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
Monday, December 15, 2008
Sunday, December 14, 2008
Hasslington Reflects And Recalibrates
I apologize for not posting anything over the past week. This was primarily due to two things: 1.) my computer was a bit "on the blink" (as it were), though that has been rectified; and 2.) due to my mind being focused on something other than what I was doing, I caused a bit of a plumbing emergency a few days ago, though that too has thankfully been rectified.
Hence, this past week was odder than many, but we carry on with smiles on our faces....
Yet this past week has also afforded me the opportunity of reflecting on the direction I want to take this blog-site now that the 2008 U.S. presidential election is over, and I have come to the conclusion that I would like to try posting material more often than I have until this point. (Since I started this site last April, I've averaged about three posts per week; I'd like to raise that average to about five posts per week.) I have also come to the conclusion that, given my wish to post material more often, the posts I publish from this point forward will often (though not always) be shorter than they have tended to be up until now.
Basically, this means that I will be writing about as much per week as I've written up to this point, but the material I write will be spread-out among more posts per week.
I'm still as excited about blogging as I was the first day I started this site, and I'm equally excited about this "recalibration." So we'll see how it goes.
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.
Sunday, December 7, 2008
Relatively (If Not Completely) Arbitrary Lists, Political And Otherwise
HASSLINGTON'S EARLY OBAMA CABINET NOMINEE POLL REVEALS NO BIG STINKERS YET
The recent Hasslington poll--which asked readers, "If you had to choose, with which Obama cabinet nominee are you least satisfied?"--revealed no "big, obvious errors" on the part of President-Elect Obama insofar as his first seven cabinet nominees are concerned. Why do I say this? Well...
1.) Everyone except Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano received at least one and no more than two votes in the poll, which seems to reveal that no one has yet come across as being an obviously bad choice to a large segment of the politically-interested public (or at least amongst those politically-interested folks who read this website). Had someone come across as being "obviously weak," that person would have likely received the lion's share of the votes.
2.) I have been informed that a few voters chose nominees who they thought were over-qualified for the posts for which they have been nominated. (One person informed me, for instance, that New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson is "a bit too 'big' an international persona for the position of Commerce Secretary." I replied by saying that the position for which he is nominated may be strengthened, given the increasingly international economy of which the U.S. domestic economy is a major player and the present international economic downturn in which the U.S. domestic economy is playing a major role. But we'll have to wait and see if that position is indeed strengthened....)
3.) I left the "None Of The Above" option off the list in order to force voters to choose someone, but had I not left that option off the list, I get the sense that quite a few folks might very well have chosen it. Perhaps I'll reconsider inserting such an option into future polls....
AS SOMEONE WHO LOVES TO READ PAST HIS BEDTIME, I'VE BEEN TURNING THE FOLLOWING OVER IN MY HEAD OF LATE (I'VE YET TO DECIDE ON MY FAVORITE POSSIBLE ENDING): "EARLY TO BED, EARLY TO RISE, MAKES A PERSON HEALTHY, WEALTHY, AND...
1.) ...wise."
2.) ...boring."
3.) ...George W. Bush."
4.) ...annoyingly chipper during the early hours at work."
5.) ...inordinately sensitive to early-morning traffic noise."
6.) ...the first in line for 'the sales' at the local mall, frantically clutching the door handle while waiting for the precise moment it is unlocked by a slightly frightened security guard."
7.) ...a pensioner."
8.) ...a huge fan of 'Morning Joe' (in the U.S.) or John Humphrys (in the U.K.), or, in rare but psychologically interesting cases, both."
9.) ...a frequent visitor to coffee shops, at which he or she speaks to who he or she calls the 'folks behind the counter' for at least five minutes prior to letting the next person in line place his or her order."
10.) ...a painter and/or photographer specializing in sunrise vistas."
I'M AN OBAMA SUPPORTER, BUT IT NEVER HURTS TO AT LEAST GLANCE AT THE COMPETITION FOR 2012, EVEN AT THIS VERY EARLY STAGE. SO, WHO MIGHT PRESIDENT OBAMA'S 2012 PRESIDENTIAL OPPONENT BE?
1.) U.S. Senator John Thune (South Dakota). He's young-ish, conservative, well-spoken, and seemingly authentic. Then again, he might decide to bide his time, build his resume,' and run for president in 2016. (It will most likely depend on President Obama's popularity rating a few years from now.) One way or the other, though very few people are presently talking about him, Senator Thune is (quietly) on the rise....
