Hasslington

Hasslington On Hiatus

2009-07-07T09:21:00.003-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

2009-06-30T07:39:00.004-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

I enjoyed both activities very much.

A Good Man's Life

2009-06-15T06:00:00.002-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Today, I Have...

2009-06-12T17:46:00.008-05:00

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

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

2009-06-09T11:01:00.006-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OH, "ANJI," WE HARDLY KNEW YI!

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

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

FANTASY BASEBALL IS NOT ALWAYS FANTASTIC

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm "in the game" again.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Beneficial Sound Of A Bit More Silence

2009-06-05T15:22:00.005-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

Thankful

2009-05-31T19:37:00.004-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

2009-05-23T08:32:00.002-05:00

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

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

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

2009-05-05T06:00:00.001-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2009-04-24T00:00:00.010-05:00

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

First, here are two notes regarding what I wrote:

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

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

And now, here are the comments....

COMMENT #1

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

Terror is a tactic, not an enemy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

--Hasslington

COMMENT #2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--Hasslington

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

2009-04-19T17:00:00.007-05:00

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

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

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

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

2009-04-14T06:00:00.000-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Have You Read It In Its Entirety? Really?

2009-04-12T15:14:00.006-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

2009-04-10T06:00:00.001-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2009-04-09T12:00:00.002-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2009-04-02T13:53:00.006-05:00

FACT:

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

FACT:

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

FACT:

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

OBSERVATION:

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

OPINION:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NOTE FOR TWITTER USERS:

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

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

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

2009-03-25T11:31:00.010-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2009-03-18T13:46:00.004-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2009-03-09T14:20:00.011-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

2009-02-24T14:05:00.005-06:00

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

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

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

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

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

Until then, I wish you all the best.

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

2009-02-22T16:28:00.008-06:00

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

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

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

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

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

2009-02-16T13:36:00.006-06:00

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

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

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

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

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

Wanderlust

2009-02-12T14:26:00.008-06:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2009-02-09T20:02:00.008-06:00

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

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

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

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

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

Ten Heavenly Reasons To Daydream About Spring

2009-02-05T15:00:00.001-06:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

K.B.O. Through The Detritus Of Cyberspace

2009-02-04T14:22:00.014-06:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

President Obama's Environmental And Political Pragmatism

2009-02-02T15:06:00.005-06:00

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

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

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

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

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

Will The Boss Help Deliver A Super Bowl Upset?

2009-01-31T18:36:00.004-06:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

2009-01-29T14:27:00.005-06:00

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

DECISION #3

Policy Area: Foreign Policy/Russian Policy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2009-01-27T15:00:00.000-06:00

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.

Hasslington's Next Few Posts: Several Reasons Why President Obama's Early Decisions In Office Have Been Generally Good Ones

2009-01-26T18:01:00.012-06:00

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.

Preserving The "Inaugural Moment" For Posterity, While Simultaneously Recognizing That Close, Tough Presidential Scrutiny Must Now Begin

2009-01-21T13:45:00.012-06:00

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

Congratulations, President Obama And Vice President Biden

2009-01-20T10:30:00.006-06:00

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

Regarding The End Of The George W. Bush Era, And The Beginning Of The Barack Obama Era

2009-01-18T06:00:00.001-06:00

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.

With This Post, I May Have Jinxed The Steelers And Cardinals

2009-01-17T15:00:00.000-06:00

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.

"Miracle" On The Hudson? Okay, Fine. But More Than That, It Was A Life-Saving Vindication Of Modern "Renaissance" People

2009-01-16T14:59:00.007-06:00

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....

Hasslington's Republican To Watch Over The Next Several Years: U.S. Senator John Thune

2009-01-15T06:00:00.003-06:00

(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.

Hasslington's Democrat To Watch Over The Next Several Years: Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer

2009-01-14T06:00:00.002-06:00

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"....

A Polite Political Disagreement Between Friends

2009-01-13T06:00:00.001-06:00

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."

A Hasslington Rule Of Thumb

2009-01-12T06:00:00.001-06:00

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....

Would You Like A Free Sample Of Our Ridiculous Marketing Infusion?

2009-01-11T06:00:00.000-06:00

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....

Hasslington's Soon-To-Be-Mocked NFL Playoff Predictions

2009-01-10T06:00:00.002-06:00

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.

"Go Away For A While. You'll Always Be Welcomed Back By Those Who Matter."

2009-01-09T06:00:00.005-06:00

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."

The Clinton/Biden Foreign Policy Factor

2009-01-08T06:00:00.001-06:00

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.

Important Radio Talk-Show News Bulletin: American Morons Think British Morons Are Crazy

2009-01-07T06:00:00.003-06:00

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.

Norm Sould Run Against Arnold In Order To Achieve A Unique Political Trifecta; Also, "Inauguration Day," In More Ways Than One

2009-01-06T06:00:00.006-06:00

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.

A Somewhat Uninspiring Sunday

2009-01-05T06:00:00.005-06:00

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.

Are You Ready For Some (Really Good) Football?... Here's My Minnesota Vikings vs. Philadelphia Eagles Playoff Score Prediction

2009-01-04T10:00:00.002-06:00

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!

C'mon, Western World--Move Those Legs!

2009-01-03T12:31:00.006-06:00

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.

Happy Birthday And Happy Anniversary

2009-01-02T16:34:00.003-06:00

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.

Hasslington's General Mindset Guidelines For 2009

2009-01-01T00:00:00.002-06:00

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....

