Hasslington's General Mindset Guidelines For 2009

Hasslington resolves to do the following during 2009...

1.) The first order of business is, as always, to keep on keepin' on. Or, as Sir Winston Churchill put it, "K.B.O." ("Keep buggering on." It's best not to take that in an overly-literal manner, but rather as a general mindset....)

2.) Oddly, I've got a hankering to read Stephen King novels (!?!). I don't know why I want to read his books, though it may have something to do with the fact that he came to fame around the time I was born, and has therefore chronicled the "American spirit" during my lifetime. So, as Paul Simon would have it, "...who am I to blow against the wind..."?

3.) Despite what I just wrote, I resolve to keep blowing against the culturally-motivated wind when it's the right thing to do. (As Walt Whitman would have it, "Do I contradict myself? Very well, then I contradict myself.")

4.) I will do my very best to remain generally and genuinely optimistic throughout (at least most of) 2009, but hopefully not at the expense of my penchant for analytical readings as applied to a number of things, including myself.

5.) A person needs a sense of humor. Put another way, a genuine sense of humor is an absolutely essential component of a relatively successful life; that's all there is to it. I therefore hope to retain (and expand upon?) whatever semblance of a sense of humor I at present possess.

6.) I promise to try to write about more diverse topics than I did during the 2008 U.S. presidential election year, though I might annoy a few readers with my baseball obsession. I'll try to keep such posts to a minimum, whatever the word "minimum" might mean insofar as that glorious sport is concerned. Oops, there I go already....

I'm not a grand-gesture, sweeping-resolution sort of guy, so let's just call these my "General Mindset Guidelines For 2009," shall we? So, 2009, here we go....

Hasslington Will Return After The First Of The Year

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

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

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

My Christmas Wish

by: Hasslington

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Majel Roddenberry Is Once Again With Her Husband

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

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

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

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

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

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?