Being Liberals

Arianna Huffington's quote in New York Times that "the whole point that American policy needs to be redefined beyond left and right" seems to have gotten liberals riled up. But I find it interesting that these same people make excuses for the right-leaning policies of Barack Obama. Now, she's a media person and he's the president. Which has more power? Perhaps she does according to the outcry.

Being Timothy Geithner IV

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner says that the markets are doing incredibly well. Isn't strange that this is so when many millions of American and small businesses are doing so incredibly bad? Small businesses can't get loans to stay afloat and individuals can't get them to start a business. Wasn't the bailout to the Wall Street banks suppose to enable these things? Wall Street banks are flush with cash largely because of the money the American taxpayers lent while they sit and do nothing for us.



Listening to Geithner, I wondered if were seeing the same reality. Perhaps his indicators point to some other reality. But when has it ever been that the markets were doing so well and the American people so poorly? Does this not support the fact that Wall Street is the other Las Vegas as Nicholas Darvas asserts in his book, Wall Street: The Other Las Vegas. John Bogle writes in in his wonderful book Enough that "there is too much speculating and not enough investing." I agree. What is for sure is that the national and global economies were saved by the bailout and stimulus. I don't think bottoming out was a viable option. But it should have been required of AIG to make concessions to their counterparties. Instead, the like of Goldman Sachs and Barclays, who failed miserably by investing in new products like credit default swaps and collateralized debt obligations, got paid big in fees before the crisis and a big bailout totaling over 20 billion in Goldman Sachs' case thereafter. Who wouldn't be flushed with cash with such opportunities?

When asked about Arianna Huffington's movement, Move Your Money, which encourages people to move their money from big Wall Street banks to small banks and credit unions, Geithner thought it was a bad idea. He was initially quite dismissive of the power which rests with the depositors. Without giving reasons why it was not a good idea Geithner quickly backpedals to offhandedly support the American people with words. But we'd like to see some action. The bailout was suppose to increase lending to small businesses. Instead, these Wall Street banks give out billion-dollar bonuses.

Geithner seems to care less about the unavailability of loans to small business and individuals seeking credit to start a business and more concerned about Wall Street banks which he did not oversee during the years he spent as the New York Fed chairman.

Being Zbigniew Brzezinski III

Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski, former national security adviser for Jimmy Carter, is one of the most eminent foreign policy experts. There is a reason that I have written of him more than once here. I admire him greatly. He is a model for what we need today. He is a voice of reason, he is brilliant, he is well-informed, he is wise, and he is fair.

Dr. Brzezinski appeared on Morning Joe after President Obama gave his speech on Afghanistan. He agrees with President Obama and clearly outlines the assumed "ambiguities" in Afghanistan that wasn't addressed in the speech, partially because of the nature of the conflict and our position. As always, his appearance was brilliant. When asked by Arianna Huffington of the legitimization of the Karzai government as defined by many experts he responded that America should not throw stones:

Who are we to seriously be preaching [such] a crusade? We have a financial sector that is voraciously greedy and exploitative, to put it mildly. We have a Congress which is not immune to special interests. And we have an electoral system that is based largely on private donations which precipitate expectations of rewards. The notion of us going to the Afghans and preaching purity is comical... I think we should just quit that stuff.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Perhaps Dr. Brzezinski should be directly advising President Obama, if he isn't already. I would also hope that politicians in and around Washington, both old and young, sit down and take notice of this national treasure. In fact, we all have a lot to learn from him.

Being Deficit Neutral

Arianna Huffington asked Ben Stein a very good question on Larry King last night to which he had no reasonable answer. It went something like this: Why is it that we require health care reform to be deficit neutral and not require the same of war? The response to the question was that we always did it that way. China is literally banking on our continued conflicts and rising debt. It seems that we will not disappoint.

