ET Blog: YouTube's Dancing Obama!
Posted using ShareThis
Thursday, January 29, 2009
YouTube Obama "Single Ladies" spoof
So I saw this on E! news and found it hilarious so "I thought I would share it with everyone. What I thought was interesting was that this got 2 million views compared to Beyonce's official Sony video that had 450,000. Yet, there are several videos of the "Single Ladies" song, so adding it up it came to more views...so far.
The 26-year-old Iman Crosson said that he wanted to support Obama by impersonating him in a respectful manner. Which, after watching his videos, you can see.
His interview can be found on the post above.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Final draft for editorial #1
The Fight for Freedom of Speech Reaches Online Boundaries
The development of new media technologies has always altered the way we think about threats to free speech. In the beginning of the 20th century, civil libertarians in America worried over the danger of the government silencing and controlling free speech. Fear arose when Eugene V. Debs, the Socialist candidate for President, was imprisoned for publicly protesting American involvement in 1919 during World War I. After the Supreme Court started to protect unpopular speakers consistently, critics worried that free speech in America was threatened less by government suppression than by editorial decisions made by mass-media corporations.
Today, the Internet has given anyone access to reach a potential global audience. Internet service providers, such a Google, have the ultimate power to decide what is published and what is not. Google holds 63% of the world’s Internet searches. With this, Google has the power to decide what controversial material may or may not appear on local search engines; like in China.
The country has always had skeptics over the country’s consideration for human rights, and this brings up yet another concern. The most recent noted attempt the Chinese government has done to censor China’s people was during the Obama inauguration. When Obama said, “recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions,” and, "to those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history, but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist,” the sound was cut off, leaving Obama’s lip moving and English text scrolling at the bottom of the screen.
In response to the rise of online gatekeepers a bipartisan bill, named the Global Online Freedom Act, has been introduced by House Democrats and Republicans. The bill would require Internet companies to disclose all information in response to demands by foreign governments. This would make it difficult for the companies to keep local employees within repressive countries. In turn, the people of the country would not be able to find information that they have the right to view. Although, a software named “Freegate” was created to wage cyber war on the Chinese regime. The program finds holes in the firewalls, created by the Chinese government, and takes Chinese users to banned web sites undetected.
If so many people are finding alternatives to get to a banned web site, isn’t the attempt to restrict information futile? We believe that free speech applies to everyone, despite their country, when it comes to the Internet. There is too much information that is easily accessible, and as the phrase goes, “where there’s a will, there’s a way.” Free speech is not just a right to those in America, but the entire world. So, we say to those of Google, do not give in to the demands of foreign countries. Those of China have the right to find information on events going on in the world around them, just as any other person has the right to do so. So long as there are those who fight for freedom of speech, we shall stand behind them.
Works Cited
“Can Bloggers Crack The Great Firewall of China?” Digital Journal. You Tube. August 15, 2007.
“Chilling Effects Clearinghouse.” Electronic Frontier Foundation. www.chillingeffects.org.
“Chinese TV Censors Part of Address by Obama.” Edward Wong. The New York Times. January 21, 2009.
“Cracking the Great Firewall.” Paul Wiseman. USA Today. April 23, 2008.
“Global Online Freedom Act of 2007.” January 5, 2007.
“Google’s Gatekeepers.” Jeffrey Rosen. The New York Times. November 28, 2008.
“Google to Censor China Web Searches.” Elinor Mills. Cnet News. January 24, 2006.
List of Claims
Policy: Freedom of Speech should apply to everyone in the world, despite their country, because the Internet is too vast to contain and discriminate against.
Chinese users are still finding ways around their government’s firewalls to find information they seek.
China censored Obama during his speech addressing the United States and the World.
Google hold 63% of the world’s searches.
Google has the power to determine what is available to people within a local area.
The Global Online Freedom Act requires online companies to disclose information that foreign countries want banned from their citizens.
The development of new media technologies has always altered the way we think about threats to free speech. In the beginning of the 20th century, civil libertarians in America worried over the danger of the government silencing and controlling free speech. Fear arose when Eugene V. Debs, the Socialist candidate for President, was imprisoned for publicly protesting American involvement in 1919 during World War I. After the Supreme Court started to protect unpopular speakers consistently, critics worried that free speech in America was threatened less by government suppression than by editorial decisions made by mass-media corporations.
