Archive for the ‘Political articles’ Category

dbanner1newparis

Gamalier was brutally beaten in his own home early Saturday morning by six NYPD officers, during a mental health crisis for which his family was seeking EMT assistance. He was beaten while his family listened helplessly to his cries. He has not been charged with any crime. He is currently in Woodhull Hospital . His family has been refused medical reports but has been informed by doctors that he is likely to need facial reconstruction surgery.
There will be a special press conference tomorrow in New York

April 14th 2009 11 am
in front of the 83rd precinct
@Knickerbocker Avenue and Bleecker Street

Meet at MRNY at 10:30am, 301 Grove Street , Brooklyn , NY

Take a close look people cause this is what our tax dollars are paying for.. With each passing day we have more and more Oscar Grants popping up.. Where are the good police officers to take a stand and say this is unacceptable? Are we going to keep making excuses for systemic behavior that with each passing day is undeniable

Black man’s killing by police shakes La. town
By MICHAEL KUNZELMAN and MARY FOSTER, Associated Press

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jc5lFviUr1X8LRoylLE50YAIGfdgD97FMKMG0

HOMER, La. – For 73 years before his killing by a white police officer, Bernard Monroe led a life in this northern Louisiana town as peaceful as they come — five kids with his wife of five decades, all raised in the same house, supported by the same job.

The black man’s shooting death is attracting far more attention than he ever did, raising racial tensions between the black community and Homer’s police department.

The Rev. Al Sharpton, who helped organize a massive 2007 civil rights demonstration in Jena after six black teenagers were charged with attempted murder in the beating of a white classmate, planned to lead a Friday afternoon rally in Homer to protest Monroe’s killing.

“The parallel here is that the local community cannot trust law enforcement and cannot trust the process to go forward without outside help,” Sharpton said.

Rendered mute after losing his larynx to cancer, Monroe was a 73-year-old retired power company lineman who was in his usual spot on a mild Friday afternoon in February when events unfolded: A chair by the gate led to his Adams Street home. A barbecue cooker smoked beside a picnic table in the yard. A dozen or so family members talked and played nearby.

All seemed calm, until two Homer police officers drove up.

In a report to state authorities, Homer police said Officer Tim Cox and another officer they have refused to identify chased Monroe’s son, Shaun, 38, from a suspected drug deal blocks away to his father’s house.

Witnesses dispute that account, saying the younger Monroe was talking to his sister-in-law in a truck in front of the house when the officers arrived.

All agree Shaun Monroe, who had an arrest record for assault and battery but no current warrants, drove up the driveway and went into the house. Two white police officers followed him. Within minutes, he ran back outside, followed by an unidentified officer who Tasered him in the front yard.

Seeing the commotion, Bernard Monroe confronted the officer. Police said that he advanced on them with a pistol and that Cox, who was still inside the house, shot at him through a screen door.

Monroe fell dead. How many shots were fired isn’t clear; the coroner has refused to release an autopsy report, citing the active investigation.

Police said Monroe was shot after he pointed a gun at them, though no one claims Monroe fired shots. Friends and family said he was holding a bottle of sports water. They accuse police of planting a gun he owned next to his body.

“Mr. Ben didn’t have a gun,” said 32-year-old neighbor Marcus Frazier, who was there that day. “I saw that other officer pick up the gun from out of a chair on the porch and put it by him.”

Frazier said Monroe was known to keep a gun for protection because of local drug activity.

Despite the chase and Tasering, Shaun Monroe was not arrested. He and other relatives would not comment afterward.

Monroe’s gun is being DNA-tested by state police. The findings of their investigation will be given to District Attorney Jonathan Stewart, who would decide whether to file charges.

The case also has led to FBI and State Police investigations and drawn attention from national civil rights leaders.

“We’ve had a good relationship, blacks and whites, but this thing has done a lot of damage,” said Michael Wade, one of three blacks on the five-member town council. “To shoot down a family man that had never done any harm, had no police record, caused no trouble. Suddenly everyone is looking around wondering why it happened and if race was the reason.”

