Being George Will III

In response to President Obama and Republican Senator Coburn's hug, George Will made this comment: "I don't know when men started to hug each other, but hug they do, and look at that." That's great!

I didn't see this particular hug, but I did notice another one. At the end of speech President Obama embraced Jessie Jackson, Jr. and mouthed "I love you" to which the latter kissed him on the cheek and said, "I love you too." There could not be a more beautiful sign of support.

I'm assuming this would have sent Mr. Will right over the cliff. But I thought it was the most beautiful thing. I have 7 brothers, 5 remaining, and each time they end a phone conversation one will say to the other "I love you" to which the other will respond "I love you too."

Whenever we are together, whenever we see each other, which is at least once a week for those in the area typically on Sunday, we always hug each other -- men and men, women and women, kids and kids, and say "I love you." In fact, the men that I know, personally and professionally, often hug each other and express words of love, even a kiss.

Is this a generational thing?

Being George Will

My mother was a die-liberal who followed conservatives George F. Will and William F. Buckley for years. I too have followed them and enjoy their respective writings, even when I have not agreed with them. I read the National Review regularly and Men at Work: The Craft of Baseball. George Will writes a recent article that needs consideration:

Time was, the Baltimore Orioles manager was Earl Weaver, a short, irascible, Napoleonic figure who, when cranky, as he frequently was, would shout at an umpire, "Are you going to get any better or is this it?" With, mercifully, only one debate to go, that is the question about John McCain's campaign.

In the closing days of his 10-year quest for the presidency, McCain finds it galling that Barack Obama is winning the first serious campaign he has ever run against a Republican. Before Tuesday night's uneventful event, gall was fueling what might be the McCain-Palin campaign's closing argument. It is less that Obama has bad ideas than that Obama is a bad person.

Fair enough?

Being George Will II

My mother, a die-hard liberal, followed George F. Will and William F. Buckley with great interest. She did not so much admire or agree with their politics. What she admired most was their ability to disseminate their ideas, whether written or spoken.

As I read George Will's Op-Ed piece in the Washington Times this evening, I smiled. My mother would have not only appreciated the fluent and persuasive manner with which he wrote, but the very message as well.

In many respects, a die-hard liberal could have written this very article.

Being George Will IV

During the Roundtable on This Week with George Stephanopoulos, George Will makes the point that "conflict is natural" to explain the unrest in the world in opposition to the emphasis on the "community of nations." "Behind the phrase 'community of nations,'" said Will, "is the old planned liberal axiom that harmony is natural; it's not."

There are a great many things that are natural things that need training or would otherwise be a mess. Relieving oneself is most natural. But should we not potty train children? Emotions are also natural. Should we simply be allowed to vent and rant whenever and wherever we are so pleased? Whether diplomacy is a "planned liberal axiom or not," I'm all for it.

Because diplomacy has failed in the past, should we stop trying? Just imagine what natural responses we would have to a host of natural impetuses if we failed to keep trying. While conflict may be natural, diplomacy may be divine. I also cannot help but to wonder what the world would be like if women and mothers were more in global leadership. Men tend to seek conflict and women tend to pursue peace. Men tend to war while women tend to prefer diplomacy. We need one another in order to solve global conflicts.

Being a Pundit, Newscaster and Analyst VIII

Sam Donaldson seems like the only level-headed pundit in this group. Listening to George Will, Peggy Noonan and Cokie Roberts I was amazed at the outright sanctioning of irresponsibility and the lack of accountability. These well-spoken clean cut pundits are those that we have listened to and read for years, yet there is a disturbing eeriness to their words. But perhaps I'm taking this too far some might say. "Everything is fair in love and war"--hence, the declaration of the war on terror and the abdication of national and international treaties?



"The problem with transparency is that it's transparent for the terrorists as well," said Will. He continued that "intelligent people of good will" believe the President of the United States can do whatever he wants to "defend the country." What??? Donaldson rightly repeated the infamous Richard Nixon line, "When the President does it, it's not illegal." Brilliant response!

Noonan chimed in, "It's hard for me to look at a great nation issuing these documents and sending them out to the world and thinking, oh, much good will come of that. Sometimes you need to just keep walking." She also believes that some things should be "mysterious." Cokie Roberts added that it was bad that those at the CIA destroyed documents pertaining to torture but she was glad that they did.

