore allow him to shift U.S. policy in a slightly more moderate direction on the Israeli/Palestinian issue.
This is to suggest that, given the continued necessity for U.S. support for Israel, only a "hawkish" individual, such as Hillary Clinton, can credibly introduce "dove-ish" elements into the mix of U.S. policy regarding the region while simultaneously avoiding mass outrage in Israeli political circles. (It's like a Democrat who proposes tax cuts, as President-Elect Obama is doing; it doesn't seem as nefarious to those who generally do not support tax cuts as a Republican would in proposing the same thing, and at the same time it appeases those who do support tax cuts.)
Hence, though we should not expect a massive shift in U.S. policy toward Israel and the Palestinians, we should expect a more multi-layered, complex portfolio to take shape, probably by degrees and over a certain amount of time, as opposed to a more herky-jerky overnight shift.
This will also give Hillary Clinton--and, of course, her soon-to-be-boss--leverage to talk "tough" with Iran. After all, if U.S. policy shifts slightly and pragmatically regarding the Israeli/Palestinian scenario (again, while retaining its core element of general and genuine support for Israel), and if things cool off insofar as that issue is concerned, Iran might be caught a bit flat-footed in its very belligerent stance toward the West in general and the U.S. in particular.
Meanwhile, Vice President-Elect Biden is to visit the India/Pakistan region (and perhaps Afghanistan?) quite soon. This will most likely be a major focus of his part of the overall U.S. foreign policy portfolio. I wrote a lengthy piece on his knowledge regarding the region a month or a month-and-a-half ago, so I won't go into detail regarding it now. Please let it suffice to say that when he is focused on foreign policy, it will most likely be centered on that particular region.
Much of this is predicated on the Iraq and Afghanistan scenarios, of course. So the overall importance of those conflicts has not diminished--and won't diminish anytime soon.
Yet here's a warning for the president-elect, who I believe is right in what he seems to be setting-up regarding the aforementioned areas, at least as far as who his "point-people" (only some of whom I've mentioned in this posting) in those countries will be:
Sir, please do not think of Russia as an "outlier" regarding the aforementioned areas, and do not ignore the growing problem of Russia's penchant for cutting gas shipments to the growing group of generally U.S.-friendly countries in Eastern Europe...and increasingly our tried-and-true allies in Western Europe. The Kremlin most likely wants the U.S. to be hyper-focused on the area from Israel to India to the point where we downplay Russia's strategic moves as it builds leverage in and around Eastern Europe. In my view, U.S. policymakers must not take their eye off the ball in that region--or even downplay it--anytime soon. And that means the Obama Administration must also not take its eye off of Russia, either.
This is to suggest that, given the continued necessity for U.S. support for Israel, only a "hawkish" individual, such as Hillary Clinton, can credibly introduce "dove-ish" elements into the mix of U.S. policy regarding the region while simultaneously avoiding mass outrage in Israeli political circles. (It's like a Democrat who proposes tax cuts, as President-Elect Obama is doing; it doesn't seem as nefarious to those who generally do not support tax cuts as a Republican would in proposing the same thing, and at the same time it appeases those who do support tax cuts.)
Hence, though we should not expect a massive shift in U.S. policy toward Israel and the Palestinians, we should expect a more multi-layered, complex portfolio to take shape, probably by degrees and over a certain amount of time, as opposed to a more herky-jerky overnight shift.
This will also give Hillary Clinton--and, of course, her soon-to-be-boss--leverage to talk "tough" with Iran. After all, if U.S. policy shifts slightly and pragmatically regarding the Israeli/Palestinian scenario (again, while retaining its core element of general and genuine support for Israel), and if things cool off insofar as that issue is concerned, Iran might be caught a bit flat-footed in its very belligerent stance toward the West in general and the U.S. in particular.
