Arthur Nadel: I've gone stark raving Madoff

Flying the coop is generally a sign someone was a crook of some sort, even if there were no regulators there to see it.

Florida man suspected of running Ponzi scheme - Business - MiamiHerald.com

Around the same time he mysteriously vanished, hedge fund manager Arthur G. Nadel owed a $50 million payout to some of the investors who had entrusted their life savings to him, an accountant said Monday.

Instead, they learned their money was gone -- and now they're left asking if it was all a bad investment, or if they were scammed.

The search for Nadel entered its sixth day Monday as more investors contacted authorities with concerns their savings, and Nadel, were gone forever. Nadel's green Subaru was found in a Sarasota airport parking lot on Jan. 15, and he left his family a note in which he appeared to be ''very distraught,'' said Lt. Chuck Lesaltato of the Sarasota County Sheriff's office.

Since being a criminal and being a hedge fund manager are somehow NOT the same thing, legally, I guess Nadal, Madoff, and the like, are helping us all by maybe, just maybe, giving government an idea that hedge funds, and hands-off ideals about financial services are a bad idea. This attitude was virtually UNIVERSAL in Congress (both GOP and Dem) and, seeing that the GREED factor attracts many people to fishing for other people's money for a living, for starters, it is the most obvious mistake in governing since Ebonics was being considered as a subject of educational instruction in our schools.


- jR

Powered by ScribeFire.

All hail the Mexican billionaire: news media to plummet farther, NY Times goes first

The Times to get their own bailout. From Mexico. Is this a Peter Sellers film I've not yet seen, or what? 

New York Times may find benefactor in Slim | Reuters

The New York Times Co has heard more than its share of opinions on what it must do to survive. Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim appears ready to let his cash do the talking.

The 68-year-old telecom tycoon, ranked by Forbes magazine as the world's second-richest man with $60 billion, may pump hundreds of millions of those dollars into the Times Co.

I SUPPOSE this is because his money, and plenty more of it, is not needed in Mexico, where everyone is wealthy and enjoys a good economy, reasonably safe neighborhood. Who knew? Well, I guess those stories of Mexico plummeting into a nether-world of battles of police versus drug gangs, especially near the U.S. border, were just propaganda. 

Slim is the second richest man on earth - ON EARTH! Indeed.  Glad to see his own country doesn't need the awesome usefulness of his huge bags of money. I had no idea how well the infrastructure improved in Mexico in the last week, and how economically stable Mexico was! On the other hand, I guess he's already applied his wealth where it is needed: keeping the impoverished where they belong, like a good crooked capitalist in a grandly crooked political system that poses -- far more laughably than most -- as a "democratic system."

Here's a fundamental question: how exactly would someone become the SECOND WEALTHIEST MAN in the WORLD in Mexico? Seriously, how? Mule sales? Earthquake insurance? Drugs? There's a lot of world out there, and this guy pulled off second place on the richer scale (grin) from creepy, dangerous, unkempt, corrupt little Mexico.

Go ahead, look the other way, NY Times. You're good at seeing one side of a story! Take that cash in one hand and proclaim appreciation for "progressive" policies on your pages. You get Slim's money to hang on like a bloated U.S. auto company, and the U.S. at-large gets Mexico's troubled citizens, for any reason, like a painfully trickling Mariel boatlift. 

Illegals are like a box of chocolates: you never know what you're going to get. Once the plans are complete, the "progressive" plans, the U.S. will appreciate how crooked Mexico is, since for the lower and middle classes it will be in the same condition as Mexico by the end of Obama's first administration, if the far left has anything to do with it (such as Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi). You go, NY Times! Let's hear it for the master of so-called "progressive" journalism.

This is the NY Times -- please turn off the irony -- which ran front page stories about a non-affair by John McCain back in 2008 which was based on totally unfounded rumors. Meanwhile, it buried news of completely strange and questionable issues about Obama as much as they could manage it. Regularly. Repetitively. Often!

This paper, once held at the top of journalistic high regard, not just a place for highly intelligent, nonobjective writers, and for politically wrongly categorized commentators such as David Brooks, is going to be bailed out by a proclaimed telecom tycoon? 