Today, the Internet has given anyone access to reach a potential global audience. Internet service providers, such a Google, have the ultimate power to decide what is published and what is not. Google holds 63% of the world’s Internet searches. With this, Google has the power to decide what controversial material may or may not appear on local search engines; like in China.
The country has always had skeptics over the country’s consideration for human rights, and this brings up yet another concern. The most recent noted attempt the Chinese government has done to censor China’s people was during the Obama inauguration. When Obama said, “recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions,” and, "to those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history, but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist,” the sound was cut off, leaving Obama’s lip moving and English text scrolling at the bottom of the screen.
In response to the rise of online gatekeepers a bipartisan bill, named the Global Online Freedom Act, has been introduced by House Democrats and Republicans. The bill would require Internet companies to disclose all information in response to demands by foreign governments. This would make it difficult for the companies to keep local employees within repressive countries. In turn, the people of the country would not be able to find information that they have the right to view. Although, a software named “Freegate” was created to wage cyber war on the Chinese regime. The program finds holes in the firewalls, created by the Chinese government, and takes Chinese users to banned web sites undetected.
If so many people are finding alternatives to get to a banned web site, isn’t the attempt to restrict information futile? We believe that free speech applies to everyone, despite their country, when it comes to the Internet. There is too much information that is easily accessible, and as the phrase goes, “where there’s a will, there’s a way.” Free speech is not just a right to those in America, but the entire world. So, we say to those of Google, do not give in to the demands of foreign countries. Those of China have the right to find information on events going on in the world around them, just as any other person has the right to do so. So long as there are those who fight for freedom of speech, we shall stand behind them.
Works Cited
“Can Bloggers Crack The Great Firewall of China?” Digital Journal. You Tube. August 15, 2007.
“Chilling Effects Clearinghouse.” Electronic Frontier Foundation. www.chillingeffects.org.
“Chinese TV Censors Part of Address by Obama.” Edward Wong. The New York Times. January 21, 2009.
“Cracking the Great Firewall.” Paul Wiseman. USA Today. April 23, 2008.
“Global Online Freedom Act of 2007.” January 5, 2007.
“Google’s Gatekeepers.” Jeffrey Rosen. The New York Times. November 28, 2008.
“Google to Censor China Web Searches.” Elinor Mills. Cnet News. January 24, 2006.
List of Claims
Policy: Freedom of Speech should apply to everyone in the world, despite their country, because the Internet is too vast to contain and discriminate against.
Chinese users are still finding ways around their government’s firewalls to find information they seek.
China censored Obama during his speech addressing the United States and the World.
Google hold 63% of the world’s searches.
Google has the power to determine what is available to people within a local area.
The Global Online Freedom Act requires online companies to disclose information that foreign countries want banned from their citizens.
Monday, January 26, 2009
Rough draft for my first editorial
The development of new media technologies has always altered the way we think about threats to free speech. In the beginning of the 20th century, civil libertarians in America worried over the danger of the government silencing and controlling free speech. Fear arose when Eugene V. Debs, the Socialist candidate for President, was imprisoned for publicly protesting American involvement in 1919 during World War I. After the Supreme Court started to protect unpopular speakers consistently, critics worried that free speech in America was threatened less by government suppression than by editorial decisions made by mass-media corporations.
Today, the Internet has given anyone access to reach a potential global audience. Internet service providers, such a Google, have the ultimate power to decide what is published and what is not. Google holds 63% of the world’s Internet searches. With this, Google has the power to decide what controversial material may or may not appear on local search engines; like in China.
The country has always had skeptics over the country’s consideration for human rights, and this brings up yet another concern. The most recent noted attempt the Chinese government has done to censor China’s people was during the Obama inauguration. When Obama said, “recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions,” and, "to those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history, but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist,” the sound was cut off, leaving Obama’s lip moving and English text scrolling at the bottom of the screen.
Today, the Internet has given anyone access to reach a potential global audience. Internet service providers, such a Google, have the ultimate power to decide what is published and what is not. Google holds 63% of the world’s Internet searches. With this, Google has the power to decide what controversial material may or may not appear on local search engines; like in China.
The country has always had skeptics over the country’s consideration for human rights, and this brings up yet another concern. The most recent noted attempt the Chinese government has done to censor China’s people was during the Obama inauguration. When Obama said, “recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions,” and, "to those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history, but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist,” the sound was cut off, leaving Obama’s lip moving and English text scrolling at the bottom of the screen.