2.) (A Relative Unknown). Most potential Republican presidential challengers are looking like weak competition right now, which could change, but it could also mean that someone relatively unknown might very well emerge rapidly over the next few years in order to become the party's nominee.
3.) Governor Bobby Jindal (Louisiana). He's still in his thirties, but he has intelligence, charisma, and a certain way with words. It probably also helps him that he's from a minority group (he is of Indian descent). His age might benefit him, at least after he turns forty in 2011. Yet there is a possible drawback: did I mention his age?
4.) Governor Tim Pawlenty (Minnesota). I can't believe I just put this guy (who happens to be my state's governor) in forth place, but I guess he's quietly building a following, so.... He tends to project a home-spun Midwestern persona that is too generically "home-spun" to be authentic. He'd have done well as a Vice Presidential candidate in the 1970s.
5.) Former Governor Mitt Romney (Massachusetts). He's from Massachusetts, and I guess Michigan, too. Oh, and he's got a following in Utah, and.... He's too ubiquitous (he seems to be from both everywhere and nowhere, like a tee-totaling version of Tony Blair) and fake-looking (his hair has to be unreal) to seem authetic. He also both looks like the main character from 'American Dad' and is likely to take that satirical television show seriously. But he does have a somewhat considerable conservative following....
6.) Former Governor Mike Huckabee (Arkansas). He's a clever speaker who nonetheless brings the theme music to "The Andy Griffith Show" to mind....
Others: Haley Barbour (who is ingratiating but whose 'beyond-the-back-of-beyond' accent is truly something to behold), Charlie Crist (whose often ueber-earnest expression is somehow infuriating), Jon Huntsman (who has the same sort of 'titanium guy' problem Mitt Romney has), Sarah Palin (...please, no...), Tom Ridge (a real possibility if the pro-life crowd is marginalized within the party, which is not necessarily likely to happen), etc., etc.
This is a very weak crowd at present. This may or may not remain the case over the next few years. My suggestion would be to assume that it will strengthen considerably, and prepare for that to be the case. Whether it actually does strengthen or not is obviously still an open question....
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....
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
Hasslington's "Obama Cabinet Nominee Poll #1": Let's Put On Our "Critical Caps" For A Moment
The oft-hyperventilating, Palin-loving, "Obama-Is-A-Crazy-Liberal!" sloganeering crowd has thus far been proven wrong, at least insofar as President-Elect Obama's early cabinet picks are concerned, as they have been quite politically balanced indeed. For instance, Tom Daschle, nominated for U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary, is obviously left-leaning; Hillary Clinton, nominated for U.S. Secretary of State, is in many ways a centrist on foreign policy (she's dove-ish on some issues and hawkish on others, such as Iran); and Robert Gates, re-nominated for the role of U.S. Defense Secretary, is a conservative currently serving in the Bush Administration.
Earlier today, Mr. Obama nominated Bill Richardson--who is certainly hard to peg as an ideologue, given that he is dove-ish on foreign policy yet also a tax-cutting Democrat--for the increasingly important role of U.S. Commerce Secretary. (Given Governor Richardson's impressive international credentials, he is surely a solid choice for that job in this increasingly international economy.) Other nominees, such as Janet Napolitano for U.S. Homeland Security Secretary, are impressive in their own unique ways.
Given that, I would like Hasslington readers to put on their "critical caps," as it were, and vote for the nominee with which they are least satisfied in the poll--which will be up and running for the next few days only--located above this post. (As of this moment, there are seven major cabinet nominees; others will be forthcoming in the next few weeks, and I plan to conduct a similar poll when most of them have been announced.) I hope to create a (not-too-distant) future post based on these "critical" votes.
This is an experiment, really. I hope to use it to dig a bit "deeper" into the thought process being used to form the forthcoming Obama cabinet. At any rate, let's see where this experiment leads, shall we?
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?
Saturday, November 29, 2008
Regarding...India, Pakistan, And Joe-The-Former-Candidate
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.
Monday, November 24, 2008
Regarding...(A Number Of Things)....
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.
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.
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Presidential Election Map Analysis; Also, Potential Obama Cabinet Jobs For Governors Napolitano And Richardson....
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!
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!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)