Being a Pundit, Newscaster and Analyst X

It seems that Lou Dobbs of CNN has been lying, or at the very least stretching the truth. The Huffington Post reports that on his radio show he said that "'They've threatened my wife, they've now fired a shot at my house while my wife was standing next to the car.' Concluding with a call for 'truth, justice and the American way,' Dobbs cautioned 'if anybody thinks that we're not engaged in the battle for the soul of this country right now, you're sorely mistaken. And during an interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer on Thursday, Dobbs spoke again about the gunfire incident, linking it to 'threatening phone calls tied to the positions I've taken on illegal immigration.'"

The problem with Dobbs' statements is that the New Jersey police differs in their assessment of what happened. "In a phone interview conducted yesterday, Sgt. Stephen Jones, a NJ State Police spokesperson, chuckled out loud after he heard about Dobbs' account of the gunfire incident. Jones commented that he 'wouldn't classify it [the gunfire incident] as very unusual." He also confirmed that there are hunters in the area, and stated that, "at this time of year hunter [shooting] complaints go up.' Another policeman

"Another New Jersey State Police spokesperson, Sgt. Julian Castellanos, noted that 'it's a wide open area and there are hunters in the area.' Castellanos explained that the bullet had hit the house in vicinity of the attic; it 'hit the vinyl siding and fell to the ground' without penetrating the vinyl, he said. While Lou Dobbs' wife, Debi Lee Segura, was standing outside the house at the time of the gunfire, the bullet did not come close to her; it 'struck at the apex of the house, near the roof,' and thus considerably higher than a standing person, Jones observed."

It's shameful what newscasters will do for attention. CNN is looking pretty bad, right about now, especially after their intense following the balloon box hoax. Whatever happened to the dignity of the likes of Walter Cronkite? Dobbs' story seems to have all to do with ratings. I guess he's trying to compete with the Glen Becks and Rush Limbaughs of the world. Does CNN think that we want this kind of news?

Why else would Lou Dobbs think that he can titillate us with such deception? I skimmed passed a Dillon Ratigan article on the Huffington Post today. He was dressed as Thomas Jefferson and I just didn't even feel like reading it. A few weeks ago Ratigan was dressed as Dracula during one portion of his show. I stayed tuned anyway and I was happy to have done so. Some excellent points were made. However, this time I just wasn't up for it. I did not read the article. I wonder how others feel about the decline in ethics and news.

Public Option VIII

Sam Stein of the Huffington Post explains the scene today as...

Republican pollster Bill McInturff was the keynote speaker on the final day of the America's Health Insurance Plans's state issues conference on Friday morning.

But his speech on how the health care reform debate was playing among the public was interrupted before it even began. A group of protesters began aggressively cheering McInturff for the work he has done for AHIP (he's a hired pollster for the private insurance lobby and, most infamously, was the force behind the 'Harry and Louise' ads in 1994)

McInturff, initially thinking that the cheering was legitimate, thanked the "AHIP officials" in the back of the room for giving him mental encouragement for his speech. He was not being paid for his appearance, he noted.

And then, the protesters -- dressed in business attire to fit into the crowd -- began singing. A relatively lengthy and harmonious rendition of "Tomorrow" from the musical Annie ensued, only with the chorus focused on government-run insurance. "The option, the option, we must have, the option... " went the rendition, in reference to the public plan.

The opposing response to those in attendance is completely unexpected and in perfect pitch. Watch this:

Being Arianna Huffington XI

Here is a great conversation on women, work and life with Arianna Huffington, political commentator, nationally-syndicated columnist, activist and co-founder of the Huffington Post, and Cathie Black, president of Hearst Magazines, a division of the Hearst Corporation and one of the world's largest publishers of monthly magazines. Black manages the development of some of America's leading publications, including Cosmopolitan, Town & Country, The Oprah Magazine, Esquire, and Good Housekeeping. Be sure to watch the "full program."



Both Huffington and Black have written great books. Huffington has written more than a few, all of which I have read. In this discussion On Becoming Fearless...in Love, Work and Life, is brought up. It's a great read for women. Black's, Basic Black: The Essential Guide for at Work (and in life) , is also a fine book for women. Huffington and Black both tell wonderful personal stories of their rise to the top of their fields and the many storms they weathered on the road, personally and professionally. Do purchase the books. You will enjoy them and they will inspire you immensely.