Wow. That just ... that really ... that simply underlines how sad news media is today. Sad. Very, very sad. We've gone from conscientious and overt, to TV reporting and the selective nonobjectiveness of Ed Murrow, to the knee-jerk, one-sided reporting that is pervasive in much media, to being bailed out by Mexican business cretins. What's next? Reporters simply shooting the people who disagree with their editorializing? 

What a waste of paper. 


- jR

Powered by ScribeFire.

Real estate developer says Hamas and Zionists just need to shake on it

Mind-numbingly ignorant opinion piece in the Central Florida major paper:

Consider this: A one-state resolution for lasting peace -- OrlandoSentinel.com

As one who was born and raised in Jerusalem, I am against splitting the city into two parts. For the love of Jerusalem, I am strongly against giving the corrupted Palestinian Authority any role in the most sacred city in the world, Jerusalem.

For true and everlasting peace, a one-state solution with equal rights for Arabs (Christians and Muslims) and Jews is the only logical solution. As we all love America and the American system, why can't a similar one-state system be created in Israel?

Stunning. I am amused (read: awestruck and stunned in a bad way) that this guy ever visited or looked into the particulars of the region, let alone that he visits regularly or cares about it at all. Mr. Lufti and his kind of fundamental misunderstanding of the divisiveness of extremist Arab-Palestinian factions who flatly hate all Jews is a primary reason why the area is still a hotbed of terrorist missiles being hurled into Israel. Such ignorance is why Hamas keeps their munitions in neighborhoods, victimizing their own people by provoking Israel with terrorizing missiles, leading to a reaction that forced Israel, in order to not be the patsy of terrorists, to shoot at neighborhoods where Hamas hides their offices and their missiles. They do it because some folks aren't confused by the facts: they only see what's in front of their face. Life plots out like a bad TV show to thse folks, I suspect.

Palestine as it is right now is like an idiot's dysfunctional farm: animals are freely wandering everywhere, eating at the dinner table and pooping there, too. There was here and there glimmers of hope, but Hamas seems to have thoroughly evacuated that kind of plan, and this guy seems to respect that. One-state solution would translate to Jews being trounced upon by fundamentalist, Israel-hating people. It is part of the stated goals for these folks!

Once the pigs, ducks, mules, etc., (that is, Hamas) are thrown from the house and back into the mud, and someone imports some REASON into the fray in Palestinian areas and their leadership and politics, this thing can be sorted out. There can be no balanced agreement when one side's leadership prove tiem and again that they are, to be sure, unbalanced.

As this guest opinionator argues, that a one-state solution will work in Israel, simply overlooks -- mind-numbing fundamentally overlooks -- the influence of groups such as Hamas. These folks care about one thing: beating Israel and Jews. It is not about nation-building or community organizing, no more than drug cartels give money to the poor is community organizing. Such extremists want to be killing Jews and ruining public images of Israel, using their victimized neighbors as bait while they are doing it. Hamas and those similar seem incapable of functioning properly without victimizing the innocent and killing Jews.

I wonder, seeing this lack of awareness, if this real estate developer, is good at the low end of his game: screwing over subcontractors every day he goes to the office and looking for reasons to cheapen materials and cheat customers, to fatten his own wallet -- if you'll pardon the stereotype of which examples of its factualness do exist. That's the Hamas way, after all: cruel and selfish, whatever works to make the most of it, human decency be damned. Real estate devs don't obsess over killing people (as far as I know), at least.

I wonder if Mr. Lufti has bought out any retirement communities and booted the residents recently, for spare change each, and then sold it for his own financial profit, or further developed the land for elites such as himself? That's popular among "his kind": real estate developers, I mean, not terrorist sympathizers.


- jR

Powered by ScribeFire.

Chavez not dropping oil program, but the way to pay was questionable

Chavez says US heating oil program never suspended - Americas AP - MiamiHerald.com

At a news conference, however, Kennedy said Citgo made it clear the decision was not a cancellation of the program. "But at the end of the day, the tankers are not going to be in front of this building," he said.

