America Rising

Dear President-Elect Obama,

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

Sincerely,

Hasslington

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

Dear Senator McCain,

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

Sincerely,

Hasslington

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

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

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

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

HASSLINGTON'S PRESIDENTIAL SWING-STATE VOTING PREDICTIONS

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

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

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

At any rate, HERE ARE MY PREDICTIONS:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

HASSLINGTON'S ELECTORAL VOTE PREDICTION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

October 27 Is A Great Day For A Birthday

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

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

ALSO...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Playing The Presidential Election Percentages

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SPEAKING OF THE BRITISH....

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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