Letter to CNN's "Some random dudes' 'Outfront'" (Erin's on vacation so this is just between us dudes, right?)
Re: The “Big-Sexy”. (1) Pole Dancing. I keep hearing rumors that pole-dancing will become an Olympic sport and I have to admit, I am conflicted, and, as a result, ambivalent, to the concept. It should fall into the general category of gymnastics and the ambivalence starts there. The whole idea of men’s gymnastics leaves me uninspired while the women’s is one of my favorites and I’m certain that men’s pole-dancing will have the same effect. I’ve admitted previously to my admiration of the feminine form but I also prefer that form in action as I find it much more graceful, self-contained and elegant, in both movement and aspiration. The men are just too sweaty, grunting, flailing, and over-reaching for me-the same reason I can’t watch Maria Sharapova play tennis. America, as always, represents the cutting edge of the pole-dancing craze, as evidenced in the polemic of our politics (poleitics?), where the public is, daily, treated to the spectacle of our politicians contorting themselves around the latest poll. We can’t complain about the Egyptian process when we set the standard in polarization and dysfunction. However, I‘d be lying if I said I wouldn‘t like to see some burkas whirling around that pole…(2) Open season on “The Pledge”. I’m assuming Grover Norquist will be spending some time down his self-excavated rabbit-hole now that primary season has passed. Primary challenges from the right are the only self-defense mechanism the pledge has and the threat of those are, now, off in the far-too-distant-future for the Congress to imagine, at least if you take their legislation into account. If the pledge is ever going to be broken, it has to be now while Congress has a year, or so, to kill it completely and remove Super Grover from the equation. If it’s not broken before the November election, here we go again. It‘s going to be up to John Boehner to sew together a coalition of MOR Dems and Reps: I see them as Elmer Fudd approaching GN’s Bugs Bunny and Grover saying, “No, Doc, you got it all wrong, I’m not a bunny-entitlements are a bunny. You should be hunting those: it’ll be good for ya…” (3) Rubbin’ isn’t racin’. Over the weekend, I watched the Monaco G.P. (fantastic even by their standards) and Indy (as good as Monaco) but skipped the Nascar fandango. I believe that rubbin’ is wreckin’ and that rule is transcendent: putting on a good show is more important than finishing first and only a hillbilly would think otherwise. (4) The problem with prophylaxis. The fact that Morgan-Stanley lost $2 billion is not really the news. A sum that “small” can easily be washed-out with the quarterly earning and the only reason it was mentioned at all is that was so unexpected, happening in the space of a few weeks. The “news” is that Morgan-Stanley’s book has become so large, grown 45% over the recession, it needs a $100 BILLION HEDGE!!! Let us reconsider what a hedge actually is: it is a prophylactic measure taken as a counter-balance to another endeavor, insurance in case the original relationship sours. If proper vetting and commitment has been secured in the original relationship, a hedge is unnecessary (and potentially insulting) but, if the original relationship is a temporary, fleeting assignation, hedging is of the utmost importance for the security of all parties concerned should “unforeseen” circumstances arise. Now, we’re all grown-ups here and I have no expectation that what I’m about to say here will keep Wall Street from running around, buck-wild, screwing everybody in sight. It’s what adolescents do (I say adolescents because Gramm-Leach-Bliley was 13 years ago) and like teenagers they’re unwilling to accept the consequences of their actions. Here’s the point I wish to share as a mature parent: if you’re not willing to commit to long term relationships that have inherent value, that will, by their own accord, bring growth and stability to the parties involved, if you’re only pursuing these arrangements for the excitement of the hunt, for self-aggrandizement, for the short-term pleasures that bring long-term pain, if you think so little of those you exploit, you should not be left un-chaperoned at anytime, as you are a danger to those innocents around you in whose embrace of common decency you dance. In the eyes of the world, you would have us seen as a nation of cads, of bounders, whose unbridled faithlessness and profligacy have set the bar this low, then only to limbo it. Was this nation built on such low morality? No, it was always with the common regard for each other and the slow-building constancy of mutual interest. It is the faithlessness that they show in the nation around them, and in the foundational values of growth through investment, that makes them unworthy of trust. Just sayin’, if you can’t safely pack it into a Magnum, you are a systemic risk. (5) Jon Huntsman = Sexy. Doing the math: good-looking, without making obvious concessions in that regard, check, full head of hair, check, fit, check, smart, check, doesn‘t look like he‘s from Utah, check, somebody’s Daddy, check, rides a motorcycle, check and really we can just stop right there. If that’s sexy, all I can say is “Sup?”. (6) The “Big-Sexy” world. Over the weekend, I heard a comedian remark,” The rest of the world looks at the United States the way the United States looks at Texas: Texas is all ‘We’re the biggest and the best and we’re cowboys shooting our guns off, woohoo!!!’” (paraphrased from memory). I realize the unfairness of this concept, Alaska is the biggest, but I also know ALASKA DOESN’T COUNT JUST LIKE CANADA DOESN’T COUNT. (Not my idea it’s just the way things are.) The thing about being sexy is being appropriate in the context you are viewed in. Do I want to see a well-endowed woman flopping around a pole? Is the “most powerful man” in Washington sexy? Is Nascar sexier than F1? Is Morgan-Stanley’s financial phallus enthralling? Is Jon Huntsman’s middle of the road stance, his “moderation is key” approach, what makes him relevant and, well, appropriate? What’s Alaska (and Canada for that matter) compensating for? Maybe this “bigger is better” mindset is a holdover from childhood when we just couldn’t wait to be “big” and then the world would be perfect. We no longer consider the appropriateness of the world and only wish for more and bigger.
