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."
Showing posts with label George Will. Show all posts
Showing posts with label George Will. Show all posts
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Monday, September 21, 2009
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.
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.
Friday, September 11, 2009
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.
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.
Thursday, August 13, 2009
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.
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.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
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.
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.
"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 | ||||
| ||||
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.
Sunday, April 5, 2009
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.
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.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
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?
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?
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
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!
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!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)