Citgo Chief Executive Alejandro Granado later said in Boston that the company had found a way to continue paying for oil shipments.

On Saturday, Chavez poked fun at analysts who said he was cutting the assistance to make relations difficult with President-elect Barack Obama, saying they made him laugh.

"They build this analysis on a lie," he said.

I still hold to my anger that a U.S. oil company, and a nonprofit, and our country, cannot buck up and cover this and tell Chavez "thanks, but no thanks." As I wrote a few days ago in this post: Like, Totally Political, Dude!: Chavez dropping oil program for U.S. poor, who's to blame?

It seems rather unbelievable that the same thing was not possible through anyone else, that this was even an option for Chavez to use -- ironically, it did some good. I don't like the power-happy guy, as he's religiously self-lauding and stunningly arrogant, but I cannot dislike his doing as he did.

You should recognize that the oil for poor program is a perfect, and self-serving, way for Chavez to appear to be a benefactor to U.S. poor. It is only honorable on the face of it. If I rna everyone's lives, this is the least I would do. But I do not, fundamentally and wholeheartedly, believe in any system where one-party, one dictator rule serves the greater good. On the whole, it does not. It is a simple truth. Those who wish to live in such a system are welcome to. Don't even address it in this country -- this country is and God-willing will always be about ridding the world of stupid people with stupid ideas like dictatorships, fascism, communism, and socialism. People will still try, and it might make for insteresting reading (Karl Marx did well with it) but it isn't a system that can properly fix itself. Our is dangerously close to being an elitist-ruled country that cheats the poor for the good fo the rich, we can't fix that with socialism. Not the answer.

There has never been any good consistently carried through in a country that was ruled over by one person or one party. The USSR was a disaster. China is still, more than not, a screwy, impoverished backwater. Europe is full of nations that are struggling under the weight of their too-generous welfare-type programs, leaving not enough room for helping when a crisis hits. Why do we want more of that in the world?

One ruler nations run the great risk that individuals are limited throughout. Ass-kissers excel in dictatorships. I hate ass-kissers. We have lots of little dictatorships -- companies -- in America. I don't like that kind of company, or even one office of any company, and I don't like that kind of nation. Such systems are effective for killing inventiveness -- thus why many sectors in the U.S. lack ingenuity these days. It is that simple.

As for nations, any socialist leaders ever came to power through manipulation and exploitation of the poor. They pulled down the educated and many highly effective people, ultimately making the country, on the whole, less than it would be under a free society sort of leadership. Look at Cuba, for crying out loud.


Chavez is an ultimate arrogant politician. That is a simple fact. I am glad he is not the ever-loving-the-killing Pinochet or similar autocratic South American socialist-communist. He's only politically dangerous to a free, liberty-loving, democratic society. For now, at least.

But this shows the gritting teeth underneath the smile of the supposedly concerned oil and other wealthy leaderships of the U.S. They all ought to be put to task for leaving such a basic and obvious hole opened for Chavez to serve our poor.

I can't fault Chavez for this -- I fault us for being to uncreative to squash his ability to do this BY DOING IT OURSELVES.

Shame on the rhetorically wealthy oilmen in the U.S. who, along with their snob friends, choose to argue that the poor, uneducated, struggling and fundamentally overlooked in this country ought to just get off their duff or they deserve to freeze throughout the winter. Social conservatism fails completely when it enters the realm of choosing to not create a clever way to afford to help the tragically poor to get through the cold winters that half the nation faces


- jR

Powered by ScribeFire.

Pelosi's 'bipartisanship': Excludes the minority party and new Congress members

Somebody needs to get House Leader Nancy Pelosi a dictionary, so she can look up a few words, like "bipartisanship," "merit," "liberty," and "democracy." I am amazed at how especially liberal politicians think they have the right to legislate out the gamut of influence, and legislate in the autocratic ideals of seniority over credibility, claiming that the closed-minded policies they are trying to set are to prevent their own superiorly "diverse" politics from being closed out by the other guys -- the evil, mean-spirited conservatives. Gag.