Meanwhile, Vice President-Elect Biden is to visit the India/Pakistan region (and perhaps Afghanistan?) quite soon. This will most likely be a major focus of his part of the overall U.S. foreign policy portfolio. I wrote a lengthy piece on his knowledge regarding the region a month or a month-and-a-half ago, so I won't go into detail regarding it now. Please let it suffice to say that when he is focused on foreign policy, it will most likely be centered on that particular region.
Much of this is predicated on the Iraq and Afghanistan scenarios, of course. So the overall importance of those conflicts has not diminished--and won't diminish anytime soon.
Yet here's a warning for the president-elect, who I believe is right in what he seems to be setting-up regarding the aforementioned areas, at least as far as who his "point-people" (only some of whom I've mentioned in this posting) in those countries will be:
Sir, please do not think of Russia as an "outlier" regarding the aforementioned areas, and do not ignore the growing problem of Russia's penchant for cutting gas shipments to the growing group of generally U.S.-friendly countries in Eastern Europe...and increasingly our tried-and-true allies in Western Europe. The Kremlin most likely wants the U.S. to be hyper-focused on the area from Israel to India to the point where we downplay Russia's strategic moves as it builds leverage in and around Eastern Europe. In my view, U.S. policymakers must not take their eye off the ball in that region--or even downplay it--anytime soon. And that means the Obama Administration must also not take its eye off of Russia, either.
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
Important Radio Talk-Show News Bulletin: American Morons Think British Morons Are Crazy
I occasionally tune-in to politically-motivated talk radio shows in order to remind myself why I don't often tune-in to politically-motivated talk radio shows. Today was one of those days, and within minutes I was left shaking my head and laughing, but more out of disbelief than out of amusement. You see, talk radio rarely ceases to amaze me with its general cultural myopia and stupidity, even in a major metropolitan area such as the one in which I live.
Today, for instance, a local talk radio host tried to make the point that the U.S. should resist "becoming like Europe," or something along those lines, because, it seems, Europe is losing its collective mind and being overrun by left-wing lunatics, or some such thing. (ALL of it?)
The gentleman making that point is entitled to his opinion, of course. Yet leaving aside the debate as to whether or not his incredibly sweeping generalization has any grounding in fact, it quickly became apparent that, like a lot of people who make such statements, he had very little idea of what he was talking about.
I say this because the "source" he cited was an article about the apparent reluctance on the part of a certain percentage of contemporary British citizens to tell their children traditional fairy tales, and the article was taken from...The Daily Mail. He cited the article and its source in a serious manner. (Que massive amounts of laughter wafting across the Atlantic Ocean from our British brethren....)
The Daily Mail, you see, might be best described to Americans (or any non-Britons, for that matter) as one part USA Today, three parts The National Enquirer, two parts flag-waving hysteria, and one part toilet paper. Mash them all together (my apologies to the USA Today) and you have just about created the right mix for The Daily Mail.
I know about The Daily Mail because I lived in Britain for a few years. I am not suggesting that the talk-show host in question should have known about The Daily Mail prior to having read the article in a pre-show prep session. I am, however, saying that had he done his homework (and with the internet, such a homework assignment is very easily done these days), he would have understood that the people who read The Daily Mail in a serious manner are those for whom life has not worked out according to plan, so to speak. (The Sun is a similar British "newspaper"; its level of journalistic integrity is quickly ascertained by perusing its third page any day of the week, which will contain little more than a picture of a topless young woman.)
If you wish to quote major national British newspapers, please quote The Guardian, The Independent, The Telegraph, or The Times, the first two of which lean politically to the left and the last two of which lean politically to the right. They are serious newspapers. If, on the other hand, you quote The Daily Mail or The Sun in a serious manner, you will quickly look like an ingrate.
This, of course, hardly bothered the heavily-accented folks who called into the radio program in order to voice support for the article. I live in Minnesota, but I don't often come across people who sound as though they've just stepped off the set of the Cohen brother's film "Fargo." Yet that's how most of these folks sounded as they said things like, "...Yah, ya knooow, dat dere Enger-land is crazy dese days, yah knooow."