Hasslington Will Return After The First Of The Year

2008-12-26T21:42:00.003-06:00

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

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

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

My Christmas Wish

2008-12-23T13:00:00.006-06:00

by: Hasslington

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2008-12-21T19:29:00.004-06:00

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

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

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

2008-12-20T20:23:00.006-06:00

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

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

Majel Roddenberry Is Once Again With Her Husband

2008-12-19T14:25:00.005-06:00

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

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

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

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

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

2008-12-18T14:19:00.004-06:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Fading Nature Of The English Language, Volume 1

2008-12-17T14:21:00.007-06:00

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

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

PHRASE: "You are transparent."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2008-12-16T14:19:00.004-06:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regarding America's Troubled Automobile Industry...

2008-12-15T11:29:00.006-06:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

--Hasslington

Hasslington Reflects And Recalibrates

2008-12-14T20:27:00.004-06:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

2008-12-07T20:48:00.004-06:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

1.) ...wise."

2.) ...boring."

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

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

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

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

7.) ...a pensioner."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2008-12-03T22:10:00.010-06:00

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

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

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

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

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

2008-11-29T11:09:00.009-06:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2008-11-24T21:27:00.004-06:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2008-11-20T18:29:00.011-06:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We'll see.

FINALLY, CONGRATUALTIONS TO ARIZONA GOVERNOR JANET NAPOLITANO

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

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

2008-11-16T17:18:00.005-06:00

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

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

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

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

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

2008-11-13T21:21:00.005-06:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cellular Saturation

2008-11-12T22:30:00.011-06:00

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

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

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

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

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

2008-11-09T12:15:00.009-06:00

THE HASSLINGTON ENDORSEMENT PROCESS BEGINS

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

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

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

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

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

DEMOCRATS:

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

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

REPUBLICANS:

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

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

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

SO WHY SHOULD BILL RICHARDSON BE SELECTED FOR THE ROLE?

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

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

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

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

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

Busy Weekend

2008-11-08T19:37:00.004-06:00

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

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

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

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

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

Attorney General: Janet Napolitano.

America Rising

2008-11-04T23:24:00.004-06:00

Dear President-Elect Obama,

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

Sincerely,

Hasslington

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

Dear Senator McCain,

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

Sincerely,

Hasslington

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

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

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

2008-11-01T16:21:00.005-05:00

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

HASSLINGTON'S PRESIDENTIAL SWING-STATE VOTING PREDICTIONS

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

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

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

At any rate, HERE ARE MY PREDICTIONS:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

HASSLINGTON'S ELECTORAL VOTE PREDICTION

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

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

2008-10-28T21:51:00.012-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

October 27 Is A Great Day For A Birthday

2008-10-27T06:00:00.001-05:00

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

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

ALSO...

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

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

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

2008-10-25T11:57:00.013-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Playing The Presidential Election Percentages

2008-10-21T18:20:00.007-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2008-10-17T00:35:00.003-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SPEAKING OF THE BRITISH....

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

American Schoolkids Favor Obama; Hasslington's Third Presidential Debate Poll Forthcoming

2008-10-14T22:43:00.008-05:00

KIDS KNOW THE DARNDEST (PRESIDENTIAL) THINGS

The Scholastic company has been taking presidential straw polls of American schoolkids several weeks prior to U.S. presidential elections for many decades now. Now, before you start giggling, consider this fact: American kids have voted for the eventual presidential election winner thirteen of the fifteen times Scholastic has polled them. That's about an 87% accuracy rating through the 2004 election.

One exception to this accuracy rule was during the first Scholastic schoolkids poll in 1948, but that year just about everyone (including the media "experts") thought Thomas Dewey would beat the then-unpopular incumbent President Harry Truman...until President Truman pulled off an unexpected upset victory. The only other exception was in 1960, when the kids leaned toward Richard Nixon, whereas John F. Kennedy managed to win a close victory, but let's remember that the kids' votes were tabulated prior to the televised presidential debate that President Kennedy later suggested largely won him the election.

So, bearing in mind that the percentages of "victory" in these Scholastic polls have not proven to be nearly as accurate as the ability of the kids to predict the eventual winner, here are the nationwide results of this year's poll:

Barack Obama: 57%
John McCain: 39%
Others: 4%

I very much doubt that Senator Obama will win this election by a whopping 18% nationally, so we can probably throw the specific numbers out the window. The fact of the matter, however, is that these polls have proven eerily accurate in predicting the eventual winner, particularly over the last forty-plus years. (Kids often perceive things far more clearly than we adults realize....)

Still, we are constantly being told that this year is "different." In many ways, it is. (And let's remember that there are still three potential "game-changing" weeks left to go....) So we'll just have to wait and see if the kids have gotten it right yet again. That being said, if I were one of the presidential candidates, I'd much rather win the Scholastic poll than lose it.

HASSLINGTON'S THIRD PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE POLL IS ON ITS WAY...

I watched the entirety of the first and second presidential debates, as well as the entirety of the vice presidential debate, but due to other obligations I may or may not be able to watch all of the third presidential debate, at least not live. So I will provide another Hasslington poll on this blog-site, in the hopes that my readership can indicate who "won" (however one chooses to measure a debate "win") and by how much. It will be posted soon after the third presidential debate ends.

For what it's worth, here are the possible answers in the forthcoming poll: "Big Win For John McCain"; "Moderate Win For John McCain"; "Tie (Draw)"; "Moderate Win For Barack Obama"; "Big Win For Barack Obama."

As always, feel free to let me know why you voted the way you did....

Bits And Bobs, Volume II: Second Presidential Debate Poll Results; Duluth, Ya' Know; A Nickname That Fails To Inspire Confidence; Polish Coal; Etc.

