Martha Stewart

[TJ]

id love to share a donut with Martha, while she bakes home made cookies with heart shaped chocolates.

Edit by Anileve: Tiko jan, this scenario seems a lot more intimate and rique to me. Plus it has a lot of metaphoric meaning, I hope you don't mind

[patlajan]

Originally posted by TigranJamharian id love to give martha a nice bangin from behind

She's very old you know. I don't wanna get too graphic but um I think you'll get hurt due to over friction.

[Anonymouse]

[Anonymouse]

Insider Trading
By Walter Burien
3-10-4


Well, Folks...

Martha was found guilty of insider trading for acting on negative information that her broker gave her as a heads up on a stock she was holding before the public knew about it. The money made by her for acting on this information was a few thousand dollars.

So, I guess Insider Trading is an issue!

Let's see here, two other potential examples of insider trading and what they would yield, I will give below. I will start with a normal example of which there are many, and the second example will be the biggest example of insider trading that I have ever seen.

THE TWO EXAMPLES ARE AS FOLLOWS:

EXAMPLE # 1.

Years ago, the Soviet Union had destabilized and Gorbachev now was willing to follow the American way of democracy. That year Russia's grain crop had failed and shortages abound. The Senate introduces a bill which if approved would provide Russia with 30 billion dollars to help them out on their transition. The bill would be voted on in five days after introduction. I note that in the USA, grain prices were at their lowest prices in years do to a bumper crop. So, an obvious deduction would be, if the 30 billion was approved, Russia would use a substantial portion of that money to buy grain from the USA which would skyrocket grain prices from contract lows through contract highs in a matter of days.

Hmmm, knowing if this bill would be approved would sure be a great insider trading knowledge. To qualify this, wheat on the futures market was at $2.65 a bushel. Short term contract highs were about $3.15 a bushel, and contract highs over the long term of a year or two was $5.35 a bushel. On a wheat futures contract [5000 bushels], the margin to hold a contract was $1000. Each penny move was equal to $50 and a $1 move was equal to $5000. If the Senate approved this 30 billion dollar assist to Russia, the grain bought by Russia with this money would push wheat, in so many words, overnight to break the $5.35 a bushel price, or a profit on one (1) wheat futures contract bought at $2.65 a bushel and then sold at say $5.65 a bushel of $15,000 on $1000 used. Now if call options were bought [out of the money at $3.20] when wheat was at $2.65, they would be dirt cheap about $28 to $30 per option on one (1) contract. When, and if wheat broke your $3.20 strike price, the option would now equal the same value of money gained as a futures contract, so on the option, from $3.20 liquidated at $5.65 a bushel would yield $12,250 on $30 used.

So let's see; On $100,000 completely used with future contracts or with call options, within the specifications of the example above, the yield would be $1,500,000.00 with futures and with call options $41,662,500.00 Additionally, I will note that soybeans would respond the same with wheat...

So what happened?????

Five days after introduction, they approved the 30 billion dollars to Russia and Russia immediately bought 8 billion dollars of grains from the USA. Grain prices went from contract lows through contract highs in about 3 to 5 weeks.

Now, I myself, being familiar with futures and options as a prior CTA (Commodity Trading Advisor), when I heard the proposition on the news that they were going to vote on the 30 billion for Russia, knew in most probabilities it would be immediately approved and I knew that if approved, Russia would buy large quantities of US Grain, so I that day bought a few call options and made a killing on those call options.

Was I guilty of inside trading? No, I was not. I acted on information when it became public.

Who would be guilty of inside trading on this scenario? Well, let's say if a group of Senators and other government officials, along with their business associates, discussed the 30 billion, agreed to agree on its approval before it was made public, and then took positions in the futures and options, before or at the time they announced the proposed 30 billion dollar payment to Russia, they most definitely would be guilty of insider trading.

Do I think many from within government did this along with their cronies that they advised to do the same? Yes, I do. Any indictments? No, none.