It's true that much of the world is crazy, and I know for a fact that some aspects of "Enger-land" are indeed crazy...just as some aspects of the U.S. are crazy. But my bet is that "dese here" callers don't really know a whole lot about England or anywhere else in Britain...or even much about their own country, for that matter. And I'm sure any attempt to make the more pedantic point that though Great Britain is technically a part of Europe, the rest of Europe is not technically a part of Great Britain would be met with quizzical expressions from many of these same folks.
And I didn't even have to read The Daily Mail, The Sun, or The National Enquirer to form that particular opinion.
Today, for instance, a local talk radio host tried to make the point that the U.S. should resist "becoming like Europe," or something along those lines, because, it seems, Europe is losing its collective mind and being overrun by left-wing lunatics, or some such thing. (ALL of it?)
The gentleman making that point is entitled to his opinion, of course. Yet leaving aside the debate as to whether or not his incredibly sweeping generalization has any grounding in fact, it quickly became apparent that, like a lot of people who make such statements, he had very little idea of what he was talking about.
I say this because the "source" he cited was an article about the apparent reluctance on the part of a certain percentage of contemporary British citizens to tell their children traditional fairy tales, and the article was taken from...The Daily Mail. He cited the article and its source in a serious manner. (Que massive amounts of laughter wafting across the Atlantic Ocean from our British brethren....)
The Daily Mail, you see, might be best described to Americans (or any non-Britons, for that matter) as one part USA Today, three parts The National Enquirer, two parts flag-waving hysteria, and one part toilet paper. Mash them all together (my apologies to the USA Today) and you have just about created the right mix for The Daily Mail.
I know about The Daily Mail because I lived in Britain for a few years. I am not suggesting that the talk-show host in question should have known about The Daily Mail prior to having read the article in a pre-show prep session. I am, however, saying that had he done his homework (and with the internet, such a homework assignment is very easily done these days), he would have understood that the people who read The Daily Mail in a serious manner are those for whom life has not worked out according to plan, so to speak. (The Sun is a similar British "newspaper"; its level of journalistic integrity is quickly ascertained by perusing its third page any day of the week, which will contain little more than a picture of a topless young woman.)
If you wish to quote major national British newspapers, please quote The Guardian, The Independent, The Telegraph, or The Times, the first two of which lean politically to the left and the last two of which lean politically to the right. They are serious newspapers. If, on the other hand, you quote The Daily Mail or The Sun in a serious manner, you will quickly look like an ingrate.
This, of course, hardly bothered the heavily-accented folks who called into the radio program in order to voice support for the article. I live in Minnesota, but I don't often come across people who sound as though they've just stepped off the set of the Cohen brother's film "Fargo." Yet that's how most of these folks sounded as they said things like, "...Yah, ya knooow, dat dere Enger-land is crazy dese days, yah knooow."
It's true that much of the world is crazy, and I know for a fact that some aspects of "Enger-land" are indeed crazy...just as some aspects of the U.S. are crazy. But my bet is that "dese here" callers don't really know a whole lot about England or anywhere else in Britain...or even much about their own country, for that matter. And I'm sure any attempt to make the more pedantic point that though Great Britain is technically a part of Europe, the rest of Europe is not technically a part of Great Britain would be met with quizzical expressions from many of these same folks.
And I didn't even have to read The Daily Mail, The Sun, or The National Enquirer to form that particular opinion.
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
Norm Sould Run Against Arnold In Order To Achieve A Unique Political Trifecta; Also, "Inauguration Day," In More Ways Than One
NOT-SO STORMIN' NORMAN
The endless 2008 Minnesota U.S. senate election may or may not be settled completely. One way or the other, the state's canvassing board declared Al Franken the winner yesterday.