2008-10-13T15:13:00.019-05:00

HASSLINGTON'S SECOND PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE POLL RESULTS

Though I am a supporter of Senator Obama's presidential candidacy, I know for a fact that several supporters of Senator McCain's candidacy read the Hasslington blog-site on a fairly regular basis. (I know this because they refer to recent things I've written when I converse with them, often without being prompted to do so.) It is therefore the case that I was a bit surprised when every single person who took part in "Hasslington's Second Presidential Debate Poll" decided that Senator Obama won the debate.

Now, obviously this blog-site is bound to attract more Obama supporters than McCain supporters, so that might account for the Obama victory in the poll, but that alone doesn't account for the overwhelming nature of the victory. Another big factor was probably Senator Obama's calm and steady performance during the debate, which probably struck people as impressive next to Senator McCain's various attempts to paint Senator Obama with a "too liberal" brush, most of which fizzled-out, often leaving Senator McCain with a slightly frustrated look on his face. Still another reason might be the fact that Senator Obama, leading in the national polls heading into the debate, did nothing to hurt his candidacy, though he landed no real knock-out punches, either. And, of course, a few of Senator McCain's supporters might simply have decided that their candidate had an "off" night (he can ill afford many more of those), whereas Senator Obama did better by comparison.

Whatever the reason, the results were overwhelming. I wonder what the results of the third presidential debate (and the accompanying Hasslington poll, which will appear following the debate) will be?...

HASSLINGTON'S WEEKEND: "YA' KNOW, LET'S GO UP NORT' TO DULUT'..."

Mrs. Hasslington and I spent the weekend at a friend's house in Duluth, Minnesota (population just under 100,000), which is located at the mouth of Lake Superior, about 150 miles north of our abode in the Twin Cities of Minneapolis/Saint Paul. Because of its unique location, Duluth is in many respects the westernmost Atlantic Ocean port in North America, despite the fact that it is near the middle of the North American continent. (Ships enter at the Saint Lawrence Seaway in Canada and make their way through the Great Lakes prior to ending their journey in Duluth.)

Duluth--whose oldest residents seem to insist on pronouncing "Dulut'," though no one else who lives there calls it that--was a sadly dilapidated, rather ugly city when I visited in the mid-1980s. At that time, it was a one-trick pony, economically speaking, as it was a mining (taconite and the like) and shipping town. When the mines became economically untenable, much of the city's population fled, leaving behind what seemed to me to be a post-apocalyptic landscape. Yet since the early 1990s, Duluth has slowly but surely diversified economically (and it doesn't hurt that it is still a shipping town, as well as the fact that some mining business has rebounded slightly), and the city has improved in many ways. For instance, its population is once again on the rise, and it is also far easier on the eyes now than it was twenty or twenty-five years ago.

Among other reasons, when I live in Minnesota, I try to visit the city once a year or so in order to monitor its progress (obviously, when I'm abroad for extended periods of time, this does not occur), though I don't go there during their ridiculous winters anymore. At present, it seems to be doing okay, though the national economic downturn has adversely affected Duluth's economy the way it has similarly affected most towns and cities. So we'll see how things go insofar as Duluth's future economic diversification is concerned....

By the way, if you happen to find yourself in Duluth, you might want to check-out Sir Benedict's English bar, which is located in an old, converted brick gas station near the lakeshore. As one might suspect, it's just as "Upper Midwest" in decor and feel as it is "English," but in its own, uniquely messy, hodge-podge way, the combination works. (Mrs. Hasslington, a British expatriate, agrees.) Sir Benedict's is often called "Sir Ben's." Knowing this in a general but obviously not specific sense, I informed our taxi driver that we would like to go to "Gentle Ben's," which elicited a huge belly-laugh from both the taxi driver and the other passengers.

In my defense, there are a lot of bears in northern Minnesota. So I would think mine was a fairly natural mistake....

SURELY TWO HARBORS CAN COME UP WITH A BETTER NICKNAME THAN THAT....

Two Harbors is a small shipping town located just twenty or twenty-five miles up the Lake Superior coast from Duluth, and we decided to spend part of this past Saturday there. The road through the town looks like a strip-mall infused nightmare, but the actual heart of the town is gorgeous, filled with small, surprisingly elaborate-looking, well-cared-for houses and little corner shops. During a visit to the lakeshore, which features a beautiful red lighthouse, our enjoyment of the scenery was temporarily put on hold (shall we say?) due to the fact that someone who lived nearby announced to us in a rather unsolicited manner, "Sometimes we call this town Two Bar Whores."

Now, as I said, the main road that runs through the town looks like a sad statement on Corporate America's idea of paradise, but, given the look of the majority of the town (and the friendliness of its people), that gentleman seemed to be selling Two Harbors somewhat short. One way or the other, were I a local resident, I don't think I'd be apt to vote him onto the town's chamber of commerce....

"MIXED-TAPE REVIEW": IT'S GOOD, SO PLEASE WRITE POSTS MORE OFTEN

This past spring, a friend of mine started a blog, which he calls "Mixed-Tape Review" (and which is located at http://www.mixedtapereview.blogspot.com/). It deals with various topics, from politics to movies (the Godfather films; Alfred Hitchcock; etc) to sociology, and I find it interesting. The author is a busy guy, but I am writing this in the hopes that he soon begins to write posts more often than he does at present. So let's see if this works--at any rate, it can't hurt....

REMEMBER WHEN SHOWS MARKETED TOWARD CHILDREN PROVIDED MORE THOUGHT-PROVOKING QUOTATIONS THAN TODAY'S ADULT-ORIENTED SHOWS OFFER?

When I was growing up, I loved the British science-fiction television show "Doctor Who," which was initially marketed for children. (It ran on the local PBS station.) This surely puts me in the "hopelessly nerdy" category, particularly since I still feel affection for the old program, which ran from 1963 to 1989. (And I still occasionally watch the new version, which began in 2005.) In fact, though I love reading speeches delivered by the likes of Abraham Lincoln and Winston Churchill, etc., one of my favorite quotations is from an early episode of Doctor Who, way back when William Hartnell played the role of the time-traveling Doctor. (Obviously, other favorite quotes of mine come from the likes of Lincoln, Churchill, and so forth....)