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 Hypocritical III

Now, I don't know much about ACORN except that it registers millions of people, mostly minority, to vote and there was a scandal recently with some workers and prostitution. Of course, during the election there was speculation of voter fraud with various workers being paid for filling in names like Mickey Mouse who could never conceivably appear on election day with a valid photo ID. By the way, ACORN itself reported the fraud that was going on with the temporary employees who are paid more when more people are registered. But like I said these people could not report to vote anyway as a valid ID would be required.

The interesting thing here as government agencies withdraw support from Acorn and Democrats align behind Republicans, is the mere pennies that ACORN received in comparison to what Halliburton received from the government. Halliburton received billions of dollars before and after it was proven that this company that Dick Cheney once ran defrauded the government. Now, all sincere concern of wrongdoing should be investigated. But the degree of hypocrisy and greater harm to the American people here with one group as opposed to another is alarming.

In this clip Dylan Ratigan and Arianna Huffington make it plain:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Something stinks. This seems like another "birther"-like effort to de-legitimize President Obama. The spokesperson from redstate.com is revealed to be a political partisan and this seems like his motivation. His conspiracy theory is hell-bent on linking ACORN with the White House by any means necessary. I would that some organization like redstate.com would be so tenacious in going after Halliburton and Blackwater who received exceptionally large contracts and have been proven to defraud the American taxpayer and accused of even murder in the case of Blackwater. This ACORN witch hunt seems incredibly hypocritical in this light.

Being Rational Reformers

Here are two rational economic voices, Arianna Huffington and Congressman Ron Paul, on reform. Arianna speaks of the necessity of cleaning up bad assets (foreclosed properties) still on bank books along with banks that have grown are now even more "too big to fail." She addresses the $1 million homeless children whose parents did not take out bad loans but lost their jobs. Both the banks and state of homeless children have the potential of great economic calamity now and in the future.

Ron Paul is someone I have always respected, even when I thought his ideas were perhaps too far on the edge. But I've been listening to him more lately with a different set of ears. Paul's comments here about President Obama's label of socialism is worth considering: "Some conservatives accuse Obama of socialized medicine," he said. "I don't think so. I think he wants to perpetuate corporatism. Whether in financial markets (think Geithner, Summers, and Bernanke), medical care (think insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies) or whatever." This is the exact opposite of irrational voices screaming socialism. Hmm?

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Being Arianna Huffington X

Arianna Huffington asked a very good question on her "Sunday Roundoff" that made me both laugh hysterically and think.

Bernie Madoff's mistress warmed the hearts of Freudians everywhere with her revelation that the famous felon "had a very small penis. Not only was it on the short side, it was small in circumference." Is that why he needed to sport the biggest Ponzi in history?

Hmm? Could this also be partially the reason for war and other kinds of male aggression? That's not the first time that's been asked.

To compensate so, this penis thing seems so very misguided, eh?

Being Senator Grassley

Senator Grassley proves himself to be a hypocrite and a liar. It is apparent why he is propagating a lie that the government wants to "pull the plug on grandma." After receiving 2 million dollars from the insurance industry, it is clear whose side he's on.



Arianna Huffington suggested that Senator Grassley be censored by the Senate for this lie. After all, he is a sitting senator, not merely a crazed town hall wingnut or the former governor of Alaska.

Being David Brooks III

Conservative columnist, David Brooks, whom I have followed for years and whose columns I often appreciate, wrote a thoughtful piece on Bernanke and the Fed that is worth considering, "Wise Muddling Through." I have written of Brooks here before.

Brooks writes:

Their decision not to bail out Lehman Brothers was based on a complete misreading of the economic psychology. Paulson was sick of doing bailouts. He seems to have had some sort of intuitive moral sense that it was time for some bank to pay for its mistakes. Bernanke and Geithner went along, and none of them anticipated the meltdown that followed.

But this is not a story of failure. It’s a story of effective muddling through. Bernanke & Co. never really got control of events. But they did avert disaster and committed only a few big blunders. In the real world, that counts as a job well done.

