A Little Of The Old In And Out



In: Harry Markopoulos. Question: Who is Harry Markpoulos? This is the question many in the Chattering Class presently want to know. Until now, Markopoulos has been mentioned in paleocon circles -- Taki, Pat Buchanan -- as the man who warned of Madoff's excesses but was ignored by the Powers-That-Be. Unfortunately, those mentions, spoken in conspiratorial asides with lots of chiaroscuro, are/were laced with a noxious whiff of anti-Semitism not entirely alien to the Old Right (Markopoulos, Taki hints, asked his name not be attached to the warning for fear of repercussions from shadowy organizations). Still, everyone wants to know what Markopoulos knows, how he knows it, why didn't others know and -- most important -- Who else knew? From The Wall Street Journal:

"Harry Markopolos, the Boston-based investor-turned-investigator who for years warned regulators that Bernard Madoff was running a huge Ponzi scheme, has received pitches to appear on television shows, make movies and write books elaborating on his experience.

"Later this month, he is scheduled to appear before Congress to present recommendations to improve the Securities and Exchange Commission.

"But rather than enjoy a sense of vindication, Mr. Markopolos says he is miserable. He has trouble sleeping and is haunted by the apparent suicide of Thierry Magon de La Villehuchet, a French money manager found dead shortly after Mr. Madoff's Dec. 11 arrest on fraud allegations.

"Although a colleague of Mr. de La Villehuchet's says he doesn't know of any warning, Mr. Markopolos says he told Mr. de La Villehuchet as well as investors at other firms that he thought Mr. Madoff was a fraud. He regrets that he couldn't persuade many of them."

Out: Protectionism. Protectionism is almost as old as the Republic, rearing its head in times of economic crisis. It has branches in both the progressive ("Buy American") and right polarities ("America First") of American democratic politics. Alas, the Establishment always ignores this phenomenon, thus strengthening its force. Nativist Pat Buchanan's 30% showing within the Republican primary in '92 echoed the economic anger at Bush 41's tone-deaf Eastern Establishmentarianism and heralded the rise of Perot and the sitting President's ultimate defeat in a three-way dance at the hands of Clinton 42 ("It's the economy, stupid").

On this week's Meet the Press, for example, David Gregory had 3 globalist Wall Street insiders -- Erin Burnett, thickheaded laissez fairist Steve Forbes and Moody's Mark Zandi-- all nodding their heads in vociferous agreement and no one to represent the very real threat of Protectionism. Ignoring that significant quadrant of American political thought only justifies the paranoid rhetoric emanating perennially that side of the aisle. And while this blog does not believe in Nativism, we do feel that it is a force in American History that is ignored by the Establishment at its own peril. From FT:

"The European Union has warned of a possible trade claim against the US if Washington presses ahead with a 'Buy American' provision in its forthcoming economic stimulus bill.

"EU officials have expressed concern that the provision, which would require that companies use US steel and manufacturing products in projects funded by the bill, could provoke a wave of protectionist measures from other countries.

"They plan to examine closely the final text of any legislation to determine whether it violates the Government Procurement Agreement, a treaty signed by the US, the EU and Japan that binds signatories to open government contracts to foreign companies.

"'If the provisions that are finally passed by the senate and approved by President Obama infringe the provisions of the GPA, to which the US is a signatory, then this is something we will have to consider taking them to the [World Trade Organisation] over,' said Peter Power, spokesman for the EU’s trade commissioner."

(image via blackbookmag)

In: Helena Christensen, Photographer. In front of the camera, lying doggo with pendulous breasts a heaving and fiery green eyes flaring and mouth in the most perfect moue (*The Corsair sighs*), the Danish supermodel is astonishingly lovely and, we find, that as she gets older, like a floral Armagnac adding dimensions after the passage of decades, the patina of her beauty deepens. (Cue to: Pablo Casals Bach Cello Suite) How it deepens, dear reader. How karmically curious that Helena Christensen's professional life, wholly in noble service to the Goddess of Beauty, now takes her to the other side of the camera. From BlackBook:

"The show has a quiet power and meditative quality about it.

"Helena Christensen: I cannot meditate or do anything of that sense with myself, but it’s nice to know I’m doing it with my work. I really find it peaceful to take photographs, but there is no way I can just sit down and zone myself out."

Is Christensen's inability to meditate naturally a function of the fact that Beauty is a business of surfaces? Whatever the case, the photos nonetheless -- some here -- are perhaps the most significant contributions to dispeling the foolish notion that models are airheads.

Canada, also, is expressing reservations about the possibility of a pendulum swing back to 1908s era protectionism.




Out: Hillary/Geithner Truf War. Turf wars are a part of any incoming administration where portfolios tend to overlap (The Corsair sips a peppery cognac). For example, Defense and State usually have an adversarial relationship (think: Powell-Rumsfeld) because their portfolios overlap and their functions -- War and Peace -- are fundamentally at odds. The Department of State and the Treasury Department -- in this moment of global economic exigency -- are two such cabinet agencies turfing out China, according to reports. And although Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had a working lunch with Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner yesterday, the turf war between the two agencies over how to deal with China is sucking up a lot of the oxygen in the room. According to the NYTimes Week in Review, "Mrs. Clinton made a bid to take over the China file, which in recent years has been primarily the responsibility of the Treasury Department since the major issues with Beijing tend to be economic. Mrs. Clinton said the administration needed a more comprehensive approach.' The only trick is Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner has no intention of giving that up." Uh-oh. From ForeignPolicy's interview with Minxin Pei:

"In the past, the most successful handler of U.S.-China relations was either the president himself (both Bush Sr. and W, for example) or the National Security Advisor (Kissinger, Brzezinski, and Berger) who has the ear of the president.

"The reason is quite simple:Given the complexity of the relationship and the conflicting interests among various bureaucracies, the only person who can manage this relationship and balance competing interests would be the president or his national security advisor.

"Hillary Clinton might want to be spearhead this relationship, but she might want to think twice. She would be treading on many toes -- the Pentagon, the Treasury, USTR, and, needless to say, Congress. And for what? The relationship is not in deep trouble. There are some problems to be ironed out. She would be spending a lot of energy but getting very little in return.

"As for Geithner, I doubt whether he wants to repeat what Paulson did. Geithner has neither the personal interest in China nor the political backing from the very top to handle the U.S.-China brief. Paulson supposedly got a commitment of support from W as a condition of signing on as the Treasury Secretary. In any case, Geithner will be spending most of his time on rescuing the U.S. economy. If I were him, I would do anything to avoid 14-hour flights to Beijing and the jetlag."