Here is Jon Stewart's ever brilliant take on the discussion of torture and Peggy Noonan's comment in particular.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	M - Th 11p / 10c
We Don't Torture
thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Economic Crisis Political Humor

What concerns me here is the desire not to hold others responsible and accountable. There is also a recklessness and injustice about the statements of Will, Roberts and Noonan that's rather alarming. It seems like a desire to intellectualize wrong doing and to simply make it go away without acknowledgement or retribution. With this kind of mentality, the ills of history will most likely be repeated.

Responsibility and accountability are essential to a healthy society.

Being George Will V

This week former V.P. Cheney accussed President Obama of "dithering" on policy in Afghanistan, while forgetting that the administration that he was a part of dithered for eight years. But George Will, conservative news columinist which I have written of more than a few times here, said it best today on ABC's "This Week."

"A bit of dithering might have been in order before we went into Iraq in pursuit of non-existent weapons of mass destruction. For a representative of the Bush administration to accuse someone of taking too much time is missing the point. We have much more to fear in this town from hasty than from slow government action."

Being Non-Partisan

President-elect Obama's dinner at conservative George Will's house yesterday evening, where the guest were other conservative writers including the New York Times columnist David Brooks, Weekly Standard's William Kristol, and Charles Krauthammer of the Washington Post, indicates that he is compeletly not interested in partisan politics. It also indicates that President-elect Obama is confident in his ability to lead all of the people.

Some might say that this dinner was just a gesture. But gestures matter! This one as well as a great many others will go a long way in fostering the proper mindset necessary to move us forward together as a nation. It will also bring the far Right and far Left together, bringing a more centrist politics. We want the same thing, both the Right and Left, even if idealogically we differ. We want a better America for all Americans and to be a responsible member of the world community.

America, this is our time!

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 Republicans

There has been a lot of talk about the deficit lately by Republicans who are opposed to the health care bill. As I listened to Representative Boehner yesterday trash the bill because it will cost $940 billion to insure some 30 million more Americans, I could not help but to think about the lies and hypocrisy that usually accompany such talking points. Republicans are supposed to be conservative and Democrats are supposed to be liberal. The line has long been that Republicans cut and Democrats spend. Here is a graph of the reality of deficit spending under Republican and Democrat administrations:



The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, the CBO, reports that the health care bill will cut the deficit by $1.2 trillion over ten years as the government does the moral thing to offer health care to those without it. Representative Boehner entered the House of Representative in 1990, serving under both Presidents George H. Bush and George W. Bush. He didn't have any problems with increasing the deficit to record levels under these Republican administrations. His repeated Republican talking point about deficit reduction, while being in a position then and not offering a real solution now, renders his words merely mute.

Being Boorish

Peggy Noonan, former speechwriter for President Reagan, columnist with the Wall Street Journal and political pundit on various media outlets, called President Obama "boorish" for appearing often on television to push health care reform.

Merriam-Webster OnLine

Main Entry: boor•ish
Pronunciation: \ˈbu̇r-ish\
Function: adjective
Date: 1562

resembling or befitting a boor (as in crude insensitivity)
— boor•ish•ly adverb
— boor•ish•ness noun

Synonyms: BOORISH, CHURLISH, LOUTISH, CLOWNISH mean an uncouth in manners or appearance. Boorish implies rudeness of manner due to insensitiveness to others' feelings and unwillingness to be agreeable (a drunk's boorish behavior). CHURLISH suggests surliness, unresponsiveness, and ungraciousness (churlish remakrs). LOUTISH implies bodily awkwardness together with stupidity (a loutish oaf). CLOWNISH suggests ill-bred awkwardness, ignorance or stupidity, ungainliness, and often a propensity for absurd antics (an adolescent's clownish conduct).Now, without having seen President Obama on any of the Sunday shows, as I didn't even turn on my television yesterday, listening to Peggy Noonan here she sounds pretty boorish to me.

The problem with many political pundits is that their exalted self-importance often comes crashing down on their own heads. Noonan falls into this category regularly with her forever feigned lilted pseduo-intellectual effacement which is so unattractive.

Listen to her tone and word choices; she always comes across to me as slightly bitchy, a bit snooty, and often subtly demeaning. Her seeemingly male counterparts, let's say a George Will or William F. Buckley, are rarely--if ever--amiss on meaning.

