Trayvon Martin Was Not Responsible For His Own Death

Here's my opinion on the topic of the moment (and I will leave the issues of racial profiling and conceal-and-carry out of it):

If you call the authorities to report a "suspicious" person, and if the dispatcher specifically tells you not to further pursue that person, you need to do just that.  You need to let the authorities take over at that point.  This is obvious.

If you choose to ignore what you are told to do and instead decide unilaterally to continue to follow that person, the result of which is that the person you are following dies, to my mind you are morally responsible for that death.

George Zimmerman was not attacked before or during the point that he was told to stop pursuing Trayvon Martin, so the fact that Mr. Zimmerman used deadly force after that point is ultimately the result of one decision on his part:  ignoring what he was told to do.  Despite what Mr. Zimmerman's apologists insist, Trayvon Martin is dead because of Mr. Zimmerman's awful decision, not because of anything that Trayvon Martin did or did not do.

Mr. Zimmerman's actions have been interpreted as being legal in the state of Florida, but I believe that those actions were also morally reprehensible.  I think that most people of good will would have a tendency to view this horrible event along similar lines.

We're Getting There....

According to the U.S. Department of Labor, which has tracked these numbers for decades, in the year between November 1, 2007 and October 31, 2008 (just prior to the last presidential election), the U.S. had a net jobs created number of -1,938,000. However, between November 1, 2011 and September 30, 2012, the U.S. has had a net jobs created number of +1,694,000. That latter time span is eleven months--it obviously does not yet include this October. We'll see what the October numbers are on November 2 or thereabouts. We lost a lot of jobs between autumn 2007 and autumn 2009, so we're not yet where we want to be...but we're getting there.  At least for now.

What I Think President Obama Should Say About Deficits In His Forthcoming Debates With Governor Romney....

As a lifelong nerd, I have been interested in government deficits for decades.  Let's look at the present deficit situation for a moment, and let's do so in the context of the final two debates between President Obama and Governor Romney.  We know what Governor Romney will say--no taxes should be raised, and in fact taxes should be cut beyond their present levels for the wealthiest Americans in order to "stimulate" economic growth.  (This would most likely be accompanied by rather large spending cuts.)  So, what should President Obama say?

IF I WERE ONE OF HIS ADVISERS, I'D ASK HIM TO SAY SOMETHING LIKE THIS...

"The U.S. had budget surpluses in the final years of the Clinton presidency, and then ran up deficits again after the big tax cuts and accompanying tax loopholes that were first put in place between 2001 and 2003, and which are still in place.  Those deficits were compounded somewhat by foreign war spending.  They were compounded again by the recession--which began and worsened before my presidency--because fewer people had jobs and were able to pay into the system.  So, deficits started swelling quite a while ago, due in large part to decisions made even before they started to swell.

"If we are serious about lowering deficits, there are two ways of going about it during this recovery period:

"Option #1: We can make big cuts in government programs, such as future Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid benefits, as well as to Pell grants, infrastructure spending, and the like.  This is likely to hit the middle class and those aspiring to get into the middle class far harder than it hits the wealthiest Americans.

"Option #2: We can make smaller but necessary cuts in government spending and raise revenue by raising the top-earner federal tax rate from where it is now (35%) to where it was during President Clinton's tenure (39.6%) and closing some tax loopholes.  This means raising taxes on only the top 2% of earners in the United States to put that rate in line with where it was from 1993 to 2001, when the economy was growing at a healthy rate.  It means allowing everyone else, including the entire middle class, to keep the tax cuts they have earned in my first term in office.

"Choosing either of the two methods I have outlined will lower the national deficit over time.

"Much of Europe has chosen something a lot like option #1 over the past two years.  Not coincidentally, the Eurozone has been mired in a double-dip recession for the last year or so.  We hope they are able to overcome it as quickly as possible.

"For our country, I choose option #2.  I think the majority of Americans would choose that option, as well."

That's what I'd suggest President Obama says--either all of it or most of it.  It takes-on the opposing viewpoint while still sounding presidential; it isn't overly aggressive, personal, or bumper-sticker in nature.  It's spirited without being mean-spirited.  I think people would appreciate hearing something like that.

The U.S. Private Sector Has Been In Recovery For A While Now. The U.S. Public Sector, However....