Homer, a town of 3,800 about 45 miles northwest of Shreveport, is in piney woods just south of the Arkansas state line. Many people work in the oil or timber industries. In the old downtown, shops line streets near the antebellum Claiborne Parish courthouse on the town square.

The easygoing climate, blacks say, masked police harassment.

The black community has focused its anger on Police Chief Russell Mills, who is white. They say he’s directed a policy of harassment toward them.

The FBI and State Police said they received no complaints about Homer police before the shooting.

Mills declined interview requests, saying he retained a lawyer and feared losing his job.

Hours before Friday’s scheduled rally, music blared from Azzie Olds‘ home, where the 53-year-old schoolteacher and her neighbors enjoyed a cookout. Olds, who is black, said she expected a peaceful march despite the anger many were feeling.

“You’ve got a lot of people upset about what happened, not just the black folks,” Olds said. “I hope the national attention can help the town realize that something really needs to be done about the situation.”

Elsewhere in Homer, some white residents expressed concern that Sharpton’s visit could enflame tensions.

“I just hope everybody behaves and don’t use it as an excuse to start trouble,” said Vanessa Efferson, 49, whose bookstore is one of the shops ringing the courthouse.

 

bernard-monroe

Bernard Monroe was killed by police in Homer, LA. he was unarmed and handicapped. I know for many who don’t wanna belive this can happen, they are hoping against hope that this handcapped elder did something wrong. Oh I know he didn’t speak when the officers asked him to talk..Does that sound like a fgood excuse? From unarmed young men with their hands behind their back to handicapped elders, police terror continues..and still we have deafening silence from the good men and women on the force.. We need more officers like the Chief in dalls who spoke up and condemned the actions of his officer when they terrorizzed the footbal player

After seeing these pictures and hearing the heartwrenching stories of police terror.. I guess the song by Zumbi of Zion I ‘Cops Hate Kidz’ makes more and more sense..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQFajNZMxM8

dbanner1newparis
Why We Don’t Condemn Our Pirates in Somalia
By K’Naan , URB Magazine. Posted April 14, 2009.

Can anyone ever really be for piracy? Well in Somalia, the answer is: it’s complicated.

http://www.alternet.org/story/136481/why_we_don%27t_condemn_our_pirates_in_somalia/?page=entire

knaanperformance-2251Can anyone ever really be for piracy? Outside of sea bandits, and young girls fantasizing of Johnny Depp, would anyone with an honest regard for good human conduct really say that they are in support of Sea Robbery? Well in Somalia, the answer is: it’s complicated. The news media these days has been covering piracy in the Somali coast, with such lopsided journalism that it’s lucky they’re not on a ship themselves. It’s true that the constant hijacking of vessels in the Gulf of Aden is a major threat to the vibrant trade route between Asia and Europe. It is also true that for most of the pirates operating in this vast shoreline, money is the primary objective. But according to many Somalis, the disruption of Europe’s darling of a trade route is just Karma biting a perpetrator in the butt. And if you don’t believe in Karma, maybe you believe in recent history. Here is why we Somalis find ourselves slightly shy of condemning our pirates.

Somalia has been without any form of a functioning government since 1991. And despite its failures, like many other toddler governments in Africa, sprung from the wells of post-colonial independence, bad governance and development loan sharks, the specific problem of piracy was put in motion in 1992.

After the overthrow of Siyad Barre, our charmless dictator of twenty-some odd years, two major forces of the Hawiye Clan came to power. At the time, Ali Mahdi, and General Mohamed Farah Aidid, the two leaders of the Hawiye rebels were largely considered liberators. But the unity of the two men and their respective sub-clans was very short-lived. It’s as if they were dumbstruck at the advent of ousting the dictator, or that they just forgot to discuss who will be the leader of the country once they defeated their common foe. A disagreement of who will upgrade from militia leader to Mr. President broke up their honeymoon. It’s because of this disagreement that we’ve seen one of the most devastating wars in Somalia’s history, leading to millions displaced and hundreds of thousands dead. But war is expensive and militias need food for their families, and Jaad (an amphetamine-based stimulant) to stay awake for the fighting. Therefore a good clan-based Warlord must look out for his own fighters. Aidid’s men turned to robbing aid trucks carrying food to the starving masses, and reselling it to continue their war. But Ali Mahdi had his sights set on a larger and more unexploited resource, namely: the Indian Ocean.