At the end of one episode, recognizing that people are inherently selfish (or at least self-centered) before they're generous, The Doctor left a particular group of people by making sure to both acknowledge his own self-interested nature and show how it can be used in a generous manner, in the hopes that they do likewise. As best I can remember it, he said the following:

"Some day, I shall be back. Yes, I shall be back. Until then, there must be no undue fears or anxieties. Just move forward in all your beliefs, which will prove to me that I am not mistaken in mine."

Linking generosity (which we see in his plea for them to "...move forward in all your beliefs...") with a certain pragmatic self-interest ("...which will prove to me that I am not mistaken in mine...") is the sort of somewhat symbiotic, very proactive acknowledgment I'd like to hear from our political leaders a bit more often.

ENERGY AND EASTERN EUROPE: AN AMERICAN OPPORTUNITY

Psst: Like a lot of Eastern European countries, Poland is frightened by the burgeoning power of Russia, particularly (but not exclusively) as it is applied to the European energy market. With European Union restrictions on carbon emissions in place, Poland's large quantities of coal cannot at present be utilized to provide as much energy as the country would like. Hence, Russian natural gas lines might find themselves in Poland in increasing numbers.

This is where American technology can come into play. Carbon sequestration, which removes a lot of the carbon from coal as it is transformed into energy (and is therefore a far cleaner way of using coal-powered energy), and which is presently being developed in the U.S. and elsewhere, can be applied to ease Poland's energy crunch and avert the Kremlin from setting down further roots in Poland, which I need not remind folks is an American ally in Eastern Europe.

This is a real opportunity to apply American techology to a part of the world that is feeling economic and cultural heat from Russia, and it would grow jobs in both the United States and Europe if a major energy partnership were to take place in such countries as Poland (amongst others in the region). At present, the U.S. is working on providing interceptor missiles and accompanying radars for the region. Why not also work on providing mutually-beneficial energy technologies, which would mean a ramping-up of research, and therefore an increase in jobs, here in the U.S.? Surely the Kremlin would find it harder to suggest that U.S. clean-coal technologies are a "threat" to Russia than they do at present regarding U.S. missiles, right? Oh, they'd try to find a way to make it seem "insidious," but I doubt they'd sound convincing to many presently-wary Eastern Europeans....

Mavericks For Obama

2008-10-09T12:34:00.006-05:00

According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, a "maverick" is an "unbranded range animal," so named because a certain Samuel A. Maverick was a nineteenth century American pioneer "who did not brand his calves." (Apparently, this garnered him considerable attention, at least in the eyes of American frontier history.) The second definition provided by the dictionary shows how the word's modern meaning has altered and simplified from the first definition: "nonconformist."

Okay, so there we have it--"maverick" now means "nonconformist." I had to look it up because it's been used as political leverage so incessantly often by the McCain/Palin campaign that its meaning has become so diffuse as to be rendered meaningless. (The only interesting thing about the word at present is how Governor Palin pronounces it. When she uses the term in her speeches--which happens so often that if I didn't know better I would tend to think she is trying to make the term into a stodgy parody of itself--she seems to be saying "MAAAHV-rack." I'm not making fun of her pronounciation, but rather fascinated by it.)

About a decade ago, a local Twin Cities school district tried to raise tax funds for a new high school building (the original one was overcrowded and creaking because of it), and they promoted the effort with the term "Levy For Learning." It's a cute slogan but it failed the first time voters went to the polls because its spokespeople made the odd decision to use it in what seemed to be over fifty percent of their alarmingly generic sentences when the issue was debated throughout the district. For instance, a pro-funds spokesperson would typically say, "This is a levy for learning. I want folks to understand that. When we talk about raising tax dollars, we're talking about creating a levy for learning, which is a levy that promotes learning...." Hence, the term lost any semblance of actual specific meaning in a manner directly related to its acquiring rapidly parody status.

That's what seems to have long since happened to the term "maverick" as applied to Senator John McCain. It simply lacks any concrete meaning anymore. In fact, it's so worn out by now that nearly every single context in which it has been used of late--whether or not it is used in a serious manner--strikes me as farcical in nature. (You know the word "maverick" has been oversaturated when one finds oneself reacting the same way to the term when Tiny Fey uses it to skewer Governor Palin and, by extention, Senator McCain on "Saturday Night Live" as when Governor Palin uses it on the campaign trail.)

And it's not difficult to see how we got here. After all, when Senator McCain occasionally argues against his party's platform(s) he's described by his campaign as a "maverick." Conversely, when he wishes to double-down on the Bush tax strategies (which have been supported broadly by his party's more conservative politicians) he's described by his campaign as a "maverick." When he tries to attach such simplistic and misleading words as "surrender" to those who disagree with his future Iraq policies he's described by his campaign as a "maverick." When he chose a female running mate (for whom I feel sorry in the sense that it is her role at present to work the word "maverick" into at least half of the sentences she uses to describe Senator McCain) he was described by his campaign as a "maverick." From when he sounds like a staunch foreign policy conservative, using words like "naieve" to describe Senator Obama, to when he says that "change is coming" to the (presently conservative) office of the presidency, he is described by his campaign as a "maverick."

At present, it doesn't look as though the McCain campaign's use of the term "maverick" will evaporate (or even ease up a bit) until after November 4. That being the case, I have decided to take the following mindset regarding this term: if you can't beat 'em, join 'em...or, rather, if you can't beat 'em, use their own term against 'em. To that end, I have decided that I will create my own "Mavericks For Obama" sign and display it in my window in the two or so weeks prior to the election. I'm serious about this.