Sunday, January 25, 2009
More research for my editorial
I found this article at USA Today online. It's titled, "Cracking the 'Great Firewall' of China's Web censorship."
"In 2002, Xia formed a company — Dynamic Internet Technology — to wage cyberwar on the Chinese regime. He created Freegate, a software program that finds holes in the firewall and takes Chinese Internet users to banned websites, undetected."
I think this is interesting that there are people in China who are resisting their own government and are being very clever and sneaky about getting information from every perspective.
Also, I found this video on YouTube. It has a lot of good information, and some humor too!
"In 2002, Xia formed a company — Dynamic Internet Technology — to wage cyberwar on the Chinese regime. He created Freegate, a software program that finds holes in the firewall and takes Chinese Internet users to banned websites, undetected."
I think this is interesting that there are people in China who are resisting their own government and are being very clever and sneaky about getting information from every perspective.
Also, I found this video on YouTube. It has a lot of good information, and some humor too!
Saturday, January 24, 2009
Google censorship and freedom of speech online
Here were some great articles that can help me in my editorial:
Google's Gatekeepers
Google to censor China Web searches
Global Online Freedom Act
Chillingeffects.com-Harvard site over censored online articles and rights
Here's a great perspective from the "Google's Gatekeepers" article: (areas highlighted will more than likely be used in my editorial.)
"THE ONGOING DISPUTE between Google and Turkey reminds us that, throughout history, the development of new media technologies has always altered the way we think about threats to free speech. At the beginning of the 20th century, civil libertarians in America worried most about the danger of the government silencing political speech: think of Eugene V. Debs, the Socialist candidate for President, who was imprisoned in 1919 for publicly protesting American involvement during World War I. But by the late 1960s, after the Supreme Court started to protect unpopular speakers more consistently, some critics worried that free speech in America was threatened less by government suppression than by editorial decisions made by the handful of private mass-media corporations like NBC and CBS that disproportionately controlled public discourse. One legal scholar, Jerome Barron, even argued at the time that the courts should give unorthodox speakers a mandatory right of access to media outlets controlled by giant corporations.
Today the Web might seem like a free-speech panacea: it has given anyone with Internet access the potential to reach a global audience. But though technology enthusiasts often celebrate the raucous explosion of Web speech, there is less focus on how the Internet is actually regulated, and by whom. As more and more speech migrates online, to blogs and social-networking sites and the like, the ultimate power to decide who has an opportunity to be heard, and what we may say, lies increasingly with Internet service providers, search engines and other Internet companies like Google, Yahoo, AOL, Facebook and even eBay.
The most powerful and protean of these Internet gatekeepers is, of course, Google. With control of 63 percent of the world’s Internet searches, as well as ownership of YouTube, Google has enormous influence over who can find an audience on the Web around the world. As an acknowledgment of its power, Google has given Nicole Wong a central role in the company’s decision-making process about what controversial user-generated content goes down or stays up on YouTube and other applications owned by Google, including Blogger, the blog site; Picasa, the photo-sharing site; and Orkut, the social networking site. Wong and her colleagues also oversee Google’s search engine: they decide what controversial material does and doesn’t appear on the local search engines that Google maintains in many countries in the world, as well as on Google.com. As a result, Wong and her colleagues arguably have more influence over the contours of online expression than anyone else on the planet.
In response to the rise of online gatekeepers like Wong, some House Democrats and Republicans have introduced a bipartisan bill called the Global Online Freedom Act, which would require that Internet companies disclose to a newly created office in the State Department all material filtered in response to demands by foreign governments. Google and other leading Internet companies have sought modifications to the bill, arguing that, without the flexibility to negotiate (as Wong did with Turkey), they can’t protect the safety of local employees and that they may get kicked out of repressive countries, where they believe even a restricted version of their services does more good than harm. For the past two years, Google, Yahoo and Microsoft, along with other international Internet companies, have been meeting regularly with human rights and civil-liberties advocacy groups to agree on voluntary standards for resisting worldwide censorship requests. At the end of last month, the Internet companies and the advocacy groups announced the Global Network Initiative, a series of principles for protecting global free expression and privacy."