Already by this time, local fishermen in the coastline of Somalia have been complaining of illegal vessels coming to Somali waters and stealing all the fish. And since there was no government to report it to, and since the severity of the violence clumsily overshadowed every other problem, the fishermen went completely unheard. But it was around this same time that a more sinister, a more patronizing practice was being put in motion. A Swiss firm called Achair Parterns, and an Italian waste company called Progresso, made a deal with Ali Mahdi, that they could dump containers of waste material in Somali waters. These European companies were said to be paying Warlords about $3 a ton, where as in to properly dispose of waste in Europe costs about $1000 a ton.

In 2004, after Tsunami washed ashore several leaking containers, thousand of locals in the Puntland region of Somalia started to complain of severe and previously unreported ailments, such as abdominal bleeding, skin melting off and a lot of immediate cancer-like symptoms. Nick Nuttall, a spokesman for the United Nations Environmental Program, says that the containers had many different kinds of waste, including “Uranium, radioactive waste, lead, cadmium, mercury and chemical waste.” But this wasn’t just a passing evil from one or two groups taking advantage of our unprotected waters, the UN Convoy for Somalia, Ahmedou Ould-Abdallah, says that the practice still continues to this day. It was months after those initial reports that local fishermen mobilized themselves, along with street militias, to go into the waters and deter the Westerners from having a free pass at completely destroying Somalia’s aquatic life. Now years later, that deterance has become less noble, and the ex-fishermen with their militias have begun to develop a taste for ransom at sea. This form of piracy is now a major contributor to the Somali economy, especially in the very region that private toxic waste companies first began to bury our nation’s death trap.

Now Somalia has upped the world’s pirate attacks by over 21 percent in one year, and while NATO and the EU are both sending forces to the Somali coast to try and slow down the attacks, Blackwater and all kinds of private security firms are intent on cashing in. But while Europeans are well in their right to protect their trade interest in the region, our pirates were the only deterrent we had from an externally imposed environmental disaster. No one can say for sure that some of the ships they are now holding for ransom were not involved in illegal activity in our waters. The truth is, if you ask any Somali if they think getting rid of the pirates only means the continuous rape of our coast by unmonitored Western vessels, and the production of a new cancerous generation, we would all fly our pirate flags high.

It is time that the world gave the Somali people some assurance that these Western illegal activities will end, if our pirates are to seize their operations. We do not want the EU and NATO serving as a shield for these nuclear waste-dumping hoodlums. It seems to me that this new modern crisis is a question of justice, but also a question of whose justice. As is apparent these days, one man’s pirate is another man’s coast guard.

K’naan is a Somali-Canadian poet, rapper and musician.

Below are links to the interviews we did with Knaan a couple of weeks before all this drama unfolded

In the first clip he talks about Somali Pirates

In the second clip he talks about the US attempts to classify Somalis here in the US as Terrorists

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrwgiprDBtA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i67euACNhmA

dbanner1newparis

A Tale of Two Reverends -Jeremiah Wright & Edward Pinkey

By Ted Glick

On this Easter weekend, it is appropriate to write about Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Rev. Edward Pinkney, two African American ministers in the upper Midwest who have made a good faith effort to live their lives as Jesus of Nazareth lived his, and who have suffered for it as a result.

jeremiah_wright-225Rev. Wright, of course, is much more well known. He was Barack Obama’s minister for 20 years at Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago . In his book, “Dreams From My Father,” Obama describes the personal impact of attending a Sunday morning church service in the mid-80’s presided over by Rev. Wright:

“I imagined the stories of ordinary black people merging with the stories of David and Goliath, Moses and Pharaoh, the Christians in the lion’s den, Ezekiel’s field of dry bones. Those stories—of survival, and freedom, and hope—become our story, my story; the blood that had spilled was our blood, the tears our tears; until this black church, on this bright day, seemed once more a vessel carrying the story of a people into future generations and into a larger world. Our trials and triumphs became at once unique and universal, black and more than black. . . I felt for the first time how that spirit carried within it, nascent, incomplete, the possibility of moving beyond our narrow dreams.”