After all, Senator Obama was a nonconformist in the sense that he applied his Ivy League education towards helping folks in struggling Chicago neighborhoods in a number of proactive manners, whereas many people in his position would have tried to use such an educational background to acquire far more lucrative careers. He was also a nonconformist in that he argued against the ill-conceived but (at the time) somewhat popular invasion of Iraq, suggesting that the real central front in the war against terror was and remains the Afghanistan/Pakistan border region; in retrospect, he has been proven largely correct about these issues. Furthermore, Senator Obama is a nonconformist, at least in comparison to the viewpoints espoused by President Bush and Senator McCain, in that he is willing to speak to our adversaries and listen to what they have to say in order to work out certain points of contention. (Let's remember that he does not suggest that we will always or even often agree with our adversaries, and that a lot of these discussions will focus on "tough talk" and not feel-good happy thoughts.) And he has run his campaign in a nonconformist manner in the sense that he has refrained from criticizing Senator McCain's apparently knee-jerk choice of Governor Palin to be his running mate (and Senator Obama's own running mate has largely followed his lead on this issue), preferring to focus on policy issues rather than getting into a nasty debate about her qualifications. My goodness, this might even suggest that Senator Obama trusts the American people to decide whether or not Governor Palin is qualified for the vice presidency, which, as far as presidential election strategies are concerned, is a mighty maverick move indeed.

There you have it. I am and will remain annoyed with the overuse of the term "maverick" from now until election day, but I realize that it isn't going away anytime soon. So I have decided to use it to support my candidate of choice. If this election hinges on the votes of those who consider themselves mavericks (or hockey moms, or any other diverse group of voters), I for one think that the Obama/Biden ticket will win. We'll see.

Hasslington's Second Presidential Debate Poll

2008-10-08T12:01:00.005-05:00

I was going to write a rather substantive post regarding last night's (second) presidential debate, but I have decided to refrain from doing that in order to allow my readership to decide who won. Hence, I invite anyone who is interested to vote in the new Hasslington poll, which is located above this post.

That being said, I can't help but say a few words about the debate. So, here goes....

As far as my personal take on the debate is concerned, I thought that Senator Obama won the first half (which centered on domestic policy, for the most part), and I thought that the second half (which centered on foreign policy) was a tie...or a draw, or however you wish to phrase it. So, on balance, I felt that it was a "win" for Senator Obama, but not a resounding win. Put another way, using my already well-worn baseball metaphor, we're now through six innings, and Senator Obama is winning 2-0. But as all baseball fans know, though you'd rather be leading 2-0 after six innings than trailing 2-0, it's what you do with the final three innings that matters most.

In The Online World, Achieving Long-Term Consistency Of One's "Personal Persona" Is Often Quite A Challenge

2008-10-07T14:37:00.007-05:00

While eating lunch in a coffee shop today, I overheard an interesting conversation, conducted by two gentlemen who I would guess were both in their mid-twenties. It appears that one of them maintains a blog and also comments frequently on other blog-sites. The other gentleman took this individual to task for "...writing one thing on your blog and another thing on other blog-sites...."

I found this fascinating for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that it got me thinking about the possible disparity between the persona I project on my own blog-site and the persona I project when I comment on other blog-sites. (I guess this convesation got me thinking that being two or more different "internet personas" at once would be a relatively easy and tempting thing to do....)

I wish I could have listened to the rest of their conversation (because where does such a conversation go from there, any way?), but it was soon the case that I had to leave. Still, I thought I'd provide my readership with a taste of the type(s) of comments I write on the two sites I most frequently visit, which are those written by my friends Anoka Flash (http://www.centrisity.blogspot.com/) and Penigma (http://www.penigma.blogspot.com/). To be sure, I don't comment on these sites every day, but I did happen to post a comment on both of them today.

At present, I'm in the odd position of evaluating what I wrote on these sites and measuring it against what I've written on my site...and coming to the conclusion that my persona doesn't seem to have shifted much, at least as far as today's comments are concerned. This is to say that I find myself in the odd and uncomfortable position of self-congratulation, at least on that score. Yet the point of this is most likely not to show consistency over the course of a single day, but rather over a lengthy period of time. So this is what I resolve to do: I will try to maintain the same personality and basic set of viewpoints from here onward (as I hope I have done at least fairly consistently up to this point), whether writing on my own blog-site or elsewhere. And, at the risk of sounding a bit omnipotent (which I am certainly not) and "teacherly" (a personal aspect which I probably display too often), I hope to encourage others to do likewise.

At any rate, the following are the comments I posted earlier today on my friends' blog-sites, starting with my comment on Penigma's site and followed by my comment on Anoka Flash's site. I suppose you can use these comments any way you wish to use them; I will try to use them as evidence that I am at present at least somewhat consistent insofar as my on-line personality is concerned. (As always, my readership may or may not agree with me.)

(Note: I have edited both comments, but only very slightly, so that one or two awkward turns of phrase have been made more easily readable.)

1.) Posted on "Penigma":

Hasslington said...

I don't mind Senator Obama's tax cut scenario because, in the short run, at least his proposed cuts would help folks who need it to offset higher energy and food costs. Folks who can handle a slight rise in their taxes (i.e. those who make $250,000+ per year) will help to create room for those tax cuts without the budget deficit exploding yet further due to this plan.

But your basic premise [that tax cuts are not the solution to the present economic troubles] is pretty spot-on, Penigma. For one, given the credit crisis, the deficit is going to rise one way or the other for a while, as federal and state tax revenues recede. Also, we [in the U.S.] have yet to work at a national level to solve the energy and health care crises, which will only get worse before they get better, and which will only put us into a more intense form of economic dire straits as they continue to become more and more untenable.