"On the German and French default Google search engines, Google.de and Google.fr, you can’t find Holocaust-denial sites that can be found on Google.com, because Holocaust denial is illegal in Germany and France. In the wake of the Yahoo decision, Google decided to comply with governmental requests to take down links on its national search engines to material that clearly violates national laws. (In the interest of disclosure, however, Google has agreed to report all the links it takes down in response to government demands to chillingeffects.com, a Web site run by Harvard’s Berkman Center that keeps a record of censored online materials.)
Google's Gatekeepers
Google to censor China Web searches
Global Online Freedom Act
Chillingeffects.com-Harvard site over censored online articles and rights
Here's a great perspective from the "Google's Gatekeepers" article: (areas highlighted will more than likely be used in my editorial.)
"THE ONGOING DISPUTE between Google and Turkey reminds us that, throughout history, the development of new media technologies has always altered the way we think about threats to free speech. At the beginning of the 20th century, civil libertarians in America worried most about the danger of the government silencing political speech: think of Eugene V. Debs, the Socialist candidate for President, who was imprisoned in 1919 for publicly protesting American involvement during World War I. But by the late 1960s, after the Supreme Court started to protect unpopular speakers more consistently, some critics worried that free speech in America was threatened less by government suppression than by editorial decisions made by the handful of private mass-media corporations like NBC and CBS that disproportionately controlled public discourse. One legal scholar, Jerome Barron, even argued at the time that the courts should give unorthodox speakers a mandatory right of access to media outlets controlled by giant corporations.
Today the Web might seem like a free-speech panacea: it has given anyone with Internet access the potential to reach a global audience. But though technology enthusiasts often celebrate the raucous explosion of Web speech, there is less focus on how the Internet is actually regulated, and by whom. As more and more speech migrates online, to blogs and social-networking sites and the like, the ultimate power to decide who has an opportunity to be heard, and what we may say, lies increasingly with Internet service providers, search engines and other Internet companies like Google, Yahoo, AOL, Facebook and even eBay.
The most powerful and protean of these Internet gatekeepers is, of course, Google. With control of 63 percent of the world’s Internet searches, as well as ownership of YouTube, Google has enormous influence over who can find an audience on the Web around the world. As an acknowledgment of its power, Google has given Nicole Wong a central role in the company’s decision-making process about what controversial user-generated content goes down or stays up on YouTube and other applications owned by Google, including Blogger, the blog site; Picasa, the photo-sharing site; and Orkut, the social networking site. Wong and her colleagues also oversee Google’s search engine: they decide what controversial material does and doesn’t appear on the local search engines that Google maintains in many countries in the world, as well as on Google.com. As a result, Wong and her colleagues arguably have more influence over the contours of online expression than anyone else on the planet.
In response to the rise of online gatekeepers like Wong, some House Democrats and Republicans have introduced a bipartisan bill called the Global Online Freedom Act, which would require that Internet companies disclose to a newly created office in the State Department all material filtered in response to demands by foreign governments. Google and other leading Internet companies have sought modifications to the bill, arguing that, without the flexibility to negotiate (as Wong did with Turkey), they can’t protect the safety of local employees and that they may get kicked out of repressive countries, where they believe even a restricted version of their services does more good than harm. For the past two years, Google, Yahoo and Microsoft, along with other international Internet companies, have been meeting regularly with human rights and civil-liberties advocacy groups to agree on voluntary standards for resisting worldwide censorship requests. At the end of last month, the Internet companies and the advocacy groups announced the Global Network Initiative, a series of principles for protecting global free expression and privacy."
"On the German and French default Google search engines, Google.de and Google.fr, you can’t find Holocaust-denial sites that can be found on Google.com, because Holocaust denial is illegal in Germany and France. In the wake of the Yahoo decision, Google decided to comply with governmental requests to take down links on its national search engines to material that clearly violates national laws. (In the interest of disclosure, however, Google has agreed to report all the links it takes down in response to government demands to chillingeffects.com, a Web site run by Harvard’s Berkman Center that keeps a record of censored online materials.)
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Chinese TV censors Obama
This was in the New York Times.
Obama's 18 minute inaugural speech was censored by Chinese TV on Tuesday. China Central TV was televising the speech live until Obama made a comment about communism. After the translator said, "communism," Obama's lips were still moving, but there was no sound. The TV station then changed the scene to an anchor asking an analyst about the economic challenges that President Obama faces. It was clear that they were caught off guard.