Last year, however, right around this time, Barack and Michelle Obama decided that they would leave this church that, unquestionably, had been a major influence on their lives. They did so, it is very clear, because they felt that there was no chance Barack would ever become President if he didn’t. The corporate and right-wing media had distorted comments made years before by Rev. Wright, and the media frenzy forced Obama into choosing between his Presidential ambitions and loyalty to a man who had been a friend, a mentor, an inspiration and more.

Wright understood what was going on. He said at the time, “I do what pastors do. He does what politicians do. I am not running for office.” He also said, presciently, referring to Obama, “November 5th, I’m coming after you, because you’ll be representing a government whose policies grind under people.”

He hasn’t changed those views. In an Associated Press interview on March 5th, 2009, Wright was quoted as saying in Selma , Alabama , that “he’s like any other president. He’s a politician and he’s got to do what politicians do.” During a speech that day in Selma , he is quoted as saying, “Barack’s name ain’t Jesus. There are things we’ve got to do on our own.”

To his credit, Rev. Wright seems to have handled well the tremendously negative, essentially racist attacks on his character and credibility. He retired last year as minister of Trinity church, but he has been traveling the country speaking, letting people see and hear for themselves. He continues his life of prophetic witness on behalf of the least of these, the victims of imperialism, a word he doesn’t hesitate to use, in opposition to oppressors and on behalf of the oppressed.

So has Rev. Edward Pinkney of Benton Harbor , Michigan , doing so effectively, and as a result he has been under indictment, under house arrest, in prison, and/or fighting ridiculous charges for over three years.

Benton Harbor is a town of about 11,000 people on the southwestern side of Michigan , 90% black and overwhelmingly poor. It burst onto the national scene in 2003 when its young people rose up in response to a series of local police killings and beatings.

revedpinkeyRev. Pinkney and a local community organization, BANCO, have been involved for years working to change the conditions of life for Benton Harbor’s residents. In 2005 he helped lead a successful recall election of a notoriously racist and abusive city commissioner. The local white-dominated power structure had that result overturned and then went after Rev. Pinkney with false charges of paying people to vote the right way. They failed to gain a conviction in their first trial in 2006, so in their second trial they made sure that there were no blacks on the jury, and in March of 2007 an all-white jury convicted him. He was sentenced to one year in prison and five years on probation. From May to December of that year he was kept under house arrest on an electronically monitored tether.

Reverend Ed Pinkey was sent to jail for 3-10 years for quoting a Bible verse that a judge found offensive
In December of 2007 Rev. Pinkney wrote an article in the People’s Tribune newspaper in which he quoted a part of the Bible in reference to the judge, Berrien County Chief Judge Alfred Butzbaugh, who had presided over Pinkney’s trial. The Bible quotation said, in part, “The Lord shall smite thee with consumption and with a fever and with an inflammation and with extreme burning.”

For writing this article, Butzbaugh revoked Pinkney’s probation and sent him to jail, and in June of 2008 another Berrien County judge added a three to ten year sentence for Pinkney’s literary “crime.”

After a year in jail, and after his case was taken up by the American Civil Liberties Union, he was released on bail just before Christmas, 2008, once again confined under house arrest. Just recently, a June 9th date was set for a hearing on his case before the Michigan Court of Appeals in Grand Rapids .

Just prior to that hearing, ex-President George Bush will make what may be his first domestic post-presidency speech to the Economic Development Club of Southwestern Michigan in Benton Harbor on May 28th. The primary corporation of this “club” is the Whirlpool Corporation, headquartered in the Benton Harbor area and a major force behind plans to build a private golf course in the city’s lakefront park. In the words of The Michigan Messenger, “Last year, after heavy lobbying from local Republican congressman Fred Upton, the National Park Service approved a plan to swap public lakefront and dune property for a series of inland parcels that are contaminated with industrial waste. In an ongoing federal suit locals are suing to reverse federal and state approval of the project.”