I am not suggesting that some sort of overarching, Soviet-style "Five Year Plan" is in order. That would prove disasterous. But I am suggesting that we start taking the long-view at the local, state, and national levels, and stop stumbling about like babes in the woods. Let's come up with a few strategies and then work to make them workable, which means they need to be flexible and lean enough to work but not too insubstantial, and they need to utilize the best components of both government leverage and the free market.

2.) Posted on "Centrisity":

Posted by: Hasslington

I'll be honest: I often feel frustrated, because I came back to the U.S. about a year ago, as the economy started to become rickety (though I was surprised that no one seemed to notice until after the winter began).

I'm a teacher, and because of my experience and various academic degrees, I've spent the summer interviewing and being passed over for full-time teaching jobs in favor of folks fresh-out of college with little experience (i.e., they are cheaper to hire). So, I've been working part-time jobs.

We all need to take a deep breath and try to find in this type of situation whatever bright side we can. I, for one, am thankful for the work I have been able to find, and this experience has also reminded me the value of what I needed to practice when I lived in the U.K. (where I had a solid, full-time job but the cost of living is quite high compared with Minnesota): frugality.

I am not a fan of recessions, but I am also not a fan of dumb, zombie-like ueber-consumerism, which I consider a sort of insidious, mass mental illness. The former is depressing, and the latter inevitably leads to boom-and-bust scenarios.

At present, the whole Western world is receiving a wake-up call, and hopefully two things will happen: 1.) we will get a sense of perspective, which is often clouded by our mass affluence; and 2.) we will eventually pull out of these difficult economic times and be smarter about avoiding boom-and-bust silliness in the future, prefering slower yet steadier means of economic growth as the way toward worldwide stability.

Bits And Bobs, Volume I: "Webb" Of Thought; Trademarked Individuality; SNL Shows Signs Of Life; Anyone Else Notice How Yogi Berra Has Taken Over?

2008-10-05T19:57:00.013-05:00

JUSTIN WEBB KNOWS AMERICA

Justin Webb is British, and he happens to be a BBC correspondent who lives and works in the United States. As far as I'm concerned, he's the most consistently accurate British news analyst insofar as reading accurately American culture (by which I mean temperament, sociological trends, and the like) is concerned. Millions of Britons watch his segments on the BBC evening news, and many folks also read his occasional columns in the Times (of London) and listen to him on BBC Radio (usually, but not exclusively, BBC Radio 4).

I admit that my country has a problem when it comes to understanding much of the rest of the world; American culture is still so ubiquitous that our collective sophistication regarding this international world is often a bit embarrrassing. That being said, many Britons (as well as folks from many other countries, not all of them European) often display a sort of knee-jerk anti-Americanism--if not specifically, then in sentiment--due to a similar sort of culturally-derived set of motivations. With Americans, this phenominon often manifests itself as mass ignorance of the importance of understanding other cultures, whereas with many folks from other countries, it comes across as misreadings on American culture due to knowing enough to make generalized statements (some true, many not) but not really knowing much about American culture beyond that.

I think that Justin Webb truly knows America--he knows its meta-tendencies, but more than that he understands its micro-movements and its idiosyncrasies (at almost all levels) in a manner that only an American expatriate or a foreigner committed to living on a long-term basis in the United States can truly grasp. His columns, with which I usually if not always agree, are first-rate, as is his reporting. But until recently I didn't know that he also has a more informal blog-site...though, since everyone seems to have a blog-site these days (which I consider no bad thing), I should have guessed that he had one.

Anyway, I stumbled upon his site the other day, and it quickly struck me that he viewed the Biden-Palin debate the way a lot of Americans viewed it, though the language he used to articulate his points was sometimes understandably different from what native-born Americans would use. At any rate, what follows are a few of his (again, rather informal) observations, apparently written down while the debate was in progress, and edited slightly by me in order to provide context:

--"[Palin] has [thus far] made no mistakes except that she doesn't appear to know much about anything."

--"Joe, there is such a thing as too much detail [in a national debate setting]."

--"Joe Biden is just sounding a little full of Joe Biden now. This is the danger for him."

--"What is your Achilles heel? Palin says she does not have one... oh, dear."

--"[Biden] avoided some of the big pitfalls--sexism and bloviating--and scored some big hits. [Palin] came over as slightly more amiable...than she has in the past. [But] although she can memorize things, she plainly does not know them. Does this matter?"

If you are interested in reading more of his comments about this topic (or any other about which he's blogged), the address to Mr. Webb's site is: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb

I'M GOING TO SHOW HOW SOPHISTICATED I AM BY BEING AN INDIVIDUAL THE EXACT SAME WAY EVERY ONE ELSE IS BEING AN INDIVIDUAL...

The following is a sliver of the human behaviorioral pie I've been pondering for quite some time now: it seems to me to be the case that those who feel the need to project consistently an air of "reading the cultural text against itself" are actually using their projection as a mechanism shielding the fact that they are most likely incredibly insular one-trick ponies whose interior worlds would (and do) explode if (and when) they encounter real cultural sophistication. This type of scenario tends to frighten them back into their wolf-pack-esque faux "erudite" friendship groups.