Norm Coleman lost the 1998 Minnesota gubernatorial election to former professional-wrestler Jesse Ventura. He has now apparently lost the 2008 Minnesota U.S. senate race to comedian Al Franken. (This occurred six years after the death of U.S. Senator Paul Wellstone a week or two prior to that senatorial election, and the rather off-putting public memorial service that followed a few days after the tragedy, which allowed Mr. Coleman to squeak out a win.)
Perhaps Mr. Coleman should now move to California and switch political parties (again), in order to lose badly in their next gubernatorial election to Arnold Schwarzenegger...?
NEW JOB ON INAUGURATION DAY
Last December, during a months-long stint as a long-term substitute teacher, I applied for a permanent teaching job at a local high school. Today I was informed that the job is mine. I was also informed that my first official day on the job will be January 20, 2009, which happens to be the day on which President-Elect Obama officially becomes President Obama. To be starting a new job the same day the next leader of my country starts his new job is something of an honor for me, particularly since I voted for him.
Hopefully, we'll both do well in our new jobs. We'll see.
The endless 2008 Minnesota U.S. senate election may or may not be settled completely. One way or the other, the state's canvassing board declared Al Franken the winner yesterday.
Norm Coleman lost the 1998 Minnesota gubernatorial election to former professional-wrestler Jesse Ventura. He has now apparently lost the 2008 Minnesota U.S. senate race to comedian Al Franken. (This occurred six years after the death of U.S. Senator Paul Wellstone a week or two prior to that senatorial election, and the rather off-putting public memorial service that followed a few days after the tragedy, which allowed Mr. Coleman to squeak out a win.)
Perhaps Mr. Coleman should now move to California and switch political parties (again), in order to lose badly in their next gubernatorial election to Arnold Schwarzenegger...?
NEW JOB ON INAUGURATION DAY
Last December, during a months-long stint as a long-term substitute teacher, I applied for a permanent teaching job at a local high school. Today I was informed that the job is mine. I was also informed that my first official day on the job will be January 20, 2009, which happens to be the day on which President-Elect Obama officially becomes President Obama. To be starting a new job the same day the next leader of my country starts his new job is something of an honor for me, particularly since I voted for him.
Hopefully, we'll both do well in our new jobs. We'll see.
Monday, January 5, 2009
A Somewhat Uninspiring Sunday
For me, the process of enjoying this past Sunday was more difficult than it otherwise might have been, for two reasons:
1.) On that day, New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson (who, among other things, is also a former member of the U.S. House of Representatives, a former U.S. Energy Secretary, and a former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N.) withdrew his name from the congressional cabinet confirmation process, and therefore will not be the next U.S. Commerce Secretary. He is most likely doing this under pressure from people close to President-Elect Obama, who believe that a grand jury investigation into whether an energy company made unlawful contributions to a political group affiliated with Governor Richardson could hamper their attempt to fill the various Obama Administration cabinet posts swiftly and with minimal levels of political damage.
I am a fan of Governor Richardson. I have followed his career for about fifteen years now, and have found him to be an impressive leader in both the domestic and foreign arenas. He's stumbled from time to time (as have all big-name politicians with resumes as lengthy as his), but he is pragmatic, energetic, smart, and tough, and I therefore hope that his name will be cleared with regards to any wrongdoing in this political affair. Whether or not he ends up serving in some future capacity in the Obama Administration (which both he and the president-elect have suggested could still happen sometime down the road), his career as a governor, an international hostage negotiator, and a diplomatic liaison will surely continue.
2.) Halfway through the fourth and final quarter of Sunday's NFC playoff game between the Minnesota Vikings and the Philadelphia Eagles, I thought that the two teams were evenly-matched, with the Vikings perhaps slightly outplaying the Eagles. (The score at that point, 16-14 in favor of the Eagles, would have attested to the closeness of the game.) But the Vikings made too many avoidable mistakes in the final eight-or-so minutes, which allowed the Eagles, who are always capable of turning their opponents mistakes into big plays, to win in front of a hostile Minnesota crowd by the score of 26-14. The Eagles kept their cool down the stretch, and therefore deserved the win. The Vikings are now officially finished playing until next autumn.