Are the records still available to spot who in most probabilities was inside trading? Yes, they are.

Bill and Hillary maybe? The Bush family maybe? xxxx Chaney's Corporate interests maybe? Would be interesting to find out don't you think?



EXAMPLE # 2.

The biggest example of insider trading that ever took place ever occurred on the date of September 11th 2001 and the effects of which continue until today. Those that agreed to agree in advance of that date and acted within the broad spectrum of the international markets, yielded trillions of dollars and as an added perk, accomplished the lock-down control of the United States as well as a leap forward towards the financial, political, social, and forceful conquest of the rest of the world.

Are the records of the international transactions still available? Yes, they are.

Will they be made public? I will let you answer that one.

Have a good day!

Yours Truly,

Walter J. Burien, Jr. P. O. Box 2112 Saint Johns, Arizona 85936

Web Site: <http://CAFR1.com>http://CAFR1.com

PS: I wonder who Martha was helping or what liability she was exposing to make her a target for such a small infraction of insider trading, or has this Martha event been just a show to entertain the public? But then why would they want to entertain the public? What could they ever accomplish by doing that? Maybe conquest of the planet? Who knows?

[Anonymouse]

Martha the Scapegoat
by Butler Shaffer

For those who believe that mankind has abandoned the practice of throwing children from cliffs, or tearing out the hearts of young women on temple altars, all for the purpose of appeasing the gods, the conviction of Martha Stewart should inform you that this ritual has only changed form. Scapegoating remains an accepted ceremony, even though its more brutal expressions no longer appeal to us. It is now usually performed in a bloodless fashion, with the rites of procedural due process carefully observed.

Scapegoating, along with other forms of human sacrifice, is as old as human society. It is particularly evident during periods of political, economic, or social instability, when there is a failure of group expectations. The scapegoat serves two purposes during such periods: as an object upon which the fears, anger, and frustrations of a group can be directed. The scapegoat is also politically useful, during periods of turbulence, as a means of reminding people that the state retains the power of life and death over them. In the words of a nineteenth century tribal chief: "If I were to abolish human sacrifice, I should deprive myself of one of the most effectual means of keeping the people in subjection." The scapegoat need not be innocent of any offense: if he or she is perceived to be guilty of some offense, so much the better to convince people of the propriety of the coercive action against the victim.

Scapegoats served the needs of power systems during the Inquisitions, as well as witch and heresy trials, when church authority was challenged by such influences as the Reformation and scientific inquiry. The roots of the Salem witch trials have been traced to political instabilities within that colony. The upheavals of the Civil War brought about a sharp increase in the lynchings of blacks, as did the depression of the 1930’s. As the post-World War II American state fashioned the mindset of a Cold War with the Soviet Union, it found it useful – with the aid of such men as Sen. Joseph McCarthy – to identify and ferret out domestic communist scapegoats, and to inflict the death penalty upon two: the Rosenbergs. Such a pattern of statist behavior is now repeating itself in the domestic phase of the "war against terrorism," wherein even the readers of almanacs are officially targeted, by the FBI, as potential "terrorists"!

Beginning at least in Lyndon Johnson’s administration, through the Nixon years with Watergate, the Reagan years of the Iran/Contra scandals, and the revelations of wholesale influence peddling in the Clinton White House, most Americans have lost their high-school-civics-class innocence about the "noble" and "public interest" purposes of government. Lying, deception, and the incestuous relationships between large corporate interests and the state have reached such a common awareness that, unlike earlier corruption that managed to stay hidden from view, it no longer surprises most of us. If there is one phrase that ought to inform minds of the political realities of our corporate-state world it is the one that emerged from Watergate: "follow the money!"