It is clear that Ms. Noonan, the great former speech writer, doesn't know the meaning of boorish. Surely, it couldn't possibly apply to the rather serious very thoughtful current president no matter how you feel about his policies.

Methinks Peggy Noonan is boorish.

Being Conservative

Nassim Nicholas Taleb espouses in a discussion with conservative British MP, David Cameron, the conservation of natural complex systems which would be ecological and what he describes as Brooklyn derivative trading as opposed to a MIT-based one. In this vein, I am very much a conservative.



Taleb is against debt and for robust systems. Politically speaking, we have not had such conservatism in a very long time in politics. What we have had for many years is a masquerade, a hypocritical scheme. The iconoclastic Republican president, Ronald Reagan, increased the deficit more than any other president besides our last president, George W. Bush. Both were conservatives.

President Obama and his financial team seem to be following in the same vein. Taleb sees this as a faulty system of forecasting that the president's financial team engages in. President Obama says that health care reform will not add one penny to the deficit. We are waiting to see how this will be achieved. It would seem that Geithner, Summers, and Bernanke were all a part of the problem. I wonder if they can also be a part of the solution. Taleb makes a great analogy:

"The patient has cancer. OK. They're giving him painkillers. If you're giving the cancer patient painkillers, what's going to happen to him? Physically, the cancer is going to get worse but he's going to not feel it. So, the problem we have in America is that nobody has addressed the fundamental error, the over reliance on forecasts. Larry Summers blew up Harvard's endowment forecasting what's going to happen with its endowment. They're going to do the same with the US administration and build the government deficit based on that. What should we do? Transform debt into equity."



By the way, a year ago my partner and I went to our state senator and proposed a great plan that would "transform debt into equity" with regards to the abundant of foreclosure in Michigan. The senator's chief of staff with whom we met thought it was a great idea. We were given platitudes and nothing happened. I sent various emails and made several calls.

My partner in a real estate venture is a senior executive at a Fortune 100. He didn't appreciate the meeting at all. I noticed this immediately. I could tell by the corners of his mouth and the dart in his eyes, though they seemed to escape the chief of staff. But since I had been a consultant with governments large and small, I thought I recognized the hoops necessary. But he was right. The senator's office was not really interested in solutions, but in seemingly maintaining the status quo. They did not seem interested in making the Michigan economy robust.

Our plan remains the better one than any others that we have heard coming out of the past or current administrations. It doesn't rely on debt and increases a robust economy. In creating such solutions, I am very much a conservative.

Being a Prick

Rick Santelli is a prick! You will excuse me, please. But I am incensed. Here is a guy ranting on the floor of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange of all places about the stimulus package not "rewarding people who can carry the water instead of drinking it" and the very place where he stood and incited others to slam the stimulus package is alive largely because of the HUNDREDS of BILLIONS of DOLLARS given by taxpayers to support the financial industry.

As someone in real estate investments who talks to the middle class and working poor often, whose homes are being foreclosed upon largely due to Wall Street predatory lending and job losses, my anger with Santelli's words is palpable. Many of these people work every day and they are not looking for a handout. They need a hand up. We are either going to help them stay in their homes and maintain their dignity or house and feed them through social programs.

Does this Santelli not sound like a prick?

According to Merriam-Webster, prick is defined as:

4 usually vulgar: penis
5 usually vulgar: a spiteful or contemptible man often having some authority

You decide which is more applicable here. This guy's words are without doubt vulgar. His opportunistic hypocritical rant is despicable. I saw him on several shows yesterday and this morning full of himself about his infamous words, smiling from ear to ear, as if on a TV reality show. This is not a joke, prick!

People are losing their jobs and homes and are unable to house and feed their children. Shelter enrollment and food stamps have increased over these months. Those who once paid taxes are unable to do so today. Should we now forsake these and disregard their pain largely due to Wall Street greed? Plus, my home value decreases if other homes in the neighborhood are foreclosed upon.



His rant sounds like the pricks who speak lies about the working poor not paying taxes, while they send their earnings by the HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS to tax shelters in Switzerland. SANTELLI wouldn't be reporting on the floor of the Chicago Mecantile Floor and the IDIOTIC LYNCH MOB behind him may be OUT OF WORK if the TAX PAYERS had not supported the financial industry through bailing out WALL STREET banks to the tune of HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS!