Being for New Media

Yesterday, I was thoroughly amused that right in the middle of a conversation on Afghanistan, Wolf Blitzer broke away for "breaking news." Do you know what the news was? Well, Rush Limbaugh had been denied the opportunity to own an NFL team after he had long berated NFL players. There were two issues that sprung up immediately. First, how is this that a respectable newscast like CNN could view this as "breaking news?" Second, how is it that the people who watch Limbaugh, who are probably working class folk, allow such a one to benefit by viewing his show? I turned off CNN posthaste!

Now, today I'm watching CNN and they have wall-to-wall coverage of the kid who it was believed had gotten into a balloon and was flying hundreds of feet off the ground in an invention that his dad had created. For two hours, CNN followed the silver balloon in the air and called on experts who spoke on the possibility of the direction of the balloon and where the kid might have been hiding. It was high drama. CNN created all kinds of scenarios. Finally, the balloon landed and there was no child. Oh, my! Now, this bit of drama added more speculation and scenarios, calling on many experts who talked about heat technology to identify the boy. It was getting dark. Where was the basket? Where had it dropped? Thank God for Google Earth! What other kind of technology will be needed to locate the boy?

I was getting very annoyed at the coverage. Yes, I had hoped that if the boy had climbed aboard that he would be found safely. I even said a prayer. But how did we know that the kid had indeed climbed aboard? Where were his parents? Who allowed it to take off with the possibility of the kid climbing aboard? Either his parents should be investigated by protective services or CNN is running with this story because it's a slow news day? Is health care reform, increasing foreclosures, joblessness, banking reform, Afghanistan, and Iraq not fast enough, not meaningful enough? I got the feeling that CNN was loving a story that could indeed have had a tragic ending for ratings. I cut if off. I had heard enough of this sensationalism. I switched to see what Ed on MSBNC was covering.

Just as I flicked on The Ed Show, Ed was holding an interview with the psychic mother of Wife Swap who had lived in the kid's home for two weeks for this ABC show. But soon Arianna would be on. Oh, good, I thought. They're probably going to be talking about her latest post, "Why Joe Biden Should Resign." But to my utter annoyance Ed began with the story on the balloon boy. I assume he forget who he was dealing with because Arianna shot back with something like "Okay, I understand why the story was covered initially, but why are we still talking about it. The boy is safe -- now on with it. (By the way, he was hiding out in the garage attic at home.) Why are you still covering it?" I must admit to ROFL! The sensational Ed was caught in his own sensationalism. I must also say that his holding the government's feet to the fire with regards to health care reform and joblessness has been noteworthy.

But Arianna's question was perfect for network news en masse. It was one that I was dying to ask. Ed became a little testy and tried to offer a lame excuse. How could he excuse having the psychic Wife Swap mother live on his show talking about extraterrestrial beings? I couldn't believe my eyes or ears. Ed let this psychic go on and on, even apologizing for interrupting her while Arianna was cut short a few times. Amazing! At the top of the 7:00 news hour Hardball lead with "a story that transfixed a nation." The balloon boy had been found. Oh, Keith, it's 7:59. Please don't lead with this story. Does anybody really wonder why old media is becoming more irrelevant while new media continues to pave a new path? Go Arianna and Huffington Post!

Being a Pundit, Newscaster and Analyst IX

"Memo to the media: Time to check in for a serious round of 'right vs left' rehab. When it comes to torture, the only appropriate framing is 'right vs wrong.'"

--Arianna Huffington

Read Arianna Huffington's entire piece,"The Torture Moment," here.

Being Arianna Huffington VI

This Tuesday morning on CNBC's Squawk Box from 7-9 Arianna Huffington will be the guest host. The show will feature Nassim Nicholas Taleb, Nouriel Roubini, and Congressman Barney Frank. Maybe this will begin the process of resuscitating CNBC's tattered image. After the Jon Stewart evisceration of CNBC's financial analysts, we all know they need it. Arianna Huffington's piece on Jon Stewart's interview with Jim Cramer and John King's interview with Dick Cheney is great.