With the Minnesota Wild (professional ice hockey) and the Minnesota Timberwolves (professional basketball) having sub-par seasons to this point, I may have to shelve a lot of my sports enthusiasm until April, when the Minnesota Twins begin the 2009 baseball season. Well, I've always thought (and often said) that baseball is the greatest sport ever conceived, so I'm not very bothered by the fact that the Minnesota teams competing in other sports are inspiring little confidence at this point.
1.) On that day, New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson (who, among other things, is also a former member of the U.S. House of Representatives, a former U.S. Energy Secretary, and a former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N.) withdrew his name from the congressional cabinet confirmation process, and therefore will not be the next U.S. Commerce Secretary. He is most likely doing this under pressure from people close to President-Elect Obama, who believe that a grand jury investigation into whether an energy company made unlawful contributions to a political group affiliated with Governor Richardson could hamper their attempt to fill the various Obama Administration cabinet posts swiftly and with minimal levels of political damage.
I am a fan of Governor Richardson. I have followed his career for about fifteen years now, and have found him to be an impressive leader in both the domestic and foreign arenas. He's stumbled from time to time (as have all big-name politicians with resumes as lengthy as his), but he is pragmatic, energetic, smart, and tough, and I therefore hope that his name will be cleared with regards to any wrongdoing in this political affair. Whether or not he ends up serving in some future capacity in the Obama Administration (which both he and the president-elect have suggested could still happen sometime down the road), his career as a governor, an international hostage negotiator, and a diplomatic liaison will surely continue.
2.) Halfway through the fourth and final quarter of Sunday's NFC playoff game between the Minnesota Vikings and the Philadelphia Eagles, I thought that the two teams were evenly-matched, with the Vikings perhaps slightly outplaying the Eagles. (The score at that point, 16-14 in favor of the Eagles, would have attested to the closeness of the game.) But the Vikings made too many avoidable mistakes in the final eight-or-so minutes, which allowed the Eagles, who are always capable of turning their opponents mistakes into big plays, to win in front of a hostile Minnesota crowd by the score of 26-14. The Eagles kept their cool down the stretch, and therefore deserved the win. The Vikings are now officially finished playing until next autumn.
With the Minnesota Wild (professional ice hockey) and the Minnesota Timberwolves (professional basketball) having sub-par seasons to this point, I may have to shelve a lot of my sports enthusiasm until April, when the Minnesota Twins begin the 2009 baseball season. Well, I've always thought (and often said) that baseball is the greatest sport ever conceived, so I'm not very bothered by the fact that the Minnesota teams competing in other sports are inspiring little confidence at this point.
Sunday, January 4, 2009
Are You Ready For Some (Really Good) Football?... Here's My Minnesota Vikings vs. Philadelphia Eagles Playoff Score Prediction
Conventional wisdom suggests that Philly, who are on one heck of a roll (as they say), will win today's NFC playoff game, despite the fact that it's being played in Minneapolis. In fact, the latest betting odds suggest that Philly will win by about three points.
Yet, for some reason, I wish to suggest otherwise. So, though I'm better at predicting political winners-and-losers than I am at predicting sports winners-and-losers, I predict that this will be a very closely-fought game, with Minnesota's running game and rushing defense combining to pull-off a victory. As far as the score is concerned, I'll go with...
Minnesota 20, Philadelphia 17.
This could (and probably should) be the most evenly-matched playoff game this weekend. Hold tight, sports fans.
Oh, and let's go, Vikes!
Yet, for some reason, I wish to suggest otherwise. So, though I'm better at predicting political winners-and-losers than I am at predicting sports winners-and-losers, I predict that this will be a very closely-fought game, with Minnesota's running game and rushing defense combining to pull-off a victory. As far as the score is concerned, I'll go with...
Minnesota 20, Philadelphia 17.