Lyndon Johnson’s and Robert McNamara’s lies about the prospects for winning the Vietnam War – lies that led to the deaths of at least fifty thousand Americans – have morphed into George Bush’s lies about "weapons of mass destruction" and the prospects for "Iraqi freedom" if only more American soldiers can be sacrificed to the cause. As Halliburton and other corporate interests close to the White House prepare to rake in hundreds of millions of dollars from the Iraqi war; and as Vice President Cheney treats a Supreme Court justice to paid hunting trips at a time when a case involving Mr. Cheney is before that court, even the most unsophisticated minds experience a failure of expectations about the nature of government.

But such disappointments will never rise to a fundamental criticism of state power for, to do so, would force people to question their very sense of being. The identities of most of us are so wrapped up with the nation-state that, to condemn it, is to condemn ourselves. Besides, like dealing with a bully, most of us are fearful of standing up to what we perceive as a more powerful force and content ourselves with attacking lesser targets. Unlike that brave soul, Wang Wei-Lin, who stood up to that row of tanks in Tiananmen Square a few years ago, most of us are moral cowards who lack the integrity to challenge the forces that destroy our lives.

We are nevertheless implicitly aware that the systems with which we identify ourselves have failed in their stated purposes, and we require a cathartic remedy to overcome our withered sense of wholeness and restore our illusions. Who better to fulfill this role than the scapegoat?

The scapegoating purposes of the Martha Stewart trial were apparently evident to at least some of the jurors. One of them stated, afterwards, that the verdict "sends a message to bigwigs in corporations they have to abide by the law." He added that the verdict "was a victory for the little guy who loses money in the market because of this kind of transaction." Considering that Martha was convicted only of obstruction of justice and lying to government investigators – and not for any illegal "transaction" – it appears that some of the jurors, at least, were responding to what they perceived as systemic problems within the business community, and not to any acts for which Martha was charged. It is not the role of juries in criminal cases to "send messages," but only to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused. It would seem that, in the eyes of some of the jurors, Martha became a stand-in for the alleged sins of others.

The prosecuting attorney got caught up in this act of ritual sacrifice. "The victims in this case are the entire American public," he intoned. He then added: "when we first indicted this case, we said that it was all about lies," and "no matter who you are, if you’re Martha Stewart or Joe Q. Public, we’re going to go after you."

The prosecutor failed to note, of course, that those who tell more dangerous lies out of the White House, and those well-placed business interests who profit from the consequences of those lies, will remain untouched. That "the entire American public" has been victimized by government policies that have been "all about lies," will unlikely move this man to indict Mr. Bush and his cohorts. Martha will serve as a convenient scapegoat for the dishonesty and corruption of a political system that is to remain beyond criticism.

That Martha’s conviction serves to vindicate purposes irrelevant to the crimes with which she was charged is seen in the numerous attacks upon her personality following the verdict. I have heard people who should know better defend the jury’s decision on the grounds that Martha is "obnoxious," or "arrogant," or a "xxxxx." Such responses lend credence to the mistaken view of many feminists that this case was only about Martha as a woman. There are doubtless many people – women as well as men – whose personal sense of identity looks upon the proper role of women as inheritors, rather than generators, of great wealth, and to such persons Martha becomes a useful scapegoat.

I caution you not to hold your breath awaiting federal prosecutors bringing criminal charges against any of the big-time players who hang out on "Boardwalk" and "Park Place." It will be the denizens of "Baltic Avenue" who will be called upon to bear the sins of a disappointing system. "Take that, Martha Stewart! Take that, John Q. public! We have a ‘zero tolerance’ policy when it comes to the offenses of you ordinary people!" In the end, cases of this kind only reconfirm the centuries-old observation that:

The law locks up both man and woman
Who steals the goose from off the common.
But lets the greater felon loose
Who steals the common from the goose.

[patlajan]

[Anonymouse]

All things are relative, in this instance your intelligence.

[patlajan]

Originally posted by Anonymouse All things are relative, in this instance your intelligence.

Relatively superior.

[Anonymouse]

Did you even bother to read the article Mr. Eggplant?

[PASAMONSTER]

Martha Stewart is a wanna be Armenian. The only problem is she got caught early .