The Huffington Post article can be read here. Brilliant comparisons are made between the Jon Stewart and John King interviews. Squawk Box this Tuesday promises to be interesting with both professionalism and punch. While the intentions and knowledge of Huffington, Taleb and Roubini my be trusted, the same may not be said of Barney Frank. I tend to distrust politicians generally. Senator Chris Dodd (D) and Senator Richard Shelby (R) would be among these. Neither would get my vote if I were constituents in theirs states.

I have some thoughts about Congress and some questions for Congressman Frank. Has the Federal Reserve become a hindrance to a viable democratic capitalistic system where there should be checks and balances? The Fed does not have absolute power! Not only has the Federal Reserve failed us, but Congress too in their lack of oversight of the Fed—instead there appears to have been, rightly or wrongly, collusion in regulating these big American banks with ties with hedge funds and the likes of Barclays in London and Deutsche Bank in Germany.

This week Treasury Secretary Geithner asked that the Treasury be given more power to regulate some companies, namely those such as AIG, and perhaps GE, who are not banks but behave as such. To give the Federal Reserve more power seems like a sick solution. How do you give more power to those who have utterly failed the American people who seem bent on a global imperialistic financial agenda to concentrate wealth among the few in the world? JP Morgan, the founder, was astute at this kind of global financial focus many years back shortly after the Civil War.

There is no surprise that Wall Street bankers are arrogant and self-centered. Although JP Morgan served the US well with his financing of Thomas Edison, and his investments in infrastructure, big banking seems to have been conceived out of arrogance and dominance, the necessity of centralized global power in banking. Some may assert that it is simply human nature. OK. Regulation is then mandatory, perhaps the kind that is revisited for efficacy and maintained for stability.

As a member of Congress how is it that Congress' oversight of the Federal Reserve went completely unwatched? For many yeas Alan Greenspan was instead a revered demigod of sorts with Congress shaking its heads in agreement to everything he proposed. I have written here on Being Alan Greenspan that included a scathing critique by Bill Flickenstein. He has written of Greenspan often, beginning some years back. Mr. Flickenstein provided more oversight over the past years than members of Congress on the right, left and center. They, by and large, seem to have their self-interest at heart, one that seems to go straight to the heart of campaign financing in order to keep their "illustrious" civil servant careers.

I hope that Mr. Frank will have to answer hard-hitting questions, perhaps from those coming from the people. While Arianna Huffington never seems to shy away from hard-hitting questions for all sides, Democrats and Republicans, I also understand that polticially sometimes it is not always the platform, especially considering certain shows on certain networks work, not to mention the rescuitation of CNBC. My very wealthy Republican partner said that since Taleb and Roubini will be on Squawk Box with Huffington that he will sell short on Tuesday. As one who does not take tips from anyone, he took Huffington's guest appearance on Squawk Box with Taleb and Roubini as Tuesday tip. That was funny! Truth generates short-selling.

I'm really looking forward to the show on Tuesday. Maybe Huffington should have a show every Tuesday. It would be great to have a finance show that addresses critical issues and how decisions made by government and private coroporations affect the masses. The perfect storm seems to have been created in that the masses were duped, though not without culpability with the complicit will of Congress through legislation and the creation policy for the likes of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, to accept mortgages so that individuals and Wall Street banks could collect billions of dollars in fees beforehand and a bailout thereafter.
These are some of the questions and thoughts that I'd like to see addressed when Arianna Huffington hosts Squawk Box this Tuesday. What would you like answered or what comments would you make?

Being a Blogger II

Recently, I read this very thoughtful comment by a blogger on the Huffington Post by a Marion Watts, an American living in the UK:

I live in the UK, where AIG is primarily known as the sponsor of Manchester United, the country's best-known soccer team and one of the wealthiest franchises in the world, which also happens to be owned by Malcolm Glazier, who's the owner of the Tampa Bay Bucs. What concerns me, as an American living abroad, who pays taxes on both sides of the Pond, is the fact that, a lot of these bonuses went to AIG's satellite investors, who are amongst the big investment banks in the City of London. We hear daily here about exorbitant 7-figure bonuses some of these City whizzkids get and how they flaunt them with their bling-bling parties. And what annoys me further, here in the UK, is that the Brit Treasury intends to do Sweet Fanny Adams about confronting the crisis facing their own economy, instead wishing to ride along on the US coattails, expecting Obama to bail them out. Funny, how under George Bush, we were the pariahs of the Western World; now Obama's everyone's President with a solution to everyone's problems. Fact is AIG is as greedy as the next unregulated enterprise on Wall Street. Big bonuses are common. The company was, effectively, nationalised, and you'd think they would have had more common sense than to use what amounts to public money to reward overpaid employees for a substandard performance."