The offending lines of the speech were: “Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions,” and, "to those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history, but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist."
Although the statement related to communism was omitted from translation, the English text version was allowed to be published. Don't most people in China speak a second language, including English? So what is the big difference of saying it in Chinese and reading it in English?
Not so surprisingly, this is not the first time American speeches have been censored. In 2004, then Vice President Dick Cheney visited Beijing and was told he could speak, live and uncensored, to the Chinese people over. After his speech, his answers to questions, "that struck out references to political freedom, Taiwan, North Korea and other issues that propaganda officials considered politically delicate." The broadcast never received a promotion, a listing in the Chinese media and it was played only once-when it was being given!
This is related to my other article about the novelist writing about the Monarchy in Thailand. International censorship and it's punishments. What's OK to say to other countries. Granted, this speech was directed primarily at America, even if the world tuned in. I think that it should not have been censored, because the Chinese people should have the right to hear what was said, without "beating around the bush." It's silly because it probably brought more attention to the speech than it was originally intended. The fact that the speech was published in English text for the Chinese to read seems as if they didn't think it through or underestimated the knowledge of their people.
Obama's 18 minute inaugural speech was censored by Chinese TV on Tuesday. China Central TV was televising the speech live until Obama made a comment about communism. After the translator said, "communism," Obama's lips were still moving, but there was no sound. The TV station then changed the scene to an anchor asking an analyst about the economic challenges that President Obama faces. It was clear that they were caught off guard.
The offending lines of the speech were: “Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions,” and, "to those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history, but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist."
Although the statement related to communism was omitted from translation, the English text version was allowed to be published. Don't most people in China speak a second language, including English? So what is the big difference of saying it in Chinese and reading it in English?
Not so surprisingly, this is not the first time American speeches have been censored. In 2004, then Vice President Dick Cheney visited Beijing and was told he could speak, live and uncensored, to the Chinese people over. After his speech, his answers to questions, "that struck out references to political freedom, Taiwan, North Korea and other issues that propaganda officials considered politically delicate." The broadcast never received a promotion, a listing in the Chinese media and it was played only once-when it was being given!
This is related to my other article about the novelist writing about the Monarchy in Thailand. International censorship and it's punishments. What's OK to say to other countries. Granted, this speech was directed primarily at America, even if the world tuned in. I think that it should not have been censored, because the Chinese people should have the right to hear what was said, without "beating around the bush." It's silly because it probably brought more attention to the speech than it was originally intended. The fact that the speech was published in English text for the Chinese to read seems as if they didn't think it through or underestimated the knowledge of their people.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Man sentenced to 3 years in jail insulting Thailand monarchy
An article written in the New York Times caught my attention for an international and national issue.
A novelist named Harry Nicolaides, 41, of Australia was sentenced to 3 years in prison for writing a book that insulted the Thai monarchy. The book, titled "Verisimilitude," was published in 2005 and sold 10 copies out of the 50 that were printed. Nicolaides had originally been sentenced to 6 years in jail, but his plea of "guilty" lowered his time.
The Thailand law states that a person may receive up to 15 years of prison who, "defames, insults or threatens the king, the queen, the heir to the throne or the regent." Unfortunately, the boundaries of the law are unclear and cases can be brought in by any citizen. Many cases are now pending and the Thailand government has closed over 2,000 Web sites that, in some way, shape or form, insult the Thai monarchy.
At the time of Nicolaides arrest, he had been an English teacher in Thailand. He was given no warning when an arrest warrant was issued.
Andrew Walker, another teacher in the Asian-Pacific program at Australian National University said, "I think Thailand is trying to send a message to international media, to writers, to bloggers, to people who are putting material on the Internet, that the royal family is out of bounds."
Cases of those who openly speak against the monarchy are derived from the concern of the eventual succession of the king, Buhmibol Adulyadej, who is 81. Although he does not have an official political role, he is a symbol of force and a peacemaker for his country.
I find this story an example of what is going on at both the national and international levels. In America, the issue would be, "is this against our right to freedom of speech?" Internationally speaking, it becomes more difficult in what you may or may not post on the Internet. As our world becomes more modernized, we begin to see the boundaries between countries blending together and the environment becomes less formal. There is a gray area that must be addressed. How much is too much? What is OK to say publicly, and what is not?