Here's a follow-up observation: it seems to me that those who actually do read the cultural text against itself on a consistent basis have no hang-ups about personal style and little or no psychological need to project a false sense of worldliness. They tend to dress how they want to dress (and not in a recognizably "rebellious" and/or "new-wave hip" and/or "retro hip" and/or "bourgeois sophisticated" manner), listen to music that has stood the critical test of time (from whichever school of music they choose), and go about their lives in a manner that does not ingratiate them to those who feel a need to project trademarked pseudo-intelligence (see the above observation for a further definition of this pseudo-intelligent group). They also tend to be as or more comfortable alone as they are in their loosely-knit friendship groups. They are not conventional, but they are also not self-consciously "unconventional"; they simply are who they are, which, in this era of trademarked-everything (including trademarked "alternative thought") is perhaps the most unconventional way to be. They are opinionated, but they do not display their opinions in a manner that can be pigeonholed into any one particular societal group by anyone willing to analyze closely what they have to say.

GETTING SCHOOLED, BIDEN STYLE...

Sometimes "Saturday Night Live" is pretty dead, at least as far as laughs are concerned, but this past weekend the show generated a lot of genuine belly laughs with its consistently spot-on reading of the Biden vs. Palin debate. If you missed it, the sketch can be found at the following address: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ROt3qC8TRVc

MOST BASEBALL FANS ARE YOGI BERRAS, AT LEAST FROM TIME TO TIME

The following statement, spoken as a toast by someone who I believe is actually quite intelligent, was overheard (by me) at a local watering hole moments after the Minnesota Twins completed a season-ending loss to the Chicago White Sox:

"Well, all you can do is all you can do."

I found myself thinking reflectively in similarly odd manners. Baseball just has a way of doing that to you, I guess. At any rate, one thing seems clear: Yogi Berra is still with us, but even when he passes on, he'll...uh...still be with us.

(For context, check out the "Yogi-isms" section of following web-site: http://www.yogiberra.com/)

Vice Presidential Debate Analysis: What Would John Adams and Thomas Jefferson Say? Oh, Let's Just Let That One Go....

2008-10-02T21:38:00.006-05:00

I am in my thirties, folks, which means that I am still rather young (to some people, at least). Yet, given my reaction to tonight's Vice Presidential debate versus what many pundits and American citizens are saying presently, I am obviously way, way out of step with about half of my country.

Frankly, tonight I found Governor Palin to be very likeable and quite good at making general emotional appeals, but horrendously unprepared to be the Vice President of the United States in the twenty-first century. (Say what you will, but she is no Hillary Clinton.) Governor Palin's generic, trademarked, homespun folksy attitude was trotted-out maddenly often; a little bit of that is fine and endearing, whereas a lot of that sort of thing is almost always used to compensate for a lack of something else. In this case, I think Governor Palin's "darn-it" interjections and the like were often used to muddle the fact that she simply has at present very little insofar as a detailed understanding of both foreign policy and the nuances of domestic policy are concerned.

I don't dislike Governor Palin. I simply find it both alarming and astonishing (as well as embarrassing) that in the twenty-first century we are not demanding presidential and vice presidential candidates who understand the nuances of the international world. That would seem to me to be a requirement of paramount importance. Though I disagree with him, I do believe that Senator McCain is qualified to be our nation's chief executive. Obviously, I feel the same about Barack Obama and Joe Biden. Sarah Palin is simply not in that league, which to me disqualifies her for the vice presidency.

Many of those who are knee-jerk and emotionally-driven (and, oh my, are there ever a lot of them) will call me "misogynistic" (even though Joe Biden has been a foremost advocate for women's rights for decades) and/or "elitist" (even though Joe Biden's background is very blue collar and Barack Obama did not grow up privileged, whereas John McCain is from a long-standing military dynasty). I can do nothing about such overly-simplistic charges; as we get older, we understand more and more that such is the way of life.

I am certainly not without my faults. For evidence of this, simply shift your eyes to the left column of this blog-site in order to see who I mistakenly endorsed to be Senator McCain's running mate this past July--that was a big, big error. So I am not trying to thunder like a know-it-all critical Zeus. But, my goodness, folks, the United States of America is 232 years old, which means that we should now be able to at least understand the necessity of having national leaders who have traveled the world extensively and who are exceptional thinkers. (And, as someone who certainly did not grow up with millions of dollars at hand but who has traveled outside of the United States quite often, the stupid suggestion that such a demand is "elitist" is just that--stupid.)

I don't really know what to say beyond that, except that this situation is a crazy sort of "Catch-22" in that any substantive criticism of Governor Palin will be labeled "overly-professorial" (which really means "not simplistic enough") or "anti-women" (I hardly know where to begin with that one). So I'll leave you with what I consider to be one of the most telling differences of the evening: Governor Palin chastised Senator Biden for what she saw as his constant referencing of the past (she called it "looking backward," and I don't think she was talking about the book by Edward Bellamy), whereas Senator Biden said in response, amongst other things, that "the past is prologue."

The past IS prologue. You don't really know where you are unless you know how you got there, and you can't plot properly a long-term trajectory without knowing well the road you've already traveled. That's the truth. It was the truth for Socrates and Plato, it's the truth today, and it will be the truth for centuries to come.

Yeah, yeah, I know: a lot of people would suggest that referencing Socrates and Plato is "elitism." Oh, dear....

Baseball Interlude...or...The Many Merits Of The Minnesota Twins

2008-10-01T14:22:00.006-05:00

Mrs. Hasslington and I walked to a local watering hole last evening in order to watch the Minnesota Twins compete in a one-off "play-in" game against the Chicago White Sox at U.S. Cellular Field in Chicago. This past Sunday was the official end of the "regular" baseball season, but the Twins and White Sox wound up tied for the American League Central Division title at 88 wins and 74 losses apiece. Hence, they had to play an extra game in order to see who would advance to the playoffs (eight of the thirty Major League Baseball teams make the playoffs each year), which begin today and tomorrow and continue until the end of the World Series a month from now.