What has Britain and other Western countries done? I haven't followed much what Britain or the EU is doing. But it does look at first glance that the West is waiting for movement from the United States in order to correct their own situation. (That may be somewhat of an exaggeration.) I guess this is the lot of leaders and perhaps the trouble with some aspects of globalization. Is the responsibility of a leader to bear the bulk of the calamity, while others do what?

President Obama on The Tonight Show spoke of setting up another system for a securitized market. Arianna Huffington speaks of bolstering credit unions. They are healthy. I like it. This is great but it still seems to not address Wall Street banks that could land us here again. I'm assuming further plans will follow, but faith in the economic team is waning, especially when we consider that those who got us in this mess are now navigating us through it.

AIG paid millions of bonuses to British AIGers where Manchester United, a sports franchise where US Malcolm Glazer holds the controlling interest, probably gets more than "t-shirt" sponsorship. Even if so, we can be assured that the sponsorship is well in the multiple upon multiple millions.

Because millions in bonuses went to a British AIG subsidiary where a great many credit default swaps occurred, the proposed 90% tax will not be assessed. There is also, of course, the many creditors such as Barclays that got billions of taxpayer dollars.

This is our global economy. Wouldn't you chose an insurance company like AIG over a British one or any others when it can be assured that such an American company will be too big to fail and taxpayers will step in?

Here's Times Online:

"Most of the bonuses went to the financial products unit responsible for creating the exotic derivatives known as credit default swaps that caused AIG's near-collapse. Many of those are British employees based in London. It also emerged that $7 billion of the US bailout money was paid to Barclays, a creditor."

Here's Bloomberg:

"The legislation wouldn't attempt to impose the tax on foreign employees of companies such as AIG," said Ways and Means Committee spokesman Matthew Beck. "Many of AIG's bonus recipients work in the London office of the credit-default swap unit."

Is the responsibility of a leader to bear the bulk of the calamity, while others do what? This unknown blogger, Marion Watts, addresses some very thoughtful points in her post that made me consider a few things.

Thanks Marion!

Being a Pundit, Newscaster and Analyst IV

As you might have guessed from my recent posts, I have not watched much cable news lately. But this morning I ventured to turn on the morning news shows and my immediate distaste returned. Flipping between more than a few channels, my ears peeked when some pundit said, "the President hasn't found his voice." Says who? You? This was in response to a discussion about his upcoming appearance on Jay Leno. (Please see my recent posts, Being on Jay Leno and Being Snubbed)

There was also some talk about what Ronald Reagan would have said had he delivered such a speech about AIG. President Reagan would have been oh so much better. What's the matter with these people? President Obama is not Ronald Reagan or anyone else for the matter with a set of circumstances like none others. What these increasingly irrelevant voices need to do to regain some relevance is to concentrate on facts and not give their personal opinions. Do we really care what any of these guys think?

The biggest problem that I see is that those of the old guard, whether pundit or politician, simply do not get it. President Obama does not seem to be terribly concerned about what they think by and large, especially when they simply refuse to think about things differently. Their egos are so large that they are in a fight for him to acknowledge them; in fact, many are in a fight for their very existence, politician, pundit or network. Many have simply become irrelevant, but are fighting for relevancy without a message that matters.

President Obama's very presence seems like an affront to their very sense of being and knowing. They are the ones who seem like they have lost their footing. They want to talk about silly stuff and fail when it's time to address serious stuff. When given the opportunity as CNN's John King's had with the former Vice-President Dick Cheney, we really see what newscasters are made of. King was putty in the former Vice President's hands. Jon Stewart would have been a far better interviewer.

Arianna Huffington makes the above point brilliantly in a recent article on the Huffington Post. I too would that Jon Stewart would have interviewed the former Vice-President. But, of course, Vice President Cheney would have never appeared on such a show; there would be no unwarranted reverence. John King was silenced in such an ominous presence; his inability as a first rate interviewer was revealed. Stewart would have been brilliant. Do read Arianna's article above. It's very thoughtful indeed.