Finally, somebody got the analysis of the U.S. recovery right.  The Economist, which is actually a conservative publication, states that "...the public sector is still hobbling the recovery....  Government payrolls typically swell in economic recoveries, by 5.9% on average during the first 34 months after a recession has ended [but] not this time....  The 2.5 million overall rise in employment since the downturn's end corresponds to 3.1 million new private jobs, less 600,000 government jobs.  Local governments have cut over 500,000 jobs, most of them in education...."  Yes, this is a complicated scenario and people have differing views of it, but we can all at least agree that the private sector is in recovery, but things like education are in the toilet.  I know it.  I'm living it.  The Economist is hit or miss, but this is a good article:

http://www.economist.com/node/21554560

The Sizzle And The Steak

Anyone who tells you that economics is a "simple" topic is selling you snake oil.  It's increasingly complicated in a rapidly industrializing, globalized world, which means it's both maddening and fascinating.  For instance, oil prices have slid on the world markets by nearly 10% since last week (yay!), due primarily to worries about the economic future of some of our European trading partners and the potential effect of their slowdowns on the world economy (no!).  For their part, some European countries are cutting their debts to save their credit ratings (good)...through some measures which are hurting their economic growth (bad), at least for now.  Hence, some American exports are beginning to struggle again (boo!), even as internal American consumer spending is beginning to grow again (hooray!).  Many corporations are posting huge profits (yes!), but the global uncertainty means that many of them are hiring slowly for now (blah!).

By the way, unlike more than a few other already-industrialized nations that feature mature economies, the U.S. is not presently either in a recession or at nearly zero growth (positive sigh), and is so far growing at a quicker pace (2.2%) than last year (1.7%) (another positive sigh).  However, the U.S. economy grew at a slower pace during the first quarter of this year (2.2%) than it did during the fourth quarter of last year (3.0%) (negative sigh), due in large part to the fact that government spending, which accounts for a sizable portion of GDP, is down over 5% in 2012 from the same period of the previous year.  This is a good thing because the government debt (due to unsustainable Bush-era tax policies, as well as wars and other programs that have been unpaid for for quite some time) does need to be lowered, but it is also somewhat of a bad thing because it comes at the price of growth in the national GDP, which means that hiring takes a hit, at least for a while.

And that's just the tip of the iceberg, folks.  Yep, anyone who says they have an "easy" solution to this is trying to fool everyone, including themselves.  Still, Mitt Romney now suggests that we should be creating a net +500,000 jobs per month in order to dramatically lower the American national unemployment rate.  That sounds great, but it's a ridiculous suggestion given both historical data and the global economy of the moment.  Historically, the U.S. has seen a grand total of FIVE MONTHS of net +500,000-or-more job growth since the end of the Eisenhower presidency, which occurred over fifty years ago.  Five months.  None of them occurred during the Kennedy administration, none of them occurred during the Johnson administration, none of them occurred during the Nixon administration, none of them occurred during the Ford administration, two of them occurred during the Carter administration (!), one of them occurred during the Reagan administration, none of them occurred during the Bush Sr. administration, one of them occurred during the Clinton administration, none of them occurred during the Bush Jr. administration, and one of them occurred during the Obama administration.  That's it, just five months total, despite the fact that several recessions have come and gone in the last fifty-plus years, some of them (such as the protracted recession during the early 1980s) quite severe in nature.

Either Mitt Romney is stupid or he is being intellectually disingenuous and hopes that the American people don't care to know the facts.  I do not think he's stupid.  Hence, he's trying to sell snake oil in order to become president.  Whether a flip-flopper or "severely" conservative or whatever, when it comes to policy substance he's following his increasingly hyperbolic party into cloud cuckoo-land by making outrageous claims (whether they be about President Obama's policies or about his own) with little or no substance to back them up.  I may be in the minority on this, but I prefer to hear that there are no easy answers to this scenario but that some legislative measures can help both the private sector hire more people and the public sector stop shedding jobs, as President Obama suggests, instead of Mr. Romney's bluster, which is often all sizzle and no steak.

By the way, so far in 2012, the U.S. is averaging monthly job growth of about net +200,000 or so.  In pre-recession economic times, that would be good news.  Right now, it doesn't seem so good.  Yet let's remember that when President Obama first stepped foot in office, we had for months under his predecessor in office averaged net job losses of -750,000 or so.  2%+ GDP growth isn't as robust as many people would at present prefer, but it's growth in the face of a downturn in much of the industrialized world, and it's not fake growth based in part on an overpriced housing bubble.  That's cold comfort for job seekers, but it's also more than what many other industrialized nations with mature economies can claim at the moment.

Hasslington On Hiatus

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I enjoyed both activities very much.

A Good Man's Life

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Today, I Have...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OH, "ANJI," WE HARDLY KNEW YI!

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

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

FANTASY BASEBALL IS NOT ALWAYS FANTASTIC

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm "in the game" again.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Beneficial Sound Of A Bit More Silence

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

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

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

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

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

Thankful

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

First, here are two notes regarding what I wrote:

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

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

And now, here are the comments....

COMMENT #1

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

Terror is a tactic, not an enemy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

--Hasslington

COMMENT #2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--Hasslington

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Have You Read It In Its Entirety? Really?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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