Here's what's so absurd about the things Pelosi is working toward (see article and all the links below): It's one thing, and hardly anyone is against, aid functions for those in need and the privilege challenged. This kind of "liberal" politics is an entirely different animal, and it is creepy. It is not liberal, not progessive, it is legislating one-party rule, and the Democrats actually think they have the right, since they are so much more "diverse" in their thinking. Please.

Pelosi is simply a simple-minded leader. Have a look at this offense.

John Fund Blasts Speaker Pelosi on 'Reforms' - Newsmax.com

The rule changes Speaker Nancy Pelosi is steamrolling through the House of Representatives contradict President-elect Barack Obama’s bipartisan promises, and also fly in the face of Pelosi’s own pledge to “insure the rights” of the minority party.

That’s the view of Wall Street Journal columnist and author John Fund, who documented Friday how Pelosi’s tune has changed in a bid to drown out the voices of Republican minority opposition in Congress.

Fund points out that Pelosi’s new rules sharply contradict positions she took before Democrats came to power. In 2004, Fund says, Pelosi rolled out a "Bill of Rights" to protect the interests of the party not in power.

"When we [Democrats] are shut out, they are shutting out the great diversity of America," Pelosi warned at the time. “We want a higher standard."

One of the ironies of Pelosi’s power grab, Fund points out, is that conservative “Blue Dog” Democrats are among the losers under the new rules because they often lack seniority.

Here's a link and some quotes from the John Fund opinion piece:

John Fund: Pelosi Turns Back the Clock on House Reform - WSJ.com

Every two years the leadership of the U.S. House of Representatives introduces a new set of rules to govern the body. Normally, this event passes with barely a yawn from the public. But the changes pushed through on Tuesday by Democrats will have real-world consequences for fiscal conservatives of both parties.

Gone are term limits for committee chairmen, a big comeback for seniority over merit. Cost containment measures on Medicare, one of the fastest growing programs, are simply suspended for this Congress.

Mrs. Pelosi used to see things differently. Back in 2004, she unveiled a proposed "Bill of Rights" to protect House minority interests. It called on Republicans to allow more meaningful substitutes to bills, give members enough time to read bills before final votes, and stop holding roll-call votes past the normal 15 minutes. She had a point. In late 2003, Republican leaders held open a roll-call vote on the Medicare drug entitlement for three hours until they bullied enough wavering members into voting aye.

Mrs. Pelosi warned in 2004 that "When we [Democrats] are shut out, they are shutting out the great diversity of America." We want a higher standard." In 2006, just before becoming speaker, Mrs. Pelosi reiterated her plans to promote "bipartisanship" and "to ensure the rights of the minority."

That was then.

Smell that? It's called hypocrisy. Yeah, politicians wear it for pins, but damn, the House Speaker is a true champion of small-minded, narrow and self-assuring ideas.

I can only figure that Pelosi -- flakey Sen. Harry Reid in the other end of Congress, too, for that matter -- became the leader through exactly that kind of thinking on her part and the part of her longtime, long-complacent colleagues, I can only presume. What do I mean? She has no leadership skills beyond talking until her thick lipstick starts to dry, crack and fall off.

She'll have two grand accomplishments thus far as leader if she succeeds with the above: First, she let the deep financial crisis of 2008-09 hit without seeming to grasp any of the long, government-driven, regulation-poor (that's the duty of the legislature, not the White House, folks), developments that led up to it. These issues were as obvious as her mascara, but her eyes were famously those of a deer in headlights at those first press conferences during the insane and latent TARP bill negotiations action. Second, this, the cutting the GOP out of future failures in the House. It's good for the GOP, I guess, so keep it up, Nancy!

Dear California: Would someone in the great state please find some leadership-worthy person who doesn't remind us of the stereotypically arrogant, curt and unfathomably self-assured working mom in the neighborhood who terrorizes the other parents' children with her queer ideas about fairness (her kids get it, no one else)? Please?!!


- jR

Powered by ScribeFire.