Where was Rick Santelli and those traders' outrage concerning George Washington and the Constitution, which has no relevance here, by the way, when WE, the taxpayers, BAILED OUT WALL STREET? This prick and the idiotic lynch mob behind him seem to be drinking the water instead of carrying it!

Being Physically Prepared to Lead

Joy Behar informed us on Larry King Live that John McCain has 17 cars, but what she really wanted to know if he could drive any of them at night. This brings us to a very poignant point: John McCain's health and age. If President Clinton's hair grew gray after his first term, if President George W. Bush's brow displayed a few more lines in two years, and if Senator Obama matured so much from that very youthful face during the 2004 Democratic convention, pray tell what will McCain be like after a few weeks in the office of the president, being the oldest president ever elected and having had serious bouts with melanoma? Enter: Sarah Palin. God, help us.

Being a Corrupt Government Official

Governor Rod Blagojevich (D) was arrested today on corruption charges to gain favor in appointing a Senator to fill President-elect Obama's vacant seat. In essence, the charge is that he sought to sell the vacated Senate seat to the highest bidder. Through wire taps and bugs the Governor is reported to have asked for, among other things, campaign funding large amounts of money by year's end and a seat for his wife on a corporate board that could garner large fees yearly. (No wonder these boards don't have the interest of the shareholder or the worker at heart; the members have not a clue. Many of these people on these big boards may know nothing! Look at how these positions appear to be attained.) Governor Blagojevich is quoted in the affidavit as saying, "I want the money." Well, work for it legally like the rest of us! And to think that Blagojevich was elected to clean up the mess the former governor left who is now serving time in prison.

Governor Blagojevich will propably join the other corrupt government officials as convicted felons if the complaints are true. Other corrupt officials include the former governor of Illinois Governor George Ryan (R), who is serving a 6-year prison sentence, and the former 85-year-old Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska (R) who should be on a tether and under house arrest, if not locked up behind bars himself. (Think about it, the former senator Ted Stevens has 7 felony convictions!) I'm really trying to be nice here, considering Ted Stevens advanced years. But I'm sure others may think that he deserves prison time. After all, the lack of ethics probably did not begin recently. You don't just happen upon 7 convicted felonies after a lifetime of ethical behavior--highly unlikely! Ted Stevens 40 years in the Senate was probably riffed with unethical conduct as a matter of simply doing things. Remember how defiant he was upon being charged and how righteous he was even after being convicted? Disgusting! He is 85 years old! What is he telling his great-grandchildren?

What's the matter with these people? Had they no lessons in ethics at home at all?

Being Divisive

The health care debates are not debates, but divisive disturbances. The organizers and attendees seem to seek to polarize the country more and return politics to the Willie Horton days where a single ad depicting a black man represents the whole of black men who will come into white neighborhoods and wreak unspeakable crimes. It worked. George H. Bush, the moderate conservative, was elected in 1988. But what the ad did was by far worse than the debate of the death penalty or the election of any one president. It caused divisiveness.

Here is the brilliant Noam Chomsky being interviewed by the brilliant William F. Buckley in a rational debate. The beauty here is that although both men are at two ideological spectrums there is a decorum and rationality present. There is a certain respect for difference. A beautiful point that Chomsky makes is that if we do not stand up and call what is obviously wrong wrong we are co-conspirators in unjust acts and are even worse for allowing such to take root.

Listening to Chomsky's words, I could not help but to think of the Republican leaders in Washington that have passively sanctioned the lies and racist images being propagated by conservative radio talk show hosts and conservative fringe groups at town halls by not speaking out against them. Where there is no condemnation of such outrages lies, misconceptions and images, there is a tacit acceptance and agreement of such. This is what has been the most shameful for me in this health care "debate." The tactics of the Republican party for getting elected and defeating bills have been very shameful. Stoking the worse fears seems to be their modus operandi.



In this health care debate I find it particularly interesting that those at town halls the attendees are calling President Obama a fascist and caring posters of the president as Hitler. But it is their actions that refuse to allow others to be heard that is aligned with fascism as well as their outright lies and scare tactics in order to mobilize an irrational mob following to defeat a bill that they could not rationally explain if you gave them a million dollars. This is not debate, but divisive disturbances that does not aide democracy.