Rev. Pinkney is not keeping quiet about this land grab. He and BANCO are calling for a world-wide boycott of Whirlpool. In a letter sent out recently, he explains:

“We must stop Whirlpool, Rep. Upton, and Harbor Shores developers. We are calling for an International Boycott of all Whirlpool Products to begin May 1, and all stores which sell Whirlpool products.

“We appreciate any effort you can make to spread the word: BOYCOTT WHIRLPOOL AND ALL SUBSIDIARIES, MAY DAY, 2009

On this weekend when hundreds of millions of people worldwide celebrate the continued inspiration of a man who, 2,000 years ago, threw the corrupt money-changers out of the Jerusalem temple, we would do well to remember and appreciate our present-day prophets, people like Reverends Wright and Pinkney.

More information on the boycott and the Benton Harbor struggle can be found at http://www.bhbanco.blogspot.com. Rev. Pinkney can be contacted directly at 269-925-0001 or banco9342@sbcglobal.net.

Ted Glick has been a progressive social change organizer since 1968. More information and past writings can be found at http://www.tedglick.com.
 

dbanner1newparis

 A Conversation w/ Knaan About the Somali Pirates pt1

Knaan Speaks the Real truth about Somalian Pirates pt2

dbanner1newparis
Police officers stand by at the scene near Fairfield Street where
as many as three officers were killed this morning when they responded to a domestic call.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09094/960660-100.stm

At least three Pittsburgh police officers were believed to be dead and two others were wounded after a man began firing at them when they responded to a domestic call this morning at his family’s home in Stanton Heights.
The gunman, identified as Richard Poplawski, surrendered to police around 11 a.m., more than three hours after the standoff began at 1016 Fairfield St. His condition was not immediately available, but he told neighbors who spoke with him on the telephone that he also had been shot.

For much of the morning, the standoff forced police to lock down much of the neighborhood as scores of police officers converged on the house where Mr. Poplawski had barricaded himself with at least one family member.

The incident began around 7:30 a.m. when a team of officers went to the address to serve a warrant and the suspect opened fire on them, police said. One of the officers reported was shot in the back, another in the chest and a third in the hand.

Some of the wounded officers remained in positions where they could not be removed immediately for treatment, according to Diane Richard, Pittsburgh Police spokeswoman.

A state police helicopter hovered over the location where more than 100 officers from Pittsburgh, the state and Port Authority converged along with neighbors and other onlookers.

Authorities as well as members of the suspect’s family also were reportedly in contact with him by phone. Pittsburgh Mayor Luke Ravenstahl is among the officials at the scene.

Mr. Poplawski, who is in his early 20s and lives in the house, according to neighbor and longtime friend Joe DiMarco. Mr. DiMarco and his mother, Darlene, said they spoke to Mr. Poplawski on the telephone this morning.

“He told me he loved me and that he’d been shot in the chest and leg,” Ms. DiMarco said.

She also said Mr. Poplawski’s mother and possibly his grandmother were in the house with him.

Another neighbor, Brian Merlina, said he was getting out of the shower at 7:30 a.m. when he heard bursts of rapid-fire shots. About 30 minutes later, he heard at least two dozen more shots fired.

Shortly thereafter, a state police helicopter landed in a field near his house. He drove a trooper from the helicopter.

Utility crews cut off power to the house at 10:45 a.m. because they believe Mr. Poplawski had been monitoring media reports.

Drew Stadler, 34, who lives nearby on Oglethorp Street, said he heard loud bangs around 8 a.m. From his window, he saw Mr. Poplawski pointing what appeared to be an automatic rifle and shooting at officers from a window over the garage of the Fairfield Street house.

SWAT officers were pinned down, with their protective shields up, at an adjacent house.

