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?
Thursday, December 18, 2008
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
The Fading Nature Of The English Language, Volume 1
The world is always changing. Sometimes things change for the better, and sometimes they change for the worse. I therefore acknowledge (and appreciate) that some things are changing for the better.
Yet the way we in the Western World use the English language is unquestionably changing for the worse. Here is one example....
PHRASE: "You are transparent."
OLDER DEFINITION (up to about a decade ago): You are attempting to hide some bit of information from me, but you're not doing a good job of it. It's as though you have whatever you are hiding in one of your hands, and that hand is behind your back as you face me. Yet because you're like a transparent object, I can see right through you to whatever you are hiding. You clearly need to work on concealment strategies.
ANALYSIS: I find this use of the term multi-layered and interesting. The metaphor hangs together well.
NEWER DEFINITION (the last decade or so; I blame Tony Blair, amongst others, for this definition): You have nothing to hide; therefore, like a transparent object, nothing clouds one's ability to see clearly through you.
ANALYSIS: Booooooooring. This definition lacks any interesting layers, and in doing so its message is actually quite muddled. Shouldn't we appreciate people who display genuine substance and gravitas? So why would being "transparent" (which suggests a certain lack of substance) be considered a good thing? (It conjures up images of an empty inner life, amongst other things.)
Also, it seems creepily invasive in the sense that the person being "transparent" wants to be metaphorically X-rayed in order to be proven "clean" and therefore "true." (This suggests shades of Orwell's 1984, amongst other things.) It would seem to me that one wouldn't want to be examined like that, literally or metaphorically.
If you want to be seen as an honest person, drop the eerie, new-wave definition of "transparent" and just say, "I'm being open and honest with you...."
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...."
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Here's Hoping For A Coleman/Franken Senatorial Tie (And Not The Kind You Wear With A Clean Shirt)
According to the official website for the office of the Minnesota Secretary of State, of approximately three million votes cast, incumbent U.S. Senator Norm Coleman received 1,211,590 votes on November 4th, whereas his Democratic challenger, Al Franken, received 1,211, 375 votes. This means that on election night, Norm Coleman appeared to have won the narrowest of victories, with a difference of only 215 votes, or about .007%. (If no one else, at least this leaves Sean Connery with a superficial reason to smile....) Nearly half a million votes went to other candidates, the majority of which were cast for Independent candidate Dean Barkley.
Since the vote was razor-thin, a statewide hand-recount took place, and as a result Senator Coleman's lead has slipped to somewhere between 188 and 192 votes, depending on which presently "unofficial" totals one believes; the media is rather uniformly reporting that Senator Coleman leads by 192 votes, but the aforementioned web-site seems to suggest that the lead is 188 votes. As these totals shift slightly from time to time, they both might be obsolete by the time you read this. And with absentee ballots in question (and due to be reviewed and perhaps recounted), as well as challenged ballots that need to be examined, this race could still tip just barely in either direction...a month and a half after election day.
No matter what we keep hearing about a possible "fillibuster-proof majority" in the U.S. senate, just remember this: it's all a bunch of crappola, because you need to get everyone who makes up such a mythical majority to agree unifromly in order to bring it about in any functional manner, and even then it might only work once or twice, given that legislators feel differently about different pieces of legislation and someone is bound to throw a monkey wrench into her or his party's plans at any given time. And, anyway, it looks as though the Democrats will fall short of the number necessary for such a headline-motivated, phantom majority.
So the results of this U.S. senate race will not tip the scales heavily in either direction--the Democrats will have a big but not all-powerful majority in the U.S. senate one way or the other. Given that, at the national level, I'm at present far more comfortable with the Democrats than the innovation-starved, rather rudderless Republicans, I'm happy with this outcome. Yet I also remain wary of giving either party too much power, which means that I am pleased that the Democrats haven't cracked, say, the sixty seat ceiling (out of the 100 that make up the body), which would be a psychological back-breaker for the Republicans and for many fans of somewhat centrist senate policies.
What we're left with in this Coleman-Franken saga, then, isn't an epoch-defining moment, but more like a bit of a national senate curiosity (as if we haven't had enough of those in recent years). For my part, I know that when the dust settles (whenever that might be), I should be hoping that Al Franken (barely) wins. I did vote for him, after all. Yet I find myself hoping for something else: an exact tie between the two candidates. The chances of that happening are very, very small, but I keep thinking, well, a guy can hope....
I want a tied outcome so that my home state of Minnesota is forced to change its rules for U.S. senate races in order to bring them in line with some other states that require senators to win a majority of votes cast--if not in the initial, more crowded candidate field on election day, then in a run-off between the top two vote-getters a month later. Let's face it--whoever "wins" this Minnesota U.S. senate race received about (or perhaps slightly less than) 42% of the overall vote on election day. I suppose that's okay if the next closest candidate received, say, 35%, but that didn't happen this time, so whoever wins isn't going to seem legitimate.
Besides, if the outcome were to be a rather miraculous tie, wouldn't the state have to hold a run-off between Mr. Coleman and Mr. Franken in January, or at least something like that? That would force Minnesota to change the rules, for sure. One way or the other, they need to be changed.
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.
Monday, December 15, 2008
Regarding America's Troubled Automobile Industry...
This past weekend, I wrote the following comments on my friend Flash's "Centrisity" blog-site (http://centrisity.blogspot.com/). I have modified the comments ever so slightly, simply for clarity's sake. Here are my comments:
Foreign manufacturers have a leg-up on U.S. car makers in ways other than employee benefits (though I agree that some adjustments must be done in that area). One of the other ways they have a leg-up is that they have always been forced to look outside of their own countries in order to meet profit goals; their home markets alone cannot meet overhead costs. Hence, they have innovated for their own needs as well as been flexible enough to innovate for the needs and wishes of people elsewhere.
Our (U.S.) car manufacturers, on the other hand, have been hopelessly myopic. Their sense of the world is almost non-existent, and their view of things is rather Palin-esque: if we want big trucks to look tough and/or compensate for small penises, etc., why, that's the only way to go. Hooray, hooray, U.S.A.!
Yet the rest of the world has different requirements and trends, and we should have been smart enough to adhere to both our wishes at home and the necessities of folks abroad who would rather like to drive U.S. vehicles. (I know many folks from outside of the U.S. who would like to drive U.S. cars and have done so in the past, but who have finally thrown in the towel and bought vehicles from other countries in recent years, due to the clumsiness of smaller American cars.)
The American Right can scream about employee benefits (and, to a certain extent, they may be right) and The American Left can talk about installing a Car Czar into the national equation (and, to a certain extent, that may be a pragmatic idea). But unless and until U.S. auto manufacturers recognize that we are going to have to sell (hopefully environmentally-friendly) cars to a good chunk of the 2.5 billion combined Chinese and Indians (as well as others elsewhere) in order to stay viable, everything that both sides of the political aisle in presently insular Washington (and Detroit) try to do is going to go down the drain.
The first step might be to get the unimpressive C.E.O.s of U.S. car companies to park their fancy private jets and take a good, old-fashioned world geography test. The results would be howling funny, I'm sure. Or at least they would be funny if the stakes weren't so high.
--Hasslington
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
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)