As I see it, there are two things wrong here:

First, it is very difficult to speak about another's moral intuition, especially when that one was over Goldman Sachs and when he and Geithner, who was over the NY Fed, have such cozy relationships with Wall Street bank executives.

Morality is shown by consistent actions and decisions. Paulson insisted that Merrill Lynch and Bank of America merge, giving the latter a pretty hefty bailout. BofA would probably be insolvent without it, as well as Goldman Sachs.

Second, it was their lack of complete oversight of these banks over many years that led to the crisis, not just merely allowing Lehman to fail, but allowing AIG to essentially become a Hedge Fund that insured Goldman Sachs, becoming too big too fail.

While Brooks is appreciated, I am with Jack Bogle, Nassim Nicholas Taleb, Arianna Huffington and Eliot Spitzer. Their words and actions have mattered most in this economic crisis.

Being with the Iranian People

We stand with the Iranian people by allowing them to make their own decision without our interference. President Obama is getting some heat from the Republicans for not condemning the election results and speaking out against the Iranian establishment. But he is clearly doing the right thing. We have butted in that country's business before and not in beneficial ways. We can stand with the people of Iran without injecting ourselves in their national politics.

Arianna Huffington made a brilliant comment in the "Situation Room" with Wolf Blitzer with regards to our interference in Iranian politics. Tony Blankey, former Press Secretary to Newt Gingrich, called for President Obama to take a stand with the opposition and indicated that the President is missing this "moment" in history. Huffington responded that this is the "Iranian people's moment."

No truer words could have been spoken. While many of us stand with the people of Iran, it remains their "moment." Just imagine if after the 2000 election if other governments started publicly telling the American government that we should do a re-vote for the sake of the people? We were also in the streets and it took quite a while for many Americans to get over that contentious election. In fact, many still have not gotten over it.

America and the world will benefit from change in Iran. But it is the Iranian people who will bring about this change, not the President of the United States and its citizens.

Being Self-Destructive

Arianna Huffington writes a provocative piece on the conservative sexist and racist attacks on President Obama's nominee, Sonia Sotomayor, to the Supreme Court.

She begins:

Listening to conservatives like Pat "She's an Affirmative Action Pick" Buchanan, Rush "He Picked the Hispanic" Limbaugh, and Tom "Latino KKK" Tancredo play the race card in attacking the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor, I've been marveling at just how self-destructive they've become.

She ends:

Here's the bottom line: Republicans know Sotomayor is going to be confirmed, so the howls of protest are all for show. It's all about fund-raising and rallying the base. But it's already so super-heated, what will be left to get worked up about by the time we get to the actual confirmation hearings?

Unless there are pubic hairs on Coke cans and secret porno rentals ("The Return of Long Dong Silver"!), it's going to be a total snooze.

Uh, yeah...

Being David Brooks

While I sometimes appreciate New York Times columnist David Brooks’ opinions, I think he misses some very important points in a recent article, "In Praise of Dullness". Based on a study, "Which C.E.O. Characterisitcs and Abilities Matter?", by Steven Kaplan, Mark Klebanov and Morten Sorensen, Brooks suggests that listening and communication are overrated and that never has/shall the twine mix successfully, as one is about execution and the other merely about charm and ideas. He distinguishes between the politicians and the business leaders with regards to execution. By the way, not once while reading the article did I picture women business leaders. Hmm? I wonder why?

There need not be a separation between ideas and execution and there also need not be not be a specific model from which every CEO is hewed. Personalities matter and there are as many diverse personalities in this position as there are people. In fact, person is the root of personalities. While the core characteristics of any venture, government or business, is execution, ideas on how it is done is what allows for execution, even when the CEO ultimately makes the decision on how things are done. Listening and communication are essential in our time especially.