At one point, the SWAT officers pulled away a wounded officer and dragged him down the street, Mr. Stadler said. He also said he heard potentially hundreds of shots fired through the incident.

dbanner1newparis

Public Slight-A Lost Opportunity for Oakland
by Attorney John Burris (lawyer for Oscar grant family)

Ron Dellums-DaveyD-HipHopNewsby Attorney John Burris (lawyer for Oscar grant family)

As an Oaklander watching the memorial services for the four slain Oakland police officers, I was astonished and disturbed when Oakland Mayor Ron Dellums did not speak at the service. I could not imagine a situation where the entire nation is watching and law enforcement officers are attending in force yet the Mayor of the City in mourning does not speak. I later came to understand that several of the officers’ families requested that the Mayor not participate in the ceremony and that the Mayor honored their wishes. It was disappointing to learn that such a request was made.

At a time of such public tragedy, it is unfortunate that the families and or members of the Department would encourage and condone such a public humiliation of the Mayor. After all, this was a public event, paid for with public funds attended by thousands many of whom came from across the country to pay respect for their fellow officers. To expressly preclude the Mayor, whose eloquence is unmatched, from speaking was essentially a public slap in the face. How could this happen, particularly when comments from family, friends and fellow officers stated how much the fallen officers loved being Oakland police officers.

I can only imagine that the men must have expressed their discontent with the Mayor’s policies toward the Department. Notwithstanding such expressions, this was truly a time for healing and not for carrying out political and personal vendettas. The better angels in those families and their advisors should have ensured that this is a time for healing, and that everyone in the City, especially the Mayor should be embraced.

barbaraleeofficial-225This public slight was even more pronounced when state-wide political leaders such as Attorney General Jerry Brown, and Senators Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer were given prominent speaking roles during the ceremony yet Oakland’s highest ranking public officials, the Mayor and Congresswoman Barbara Lee did not speak. To add insult to injury, Congresswoman Barbara Lee, the Chairperson of the Congressional Black Caucus, was present on the platform yet she also did not speak, nor was she even acknowledged. To their credit both the Mayor and the Congresswoman stayed for the entire ceremony.

The memorial service was a fine tribute to the officers’ who lost their lives while working for the people of Oakland. Of course the planners of the event were certainly entitled to have the ceremony of their choice, particularly if it was paid for with private funds; but to the extent that public funds were being utilized there should have been acknowledgment of the City’s leaders who made it possible.

This was a golden opportunity to bridge the gap between the Oakland police department, the community and Oakland public officials, particularly at a time when everyone in the city is feeling the pain of this tragedy. Ron Dellums is Oakland’s Mayor in both the good and bad times and he should have been allowed to bring greetings and to express his thoughts on behalf of the residents of Oakland. Unfortunately this was a lost opportunity.

John Burris,
Attorney and Oakland Resident
Burris@lmi.net; john.burris@johnburrislaw.com

 

dbanner1newparis

 America’s New Racial Boogieman-An Interview w/ Rosa Clemente

by Davey D

Listen to this Breakdown FM Interview w/ Rosa Clemente

http://odeo.com/episodes/24390751-Rosa-Clemente-The-nation-s-new-Boogieman

rosaclementepr-225We sat down with former Green Party Vice Presidential candidate Rosa Clemente to break bread about a number of issues. First and foremost we wanted to talk about the current speaking tour she is on that addresses the issue of America being a post racial society in the aftermath of the election of President Obama.

Rosa gives an in depth breakdown about this notion and concludes that racism is alive and well and may in fact if the patterns of history hold true, things may get progressively worse because of the economic downturn.

Rosa then talked about how the racism conversation needs to be extended beyond the traditional ‘Black and White paradigm. She says with 40 million Brown and Afro Latinos in this country, that we simply can not ignore the challenges they face. Some issues overlap while others like ICE raids and immigration detention centers seem to specifically target folks in Brown communities.