This could (and probably should) be the most evenly-matched playoff game this weekend. Hold tight, sports fans.
Oh, and let's go, Vikes!
Saturday, January 3, 2009
C'mon, Western World--Move Those Legs!
Why do we Americans--and Westerners throughout the world, for that matter--have a penchant for getting in our cars in order to travel, say, half a mile (or a mile) down the road? Nearly everywhere I go these days, I keep hearing people complain about the cost of living or the status of their health, or both. Well, if we wish to start the process of becoming sensible, less overweight, and at least slightly more healthy, I'd suggest that learning how to get from Point A to Point B without necessarily hopping in our cars is one area on which we can immediately concentrate.
I bring this up because we live near an indoor fitness center, which many local people use. (I exercise outside.) We also live in quite a safe neighborhood, so it seems sensible to me for local people to walk the mile or so to the fitness center and then begin the formal part of the exercise process. Yet a high percentage of our fellow locals hop in their cars, drive the tiny distance to the center, and idle for minutes as they line-up to enter the parking lot in the hopes of finding an often non-existent open parking spot. Why?
Similarly, I tend to walk or cycle to the local shops, which are located a half mile or so away and are often packed with frustrated locals who insist on driving to them, which is followed by an attempt to find an open parking spot, and inevitably results in them getting uptight and frustrated in the process. While doing this, they use up gas, which costs them money, and they don't really gain any time, either. Sure, they get to the shops quicker than I do, but by the time they've negotiated their way into an open parking space, I've caught up with them. (If I leave home at the same time as they do, I find that I also often enter the shops at the same time as they do.)
It's one thing, I suppose, if one is buying an item that requires a vehicle for transport from the store to home, or if one must travel several miles to the shops; obviously, these are good reasons to use a car or ride the bus. But it is quite another thing if someone drives almost no distance whatsoever to the shops, which is born of laziness and culturally-motivated habit, and in the process honks one's horn about a half dozen times because of the actions of "other drivers" who are trying to inhabit the same general space as everyone else. Pedestrians, on the other hand, have almost no such problems. Cyclists don't seem to have these problems, either--and they don't seem to get in the way of cars, despite the occasional grumblings from drivers (who are really upset about little more than not being able to find their "perfect parking space") suggesting that they do.
I don't want to hear any justifications based on weather, either. I live in Minnesota, where yesterday's high temperature was 10 Fahrenheit (approximately -12 Celcius). I went for my jog outside. Hence, I don't accept complaints from ostensibly "tough" Midwesterners who pride themselves on "surviving long, cold winters" but who nonetheless cannot stomach a little cold weather, and therefore "must" hop in their cars in order to visit the local shops. (I consider the very young and the elderly to be exceptions to this, due to their legitimate health needs, of course.)
I am not a perfect person, to be sure--I most certainly have my moments of ridiculousness. But I find increasingly that sensibility has largely gone out the window for the Average Joe and Josephine American (and it's happening at alarming rates in Europe, too), to be replaced with pseudo-conservative and pseudo-liberal stances that are each the products of cultural commodification over independent-minded, individual sensibility. That is to say, nearly everyone seems to be projecting one inauthentic, trademarked, mindless cultural/political stance or the other.
This is due, I believe, to our inability to view our affluence in historical context, and indeed to our general unwillingness to engage with history whatsoever, except in a cherry-picked manner. I humbly suggest that little, gradual alterations in our daily routines--such as actually walking and/or cycling places on a consistent basis--will help people in the developed world to gradually find our way back to a state of cultural semi-sanity, and might also help us to perhaps eventually find ways of working with one another to find solutions to our pressing problems, both at home and abroad. My suggestion is certainly anything but a cure-all for our societal ills, but it might serve as a small part of making a real start.
Or, we can all drive our cars a hundred yards to the local bar or coffee shop, and complain about "liberals" or "conservatives," and then get in our cars and go home again, frustrated at one another, and, if we're willing to admit it, at ourselves. I think the Western world is far too valuable for us to continue to behave like that.