I have no idea why a coin-flip was used to determine the site of the "play-in" game, given that the Twins beat the White Sox more times than the White Sox beat the Twins this year--the Twins were "rewarded" for this not insubstantial accomplishment by having to travel to Chicago in order to play this critical game in front of a hostile crowd. (Ominously--if also appropriately, given their team's colors--the vast majority of the crowd were wearing black clothing; whole sections of the stands were so uniformly black that they seemed to melt into total shadow, which made the stadium look like a real-world manifestation of Lord Voldemort's dream universe.) But a coin flip was the determining factor, so the Twins dutifully entered the lion's den.

They played quite well, given that Chicago's John Danks pitched the game of his career (so far). Danks didn't allow a single run to cross home plate (with some help from Ken Griffey, Jr. and A.J. Pierzynski, who combined for a nifty throw-and-tag-out of the Twins' Michael Cuddyer at home plate). In fact, Danks hardly allowed any Twins hitters to even reach base. So it was up to Minnesota's Nick Blackburn to match Danks, which he very nearly did, allowing only one run on a Jim Thome home run that was hit so far it nearly landed in Indiana. The final score was Chicago 1, Minnesota 0. The Chicago White Sox don't play baseball as fundamentally well as do the Twins (hardly anyone does), but, like most teams, they have a lot more power at the plate than do the Twins, and last night that power made the difference.

Baseball can be a silly and simultaneously heartbreaking sport--I tend to consider both of those good qualities--and this season was a case in point. Prior to the start of the season, the Twins were expected to be pretty terrible, given their youth and inexperience, and yet they displayed a maturity beyond their years, which translated into a very strong--if sometimes understandably uneven--season. They and the White Sox played the usual 162 games apiece, yet the two teams failed to outdistance each other the way they outdistanced the other teams in their division. Thus, for the eighth time in baseball history, a "play-in" game needed to take place. And exactly one awful pitch from Nick Blackburn to Jim Thome, which Thome hit into the stratosphere, made the difference between the playoff-bound team and the team for whom the season is now over. One pitch and one swing in a 163 game season separated the two very evenly-matched teams. (And some people wonder why baseball fans are so superstitious.... For my part, I had a pint of Fat Tire during the game; Fat Tire is a Colorado beer, and I drank it because the last team to win a "play-in" game was the Colorado Rockies. It didn't work...this time.)

According to Alfred, Lord Tennyson (channeling an aged Ulysses), "Though much is taken, much abides." That statement is very true when applied to the Twins. Though they lost yesterday and are at present very disappointed, Joe Mauer (who, like me, grew up in Saint Paul, Minnesota) yesterday became the first catcher in Major League Baseball history to win two batting titles, the other coming in 2006. Given the fact that catchers go through far more physical strain than players at any other position, this is an extraordinary feat for the still very young Twin. His teammate Justin Morneau, the slugging Canadian, drove in (far) more than 100 runs for the third consecutive season, becoming only the second Twin to accomplish that feat (the other being Harmon Killebrew, many years ago), and he still has an outside chance at winning the Most Valuable Player award (which he also won in 2006), though I now think that Boston's Dustin Pedroia will edge him out in MVP voting. And the youngsters--the entire starting pitching staff, as well as Alexi Casilla, Denard Span, Delmon Young, and a few others--matured at eye-poppingly speedy rates as the season moved on. Much abides, indeed.

I'm often asked why I'm obsessed with baseball and not with any other sport (my second favorite sport is ice hockey, by the way), and the only thing I can say in response is that for me baseball encapsulates much of what is right with America and very little of what is wrong with America. For instance, far more often than not, to win a baseball game, a team must be cohesive, innovative, confident, smart, and, just as importantly, head-scratchingly quirky. A winning team also needs to be very consistent without ever being overly-predictable, which is a difficult tightrope to walk over the length of a full season, particularly after you've played each of your division rivals fifteen-plus times and have to somehow find a way to beat them a few more times. Finally, a winning team must realize that baseball is often very much a game of chess, and therefore demands precision planning and technical analysis, but, somewhat conversely, poleaxing over-thinking is deadly and should be avoided at all costs. And, yes, a little hokey superstition, at both the individual and team levels, is often helpful, as weird as that sounds.

It's my belief that if more Americans listed baseball as their favorite sport (it is, after all, the official national past-time)--and if they actually believed it to be their favorite sport--the United States would be better off for it. At any rate, I for one feel better off for watching Twins games (when I lived in England, I used to stream them off of the internet, much to the puzzlement of my British friends). It's a pleasure to support a team who, regardless of whether they win or lose, play the game the way it was meant to be played. I'm afraid the same cannot be said for all Major League teams these days.

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

2008-09-29T14:18:00.006-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2008-09-26T15:38:00.002-05:00

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

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

HASSLINGTON'S DEBATE QUESTIONS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2008-09-24T21:12:00.011-05:00

THINGS ABOUT WHICH HASSLINGTON IS CERTAIN...

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

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

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

THINGS ABOUT WHICH HASSLINGTON IS FAIRLY CERTAIN...

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

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

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

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

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

POSSIBLE GAME-CHANGERS...

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

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

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

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

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

2008-09-22T17:14:00.007-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Corporate Bailouts And Common Sense Sustainability

2008-09-19T15:26:00.007-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2008-09-18T11:12:00.012-05:00

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

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

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

From The Times (of London)
September 18, 2008

"Greening the Dream that Drives America"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Back to Hasslington's comments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

2008-09-15T12:30:00.016-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2008-09-12T12:43:00.015-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

Snippet One:

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

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

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

Snippet Two:

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

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

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

Snippet Three:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PRIMARY DAY YIELDS A CORNUCOPIA OF FUN NAMES

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

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

Here they are, in no particular order:

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

And here's my personal favorite:

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