Being Snubbed

President Obama has turned down a formal invitation by Gridiron Club, "a society of Washington reporters, columnists, and bureau chiefs," to an event that every president since Glover Cleveland has attended in their first year as president. Clarence Page of the Chicago Tribune said:

"People feel uncommonly saddened, miffed and burned. I don’t think he understands the implications of not coming to the club in the first year. It’s not your ordinary state dinner. I think it would be helpful for him and his relations with the Washington establishment to come to the club."

President Obama understands exactly what he's doing. Many probably would not necessarily like to appear with many of those who will be in attendance at this function in tails and gowns when people are losing their homes and retirements. While the official report is that the President is too busy, I think there may be other reasons as well.

Firstly, there isn't much to celebrate in traditional media these days. Secondly, these media types have been so powerful and exclusive for so many years, perhaps it is time to think anew about the media and Washington. Maybe it's time to broaden the club. It was not by accident that President Obama called on a reporter from the Huffington Post at his first prime time press conference.

While the Gridiron Club may feel snubbed "uncommonly saddened, miffed and burned" that President Obama will not be in attendance at their dinner, perhaps they should take this time to look at the state of the media and reporting and re-group thereafter. Oh, one other thing, Mr. Page's analogy of this dinner versus a State dinner leaves me cold. It is not like the Gridiron Club includes everyday people. The President sees the likes of the media often.

President Obama should be applauded for his concentration on what's most important during this very difficult time for many Americans and for his independent streak. Now, let's see if there will be a backlash from the media.

Being a Walking Stereotype

In The New Majority, the conservative columnist, Eric Frum, called Rush Limbaugh a "walking stereotype." He writes:

And for the leader of the Republicans? A man who is aggressive and bombastic, cutting and sarcastic, who dismisses the concerned citizens in network news focus groups as "losers." With his private plane and his cigars, his history of drug dependency and his personal bulk, not to mention his tangled marital history, Rush is a walking stereotype of self-indulgence – exactly the image that Barack Obama most wants to affix to our philosophy and our party. And we're cooperating! Those images of crowds of CPACers cheering Rush's every rancorous word – we'll be seeing them rebroadcast for a long time.

The funny thing about stereotypes is that there is often a grain of truth in them, although painted often times disproportionately. But the stereotype that is Limbaugh is true. The above is all true. I also wonder about the truth of the Republican leadership. There seems to be very few moderates these days.

The Republican Party does not need anyone else to affix an "ugly" image, in the words of Michael Steele before retraction, to its philosophy or party. Limbaugh is the prominent image and voice of the Republican Party. Steele most certainly is not.

Republican leaders bow at the feet of Limbaugh and retract their statements faster than a rubber band. Perhaps these leaders and conservative columnists as Frum see their obstructionist agenda being exposed by a loud mouth indulgent one.

Are the leaders of the Republican Party privately what Limbaugh is publicly? Self-indulgence in the pursuit of power and gluttony come in many forms, including obstructionism. In a post on the Huffington Post I asked, "Whom and What do They Love More?"

Being for the Stimulus Package III

Some who are against the stimulus package are so because of an ill-conceived ideology that the poor will be living large on their hard earned dollar. There are a few business blogs that I follow and contribute to; Tom Peters' blog is on of these. Recently there in a discussion regarding President Obama's support of the $500,000 cap on CEOs whose companies receive a bailout, I told a commentator that the joke was on him for not supporting this initiative. He responded, "Judith you are correct to say that the joke's on me. Taking my money, at the point of a gun, and then turning around and handing it to people that haven't earned it is sad. Oh wait, they call that welfare and we have been that for a very long time. So instead of sending a millions dollars to 10,000 lazy people, we send it to one."

The commentator appears to be one of those dittoheads living in a fantasy land of the far Right who is tettering on a kind of poor folks and racist ideology that blankets welfare recipients as lazy when, in fact, many who receive some form of welfare are the working poor who pay taxes; the biggest flaw in your argument is your blinders which produce a kind of insipid ideology which does nothing to correct the problem but inflame it indeed. His comment is lame for its one-sidedness and handicap for its inability to embrace the whole. It's a shameful stupid comment.