A novelist named Harry Nicolaides, 41, of Australia was sentenced to 3 years in prison for writing a book that insulted the Thai monarchy. The book, titled "Verisimilitude," was published in 2005 and sold 10 copies out of the 50 that were printed. Nicolaides had originally been sentenced to 6 years in jail, but his plea of "guilty" lowered his time.
The Thailand law states that a person may receive up to 15 years of prison who, "defames, insults or threatens the king, the queen, the heir to the throne or the regent." Unfortunately, the boundaries of the law are unclear and cases can be brought in by any citizen. Many cases are now pending and the Thailand government has closed over 2,000 Web sites that, in some way, shape or form, insult the Thai monarchy.
At the time of Nicolaides arrest, he had been an English teacher in Thailand. He was given no warning when an arrest warrant was issued.
Andrew Walker, another teacher in the Asian-Pacific program at Australian National University said, "I think Thailand is trying to send a message to international media, to writers, to bloggers, to people who are putting material on the Internet, that the royal family is out of bounds."
Cases of those who openly speak against the monarchy are derived from the concern of the eventual succession of the king, Buhmibol Adulyadej, who is 81. Although he does not have an official political role, he is a symbol of force and a peacemaker for his country.
I find this story an example of what is going on at both the national and international levels. In America, the issue would be, "is this against our right to freedom of speech?" Internationally speaking, it becomes more difficult in what you may or may not post on the Internet. As our world becomes more modernized, we begin to see the boundaries between countries blending together and the environment becomes less formal. There is a gray area that must be addressed. How much is too much? What is OK to say publicly, and what is not?
Sunday, January 18, 2009
Investment manager takes off with hundreds of millions of dollars.
I found this article interesting on the USA today Web site.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-01-18-florida-missing-financier_N.htm
According to the article, Arthur Nadel of Saratosa, Florida left his vehicle at the Saratosa Airport and with hundreds of millions of dollars of his client's money. He had been missing since
Wednesday. Two days later, investors began complaining that their money was missing. About $500,000 was missing per person. Nadel, 75, also left a so-called suicide note, according to the local paper. The police wouldn't say anything more than that he was "distraught" when he disappeared. Nadel is now considered a missing person that the sheriff's department and FBI are covering. It has not been confirmed whether or not he has left the state or country.
Nadel and his wife were considered philanthropists who involved themselves in many charities including the Habitat for Humanity. The local YMCA has a $1.1 million dollar investment in securities, which were handled Nadel. What irks me is the what YMCA Foundation of Sarasota President Karin Gustafson said. "We're like everyone else. We're just reading about what's going on and waiting until they find him." How frustrating is it to have your money out there where this criminal could easily get his hands on, and there's nothing you can do about it. Another statement from Dr. Brad Lerner said that he would lose $7300,000 in an IRA fund.
Even if the police or FBI are to find this man quickly, it would take forever going through the court system in order for any of the investors to see any of their missing money. And I'm guessing since he's been missing since Wednesday, either: A) He committed suicide, or B) He has spent a great deal of his client's money to get far away and ensure that he keeps it that way.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-01-18-florida-missing-financier_N.htm
According to the article, Arthur Nadel of Saratosa, Florida left his vehicle at the Saratosa Airport and with hundreds of millions of dollars of his client's money. He had been missing since
Wednesday. Two days later, investors began complaining that their money was missing. About $500,000 was missing per person. Nadel, 75, also left a so-called suicide note, according to the local paper. The police wouldn't say anything more than that he was "distraught" when he disappeared. Nadel is now considered a missing person that the sheriff's department and FBI are covering. It has not been confirmed whether or not he has left the state or country.
Nadel and his wife were considered philanthropists who involved themselves in many charities including the Habitat for Humanity. The local YMCA has a $1.1 million dollar investment in securities, which were handled Nadel. What irks me is the what YMCA Foundation of Sarasota President Karin Gustafson said. "We're like everyone else. We're just reading about what's going on and waiting until they find him." How frustrating is it to have your money out there where this criminal could easily get his hands on, and there's nothing you can do about it. Another statement from Dr. Brad Lerner said that he would lose $7300,000 in an IRA fund.
Even if the police or FBI are to find this man quickly, it would take forever going through the court system in order for any of the investors to see any of their missing money. And I'm guessing since he's been missing since Wednesday, either: A) He committed suicide, or B) He has spent a great deal of his client's money to get far away and ensure that he keeps it that way.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