Brooks seems to be writing about CEO's that had not been a part of the information age by and large. It was a different era. While the basics of business have not change i.e., "execution and organizational skills, attention to detail, persistence, efficiency, analytic thoroughness and the ability to work long hours" the way in which these things are done within a global market, if not more than the necessary communication with others globally, has changed. It's a global market and a CEO better be listening and communicating, not only to his teams but to others outside of them and these team members better be listening to each other and the general public. Business has never been done in a vacuum.

Brooks' opinion also does not take into account small business owners who are the backbone of this economy who rely on communication with their staff and clients and where listening is paramount. These also build community in ways that big business does not and where perhaps a lack of communication and listening on some levels is not as paramount. (Maybe the lack of such has been the downfall of community in some sense. Or, perhaps it is being somewhat redefined.) But it is not an either/or situation—to listen or not in this age. It is the only solution. The past environment may have lend itself to a more centralized power structure where all people thought alike and a diversity of input was not as welcoming. But this is an altogether new global technological age and how we communicate and listen is more important than ever.

It's funny. Brooks says that "business and politics do not blend well. Business leaders tend to perform poorly in Washington, while political leader possess precisely those talents – charisma, charm, personal skills - that are of such limited value when it comes to corporate execution." Hmm? I wonder about the correlation between Mr. Cheney and Halliburton here, Washington and corporate executives. This solitary image utterly defies what Brooks has written. Cheney was a CEO, Vice-President, horrid listener by all accounts, and lacked communication skills. He left the country in a big mess. According to Brooks' standard an opposite Washington type would be a more hard-line non-communicative dictatorial type like the former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. But just look at where his leadership in Iraq left us before the thoughtful more communicative current Defense Secretary Dr. Robert Gates. According to Brooks' standard an opposite Washington type would be a more hard-line non-communicative dictatorial type like the former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfield. But just look at where his leadership in Iraq left us before the thoughtful more communicative current Secretary of Defense Dr. Robert Gates.

Brooks and his ilk also like to pretend that there is some big separation between government and big business when in reality they have been in bed for years. Can you say Halliburton—now KBR? (It's the same business different name.) There need not be a disconnection between ideas and execution, government and business in this regard. In fact, government allowed big business to prosper. It was a union of sorts. Without such there would have been no roads and highways, for example, which enabled Ford, Firestone and Edison to prosper in their business ventures of cars, wheels and street lights. But we have to demand of our public officials on all levels, local and national and be active citizens in our government. We need to hold them accountable. The big problem is self-interest in government and big business.

Opining the death of CEOs' control as he sees it, as if they have not been culpable in the current mess and not in need of imposed regulation as they seem unable to regulate themselves, Brooks writes: "We now have an administration freely interposing itself in the management culture of industry after industry. It won’t be the regulations that will be costly, but the revolution in values. When Washington is a profit center, C.E.O.’s are forced to adopt the traits of politicians. That is the insidious way that other nations have lost their competitive edge." Does this not sound like there have been no culpability with the likes of CEOs in finance and the auto industry? This statement is utterly asinine from this perspective.

Brooks makes this statement: "People in the literary, academic and media worlds rarely understand business." Tell that to Arianna Huffington! "It is nearly impossible to think of a novel that accurately portrays business success," he continues. Can you say Ayn Rand? Hmm? Two women? The problem with David Brooks here is that his views are narrow; he also apparently cannot possibly conceive of women in his neat dull scenario. Brooks seems to be trying to hold on to a crumbling all white male CEO image that he has become accustomed to writing about rooted in political ideology that limits both perspective and reality. Tom Peters' book In Search of Excellence lists as many diverse CEO personalities as there are successes. And that was over 25 years ago!

Being Arianna Huffington IX

Here is Arianna Huffington as guest host of Squawk Box with two of my favorite people of late, Elizabeth Warren and Eliot Spitzer. I have written of Spitzer more than a few times here.





It is incredibly difficult to disagree with the wisdom of both Ms. Warren and Mr. Spitzer, as well as the poignant questions and prompting by Arianna Huffington.