But that’s not what we need, is it?
It’s not even what we really want…
Re: The “Big-Sexy”. (1) Pole Dancing. I keep hearing rumors that pole-dancing will become an Olympic sport and I have to admit, I am conflicted, and, as a result, ambivalent, to the concept. It should fall into the general category of gymnastics and the ambivalence starts there. The whole idea of men’s gymnastics leaves me uninspired while the women’s is one of my favorites and I’m certain that men’s pole-dancing will have the same effect. I’ve admitted previously to my admiration of the feminine form but I also prefer that form in action as I find it much more graceful, self-contained and elegant, in both movement and aspiration. The men are just too sweaty, grunting, flailing, and over-reaching for me-the same reason I can’t watch Maria Sharapova play tennis. America, as always, represents the cutting edge of the pole-dancing craze, as evidenced in the polemic of our politics (poleitics?), where the public is, daily, treated to the spectacle of our politicians contorting themselves around the latest poll. We can’t complain about the Egyptian process when we set the standard in polarization and dysfunction. However, I‘d be lying if I said I wouldn‘t like to see some burkas whirling around that pole…(2) Open season on “The Pledge”. I’m assuming Grover Norquist will be spending some time down his self-excavated rabbit-hole now that primary season has passed. Primary challenges from the right are the only self-defense mechanism the pledge has and the threat of those are, now, off in the far-too-distant-future for the Congress to imagine, at least if you take their legislation into account. If the pledge is ever going to be broken, it has to be now while Congress has a year, or so, to kill it completely and remove Super Grover from the equation. If it’s not broken before the November election, here we go again. It‘s going to be up to John Boehner to sew together a coalition of MOR Dems and Reps: I see them as Elmer Fudd approaching GN’s Bugs Bunny and Grover saying, “No, Doc, you got it all wrong, I’m not a bunny-entitlements are a bunny. You should be hunting those: it’ll be good for ya…” (3) Rubbin’ isn’t racin’. Over the weekend, I watched the Monaco G.P. (fantastic even by their standards) and Indy (as good as Monaco) but skipped the Nascar fandango. I believe that rubbin’ is wreckin’ and that rule is transcendent: putting on a good show is more important than finishing first and only a hillbilly would think otherwise. (4) The problem with prophylaxis. The fact that Morgan-Stanley lost $2 billion is not really the news. A sum that “small” can easily be washed-out with the quarterly earning and the only reason it was mentioned at all is that was so unexpected, happening in the space of a few weeks. The “news” is that Morgan-Stanley’s book has become so large, grown 45% over the recession, it needs a $100 BILLION HEDGE!!! Let us reconsider what a hedge actually is: it is a prophylactic measure taken as a counter-balance to another endeavor, insurance in case the original relationship sours. If proper vetting and commitment has been secured in the original relationship, a hedge is unnecessary (and potentially insulting) but, if the original relationship is a temporary, fleeting assignation, hedging is of the utmost importance for the security of all parties concerned should “unforeseen” circumstances arise. Now, we’re all grown-ups here and I have no expectation that what I’m about to say here will keep Wall Street from running around, buck-wild, screwing everybody in sight. It’s what adolescents do (I say adolescents because Gramm-Leach-Bliley was 13 years ago) and like teenagers they’re unwilling to accept the consequences of their actions. Here’s the point I wish to share as a mature parent: if you’re not willing to commit to long term relationships that have inherent value, that will, by their own accord, bring growth and stability to the parties involved, if you’re only pursuing these arrangements for the excitement of the hunt, for self-aggrandizement, for the short-term pleasures that bring long-term pain, if you think so little of those you exploit, you should not be left un-chaperoned at anytime, as you are a danger to those innocents around you in whose embrace of common decency you dance. In the eyes of the world, you would have us seen as a nation of cads, of bounders, whose unbridled faithlessness and profligacy have set the bar this low, then only to limbo it. Was this nation built on such low morality? No, it was always with the common regard for each other and the slow-building constancy of mutual interest. It is the faithlessness that they show in the nation around them, and in the foundational values of growth through investment, that makes them unworthy of trust. Just sayin’, if you can’t safely pack it into a Magnum, you are a systemic risk. (5) Jon Huntsman = Sexy. Doing the math: good-looking, without making obvious concessions in that regard, check, full head of hair, check, fit, check, smart, check, doesn‘t look like he‘s from Utah, check, somebody’s Daddy, check, rides a motorcycle, check and really we can just stop right there. If that’s sexy, all I can say is “Sup?”. (6) The “Big-Sexy” world. Over the weekend, I heard a comedian remark,” The rest of the world looks at the United States the way the United States looks at Texas: Texas is all ‘We’re the biggest and the best and we’re cowboys shooting our guns off, woohoo!!!’” (paraphrased from memory). I realize the unfairness of this concept, Alaska is the biggest, but I also know ALASKA DOESN’T COUNT JUST LIKE CANADA DOESN’T COUNT. (Not my idea it’s just the way things are.) The thing about being sexy is being appropriate in the context you are viewed in. Do I want to see a well-endowed woman flopping around a pole? Is the “most powerful man” in Washington sexy? Is Nascar sexier than F1? Is Morgan-Stanley’s financial phallus enthralling? Is Jon Huntsman’s middle of the road stance, his “moderation is key” approach, what makes him relevant and, well, appropriate? What’s Alaska (and Canada for that matter) compensating for? Maybe this “bigger is better” mindset is a holdover from childhood when we just couldn’t wait to be “big” and then the world would be perfect. We no longer consider the appropriateness of the world and only wish for more and bigger.
But that’s not what we need, is it?
It’s not even what we really want…