I bring this up because we live near an indoor fitness center, which many local people use. (I exercise outside.) We also live in quite a safe neighborhood, so it seems sensible to me for local people to walk the mile or so to the fitness center and then begin the formal part of the exercise process. Yet a high percentage of our fellow locals hop in their cars, drive the tiny distance to the center, and idle for minutes as they line-up to enter the parking lot in the hopes of finding an often non-existent open parking spot. Why?
Similarly, I tend to walk or cycle to the local shops, which are located a half mile or so away and are often packed with frustrated locals who insist on driving to them, which is followed by an attempt to find an open parking spot, and inevitably results in them getting uptight and frustrated in the process. While doing this, they use up gas, which costs them money, and they don't really gain any time, either. Sure, they get to the shops quicker than I do, but by the time they've negotiated their way into an open parking space, I've caught up with them. (If I leave home at the same time as they do, I find that I also often enter the shops at the same time as they do.)
It's one thing, I suppose, if one is buying an item that requires a vehicle for transport from the store to home, or if one must travel several miles to the shops; obviously, these are good reasons to use a car or ride the bus. But it is quite another thing if someone drives almost no distance whatsoever to the shops, which is born of laziness and culturally-motivated habit, and in the process honks one's horn about a half dozen times because of the actions of "other drivers" who are trying to inhabit the same general space as everyone else. Pedestrians, on the other hand, have almost no such problems. Cyclists don't seem to have these problems, either--and they don't seem to get in the way of cars, despite the occasional grumblings from drivers (who are really upset about little more than not being able to find their "perfect parking space") suggesting that they do.
I don't want to hear any justifications based on weather, either. I live in Minnesota, where yesterday's high temperature was 10 Fahrenheit (approximately -12 Celcius). I went for my jog outside. Hence, I don't accept complaints from ostensibly "tough" Midwesterners who pride themselves on "surviving long, cold winters" but who nonetheless cannot stomach a little cold weather, and therefore "must" hop in their cars in order to visit the local shops. (I consider the very young and the elderly to be exceptions to this, due to their legitimate health needs, of course.)
I am not a perfect person, to be sure--I most certainly have my moments of ridiculousness. But I find increasingly that sensibility has largely gone out the window for the Average Joe and Josephine American (and it's happening at alarming rates in Europe, too), to be replaced with pseudo-conservative and pseudo-liberal stances that are each the products of cultural commodification over independent-minded, individual sensibility. That is to say, nearly everyone seems to be projecting one inauthentic, trademarked, mindless cultural/political stance or the other.
This is due, I believe, to our inability to view our affluence in historical context, and indeed to our general unwillingness to engage with history whatsoever, except in a cherry-picked manner. I humbly suggest that little, gradual alterations in our daily routines--such as actually walking and/or cycling places on a consistent basis--will help people in the developed world to gradually find our way back to a state of cultural semi-sanity, and might also help us to perhaps eventually find ways of working with one another to find solutions to our pressing problems, both at home and abroad. My suggestion is certainly anything but a cure-all for our societal ills, but it might serve as a small part of making a real start.
Or, we can all drive our cars a hundred yards to the local bar or coffee shop, and complain about "liberals" or "conservatives," and then get in our cars and go home again, frustrated at one another, and, if we're willing to admit it, at ourselves. I think the Western world is far too valuable for us to continue to behave like that.
Friday, January 2, 2009
Happy Birthday And Happy Anniversary
Two congratulatory messages are very much in order today. Here they are:
Happy birthday to my maternal grandfather, who turns eighty-seven years young (as they say) today. He is a World War II veteran who served in the South Pacific. After the war, he became a successful electrician. I'm very lucky to be able to say that I still have both him and my maternal grandmother around.
