G.M. CEO Wants I.P.O? NFW.

General Motors is a colony of the United States and they want their independence. Should we give it to them? I say no. According to an article by Nick Bunkley in The New York Times (8/6/10) “The chief executive of General Motors, Edward E. Whitacre Jr., said Thursday that G.M. wanted Washington to sell their entire stake during an initial public offering.” I don’t think G.M. is ready. Some colonies go on to become robust, independent nations – the United States, for instance. Others become unstable, third-world countries run by corrupt, tin pot dictators and produce nothing but terrorists. I would put G.M. in the second category.

What does G.M. gain by this proposed I.P.O? Not money. That goes to the people who sell the stock. We the people. So, what’s in it for them? “We want the government out, period,” states Mr.Whitacre. “We don’t want to be known as Government Motors.” He goes on to say that eliminating government ownership would be good for employee morale and would improve G.M.’s image. Stirring phrases of nationalism and self-determination if I ever heard them. Who thinks that Mr. Whitacre is the next Robespierre and G.M is the next France? Anyone?

Why don’t I have more confidence in G.M? Maybe it’s because they went bankrupt and didn’t change management. That before the Obama administration lent them $65 billion ($43 billion of which was converted into 61% ownership during G.M.’s bankruptcy) The Bush administration lent $20 billion, most of which is not expected to be recovered. Mr. Whitacare, of course, thinks, “our future is pretty bright.” Hinting (no figures until next week) that second-quarter earnings would surpass their first-quarter profit of $865 million. I’m sure he’s right – about the earnings. I’m sure they’ll be healthy, even glowing. What are they chances they won’t be? Figures that might be a tad more reliable show that the last time G.M reported a profit was in 2007, when the worst economy since the Depression was only starting. An economy, by the way, that usually discourages people from buying new cars. Not according to Mr. Whitacre. He claims that G.M. is scrambling to meet the demand for new Equinoxes and Lacrosses. Lacrosse? Like the Native American sport? I hope it wasn’t invented by Chief Pontiac.

Suppose The United States does grant independence to General Motors, who will manage the I.P.O? Goldman Sachs? Yeah, that’s what this country needs – to get into bed with Larry Blankfein. (Hint: He won’t respect us in the morning.) Remember, too, that I.P.O. stands for Initial Public Offering. Initial? For G.M. stock? You might as well talk about Larry King’s “initial” wife.

Don’t get me wrong. If this I.P.O. does take place, I’ll definitely need a stockbroker. Not to buy G.M. stock, but to short it.

This Weak With Christiane Amanpour.

I never watched This Week With George Stephanopoulos. (I don’t watch any television on Sunday morning. Unless it involves toast, I’m not available until noon.) Yet, I wish I had seen the debut of This Week With Christiane Amanpour this past Sunday (8/1). Not all of it, just the part when Ms. Amanpour interviews Nancy Pelosi. According to Alessandra Stanley in today’s (8/2) New York Times, the show’s host confronts the Speaker of the House with the Time cover photo (7/29) of a woman mutilated by the Taliban and asks if America will abandon the women of Afghanistan. When did Sunday morning talk shows become an extreme sport?

I admire Nancy Pelosi. Anyone who can wring legislation from that dirty mop called the House of Representatives gets my respect. As for Christiane Amanpour, she’s a justifiably famous and respected foreign correspondent. What’s more, she has a British accent, which, among broadcast journalists, connotes authority. At least, it did until Lara Logan began to studiously undermine it. So, why would an otherwise civilized person like Ms. Amanpour drop an earless and noseless woman in Ms. Pelosi’s lap? Did she expect fresh insights? Off script revelations? Did she think The Speaker of the House would go rogue? Instead “She made her guest recoil and look away,” Ms. Stanley writes, and “Ms. Pelosi, though startled, gave fractured, politic responses.”

I know what Ms. Pelosi should have said when asked if our country will abandon the women of Afghanistan. “To the extent that the U.S. entered Afghanistan in order to protect women, no. To the extent that any war in the world has ever been fought to improve the status of women, no.” Does Ms. Amanpour honestly think that ending the mutilation of women, a profoundly worthy goal, has ever been our objective in Afghanistan? First, believing that there was a goal or strategy when we began fighting there is beyond generous. Second, if it’s a goal now, you can bet it’s well behind stopping the killing and maiming of American soldiers. The horrifying debasement of women deserves ten Sunday morning programs. Yet, Ms. Amanpour relegates it to one question intended – in lurid, tabloid style - to embarrass a member of the current administration. If she thinks that will make it a national priority, that she can effect policy in this way, Ms. Amanpour is foreign to the ways of Washington and has no correspondence to “Network hosts . . . chosen for their experience and air of calm detachment.” People like, well, George Stephanopoulos.