Although living in England, he seems to have been listening to Limbaugh and other extreme right comedic pseudo politicians who inflame instead of inviting, who blame instead of understanding, who are full of themselves who actually berate average guys, doping them into believing that he is speaking for them as they find relief in fantasy while being barely able to pay their gas bills. As they struggle to pay their bills, Limbaugh laughs all the way to the bank. (It's sort of like the new leader of the Republican Party, Joe the Plumber, speaking out against policies that he himself would benefit from. But in his mind he and Limbaugh are on the same level. Right! He too is a joke.) We do not need more of that inane ideology.

This is, in part, the fantasy about which I speak. Yes, we can spend billions upon billions on Wall Street banks and no money for the little guy, even that ideological one who is just at the poverty line, listening and laughing to the likes of Limbaugh. Well, I guess, at least, they can laugh. But many of them need to be crying. Escapism is a serious drug. Yes, we should strip away wasteful spending but tax cuts alone have not helped the working poor and neither have the trickled down laissez-faire economics without corporate responsibility.

These are extremely difficult times. I hope that he will not find himself on the dole after a while. During the Depression a great many very wealthy prosperous people found themselves without and needing the support of the government. (Nassim Nicholas Taleb says that the very wealthy have been hurt the most by this crisis.) Many stood in soup lines; many jumped out of buildings to their deaths. One bad investment could ruin a great many people in these difficult times. It is no time for stupid insipid ideological comments. This stuff is for real. Yes, we need to get things right, but let's not overlook the real problem that America and the whole world faces right now. Let's focus long-term and short-term stimuli, such as infrastructure, green technologies, education, and welfare reform. But we need a shot of some form of stimulus right now.

By the way, the commentator has done right to call what we are doing welfare; I have written of this repeatedly on this blog and on the Huffington Post. It is not called welfare when big corporations are in need of assistance. But when the single mother needs assistance to care for her children, even when she is working, it is despairingly labeled as welfare. No amount of welfare already received by the thousand and thousands of mothers across this great country will add up to the many billions that we have already spent on bailouts for private industries. I'm not complaining. But tax cuts alone will not do it. We've been there and done that. Look at where we now are after 25 years.

If he said anything of value it is his proper labeling of what we are actually doing here. These companies are receiving welfare. I know that some might say that the difference is that we will be paid back with interest. This is our hope. We also hope that the single mother would be able to make things right and be able to one day pay taxes. We also hope that her children will also rise up and call her blessed and seek ways out of the hills of Tennessee or the ghetto of urban America and be contributing citizens to this great country that we all love. Now, if someone can only open his head and pour therein a touch of sensitivity and reality that would be good. Good luck to the one who seeks to do this.

As Warren Buffett, Donald Trump, Paul Krugman and many other economists on the Right and Left, I am in support of the stimulus package.

Being John Bogle V

In a review just posted this evening on the Huffington Post, I wrote on John Bogle's latest book, Enough! True Measures of Money, Business, and Life. I have written here of this wonderful little power-packed book more than once and wanted to share it with a larger audience. The HuffPost gets 20 million hits a month. I hope you will be one of these.

Being Rethuglicans

You will pardon my rage. But what are Rethuglicans? I read this descriptive in a comment on The Huffington Post and wondered who might these be. I'm heartsick about the $14 billion dollar bill that did not pass in the Senate for the auto manufacturers.

It's amazing that there was little specification for the $750 billion dollar bailout for finincial institutions. Some believe that besides the necessity of this bailout, there was a massive cover up to save friends at these institutions. Some are complaining that banks who didn't even need the money were forced to take it to save the likes of AIG. Most of this money we do not even know where it has gone.

What, not who, are these Rethuglicans? They seem both heartless and stupid. If assistance does not come from the already allotted bank bailout money, we can just continue to have our portfolios diminish, many more jobs totaling some 2 million minimum lost, and families devastated and divided, many in my hometown. Ugh! Sigh! Cry!

Being a Soft Porn Star

After seeing the cover and inside pictorial of Jennifer Aniston in GQ on The Huffington Post website, it is apparent that she has become in some respects a soft porn star. (There was such a pictorial of her in another magazine some years back if I'm not mistaken.) I wondered what would make a respected actor pose in just a tie.

Now, let me make something very clear. I am no prude and neither am I against the beauty and form of the human body. But does anyone get the sense that these actresses are just screaming for more attention besides what their talent affords? I have never seen Meryl Streep, for example, striking such a pose.