Happy anniversary to Mrs. Hasslington's mother and step-father, who have been married for a decade as of today. They live on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean from us, but at present, we're saving up money for a (hopefully extended) visit to England next summer. Such a future trip to our old stomping grounds is a nice thought on a cold winter day in Minnesota.
Happy birthday to my maternal grandfather, who turns eighty-seven years young (as they say) today. He is a World War II veteran who served in the South Pacific. After the war, he became a successful electrician. I'm very lucky to be able to say that I still have both him and my maternal grandmother around.
Happy anniversary to Mrs. Hasslington's mother and step-father, who have been married for a decade as of today. They live on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean from us, but at present, we're saving up money for a (hopefully extended) visit to England next summer. Such a future trip to our old stomping grounds is a nice thought on a cold winter day in Minnesota.
Thursday, January 1, 2009
Hasslington's General Mindset Guidelines For 2009
Hasslington resolves to do the following during 2009...
1.) The first order of business is, as always, to keep on keepin' on. Or, as Sir Winston Churchill put it, "K.B.O." ("Keep buggering on." It's best not to take that in an overly-literal manner, but rather as a general mindset....)
2.) Oddly, I've got a hankering to read Stephen King novels (!?!). I don't know why I want to read his books, though it may have something to do with the fact that he came to fame around the time I was born, and has therefore chronicled the "American spirit" during my lifetime. So, as Paul Simon would have it, "...who am I to blow against the wind..."?
3.) Despite what I just wrote, I resolve to keep blowing against the culturally-motivated wind when it's the right thing to do. (As Walt Whitman would have it, "Do I contradict myself? Very well, then I contradict myself.")
4.) I will do my very best to remain generally and genuinely optimistic throughout (at least most of) 2009, but hopefully not at the expense of my penchant for analytical readings as applied to a number of things, including myself.
5.) A person needs a sense of humor. Put another way, a genuine sense of humor is an absolutely essential component of a relatively successful life; that's all there is to it. I therefore hope to retain (and expand upon?) whatever semblance of a sense of humor I at present possess.
6.) I promise to try to write about more diverse topics than I did during the 2008 U.S. presidential election year, though I might annoy a few readers with my baseball obsession. I'll try to keep such posts to a minimum, whatever the word "minimum" might mean insofar as that glorious sport is concerned. Oops, there I go already....
I'm not a grand-gesture, sweeping-resolution sort of guy, so let's just call these my "General Mindset Guidelines For 2009," shall we? So, 2009, here we go....
1.) The first order of business is, as always, to keep on keepin' on. Or, as Sir Winston Churchill put it, "K.B.O." ("Keep buggering on." It's best not to take that in an overly-literal manner, but rather as a general mindset....)
2.) Oddly, I've got a hankering to read Stephen King novels (!?!). I don't know why I want to read his books, though it may have something to do with the fact that he came to fame around the time I was born, and has therefore chronicled the "American spirit" during my lifetime. So, as Paul Simon would have it, "...who am I to blow against the wind..."?
3.) Despite what I just wrote, I resolve to keep blowing against the culturally-motivated wind when it's the right thing to do. (As Walt Whitman would have it, "Do I contradict myself? Very well, then I contradict myself.")
4.) I will do my very best to remain generally and genuinely optimistic throughout (at least most of) 2009, but hopefully not at the expense of my penchant for analytical readings as applied to a number of things, including myself.
5.) A person needs a sense of humor. Put another way, a genuine sense of humor is an absolutely essential component of a relatively successful life; that's all there is to it. I therefore hope to retain (and expand upon?) whatever semblance of a sense of humor I at present possess.
6.) I promise to try to write about more diverse topics than I did during the 2008 U.S. presidential election year, though I might annoy a few readers with my baseball obsession. I'll try to keep such posts to a minimum, whatever the word "minimum" might mean insofar as that glorious sport is concerned. Oops, there I go already....
I'm not a grand-gesture, sweeping-resolution sort of guy, so let's just call these my "General Mindset Guidelines For 2009," shall we? So, 2009, here we go....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)