Being Warren Buffett II

Warren Buffett and Charlie Munger, partners in Berkshire Hathaway, have finally come around to what Nassim Nicholas Taleb has been saying for years now. VAR models are dangerous, though they are taught widely in business schools and used on Wall Street. Mr. Munger even now talks about the risk of such mathematical theories being taught in business schools. While Mr. Buffett and Mr. Munger seem to be late to the game, better late than never--I guess.

Perhaps Mr. Buffett needed to speak out now as the Oracle, whom I like as a person who lives moderately and seems like a basically good guy, after Berkshire lost big over the last year and a half, even its coveted triple-A credit score rating. Berkshire has a 24% stake in Moody's Investor Service, the credit scoring company that gave Wall Street companies that engaged in credit default swaps and the like triple-A ratings, even after it was obvious that such a rating was not deserved. Does this feel like collusion?

Some might wonder if Berkshire's rating did not go down until early this year because of its stake in Moody's. After all, Berkshire seems to have itself written complicated financial instruments that have been hammered for some time now. Berkshire has gone down 39% since December 2007. Oh, what a racket it all seems to be, even among the seemingly good guys. Because of this, the mere whiff of impropriety, the public's ire musn't wane. Arianna Huffington has been hitting Wall Street banks hard and rightfully so!

Below Mr. Buffett and Mr. Munger speak about the dangers of mathematical theories, making it clear their mistrust of the use of "higher-order mathematics in finance." But where were they before now? I have not heard them speak against such while Berkshire had its triple-A credit rating or when they were writing these complicated financial instruments. I don't mean to be accusatory, as I am most certainly no financial expert. But it all just feels so incredibly wrong right about now considering this harrowing time on Wall Street.

"There is so much that's false and nutty in modern investing practice and modern investment banking, that if you just reduced the nonsense, that's a goal you should reasonably hope for," Mr. Buffett said. Regarding complex calculations used to value purchases, he said: "If you need to use a computer or a calculator to make the calculation, you shouldn't buy it."

Said Mr. Munger: "Some of the worst business decisions I've ever seen are those with future projections and discounts back. It seems like the higher mathematics with more false precision should help you, but it doesn't. They teach that in business schools because, well, they've got to do something.

Mr. Buffett said: "If you stand up in front of a business class and say a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush, you won't get tenure....Higher mathematics my be dangerous and lead you down pathways that are better left untrod."

Here is Mr. Buffett on Moody's credit agency. But this too doesn't seem right, especially with Berkshires stake in Moody's. It also seems like a whole lot of people should go to jail. (The reference here is not specifically with regards to Mr. Buffet or Mr. Munger.)

Mr. Buffett was asked about Moody's, which gave a triple-A rating of billions of dollars to mortgage backed securities that subsequently lost value.

"Basically, four or five years ago, virtually everybody in the country had this model in their heads, formal or otherwise, that house prices could not fall significantly," Mr. Buffett said. He later added that "it was stupidity and the fact that everyone else was doing it."

He said that if Moody's had started to take a negative view on residential real estate, the ratings provider would have been hauled before Congress to testify about why it was hurting the U.S. economy with its bearish ratings. "They made a huge mistake, and the American people made a huge mistake," he said.

Nassim Nicholas Taleb and Arianna Huffington are clear voices that can help guide us out of this Wall Street morass. Taleb's firm did not engage in such because "everyone else was doing it." Is this really an excuse for such? Sometimes even oracles are misguided. Who am I to say such a thing?

Being Arianna Huffington VIII

Arianna Huffington has given President Obama very high marks for his first 100 days, except for his handling of the bank crisis with Timothy Geithner and Larry Summers at the helm.


Watch CBS Videos Online

Should Citi go into receivership? I think so.

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 in Davos II

I posted earlier on Being in Davos and Being at Davos vs TED which included Arianna Huffington. Here is Nassim Nicholas Taleb in the same idyllic setting. Taleb asks why should we socialize the debts and privitize the gains of Wall Street banks?

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?