She expounded upon this and talked about how America’s new Racial Boogieman is Brown in particular Mexicano. She also acknowledged that racism amongst Black folks hasn’t stopped as evidence by the rash of questionable police shootings from Oscar Grant in Oakland to Adolph Grimes in New Orleans

We talked to Rosa about her thoughts around President Obama and US boycotting the Durban Conference on Racism in Geneva because of strong objections by the Isreali lobby AIPAC. She shared with us her experience of attending the first Durban Conference on racism in South Africa and what it was like to see Colin Powell lead the US delegation out the conference when the body declared slavery was a crime to humanity.

Rosa talked about how she was glad that president Obama was honest and upfront about his reasons for boycotting the conference. She said now we all know that he is powerless when it comes to standing up to Isreal which obviously control much of his agenda.

She noted that he has taken great strides to de-racialize all issues and that in many ways its easier for him to not talk about problems confronted by Black men.

We talked to Rosa about her experience in running for Vice President and what lessons she learned and what challenges she faced. She noted that she will not be leaving electoral politics and will keep her options open to run for another office down the road.

She talked about the current crises we are facing including not having Single-payer health-care and not seeing the foreclosure crises be adequately addressed. She talked about the 14 Tent cities around the country and how that was inexcusable for a country that has so many resources.

She talked about the opportunities and challenges facing the Green Party and what she would like to see happen for them in the future. She says with the Republican Party imploding and the democrats behaving more and more moderate the Greens have an opportunity to fill a big void for people yearning for more progressive politics.

We concluded by talking in great detail about the work she is doing with Amnesty International around the issue of Immigration and Detention. She talked about all the new policies, resources and laws being put in place to target those who fit the description of being undocumented. She talked about how many US born citizens are likely to be caught up in sweeps and other types of detaining procedures and may even be connected and accused of helping others come into the country ‘illegally’.

We ended our convo with Rosa talking about the role Hip Hop organizations have been playing in the political arena.

Rosa was very thorough and insightful in this must hear interview.

Listen to this Breakdown FM Interview w/ Rosa Clemente

http://odeo.com/episodes/24390751-Rosa-Clemente-The-nation-s-new-Boogieman

Return to Davey D’s Hip Hop Corner

dbanner1newparis
The Big Takeover: How Wall Street Insiders are Using the
Bailout to Stage a Revolution

The global economic crisis isn’t about money — it’s about power.

By Matt Taibbi, RollingStone.com. Posted March 23, 2009.

http://www.alternet.org/workplace/132859/

matttabbi-225It’s over – we’re officially, royally fucked. No empire can survive being rendered a permanent laughingstock, which is what happened as of a few weeks ago, when the buffoons who have been running things in this country finally went one step too far. It happened when Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner was forced to admit that he was once again going to have to stuff billions of taxpayer dollars into a dying insurance giant called AIG, itself a profound symbol of our national decline – a corporation that got rich insuring the concrete and steel of American industry in the country’s heyday, only to destroy itself chasing phantom fortunes at the Wall Street card tables, like a dissolute nobleman gambling away the family estate in the waning days of the British Empire.

The latest bailout came as AIG admitted to having just posted the largest quarterly loss in American corporate history – some $61.7 billion. In the final three months of last year, the company lost more than $27 million every hour. That’s $465,000 a minute, a yearly income for a median American household every six seconds, roughly $7,750 a second. And all this happened at the end of eight straight years that America devoted to frantically chasing the shadow of a terrorist threat to no avail, eight years spent stopping every citizen at every airport to search every purse, bag, crotch and briefcase for juice boxes and explosive tubes of toothpaste. Yet in the end, our government had no mechanism for searching the balance sheets of companies that held life-or-death power over our society and was unable to spot holes in the national economy the size of Libya (whose entire GDP last year was smaller than AIG’s 2008 losses).

So it’s time to admit it: We’re fools, protagonists in a kind of gruesome comedy about the marriage of greed and stupidity. And the worst part about it is that we’re still in denial – we still think this is some kind of unfortunate accident, not something that was created by the group of psychopaths on Wall Street whom we allowed to gang-rape the American Dream. When Geithner announced the new $30 billion bailout, the party line was that poor AIG was just a victim of a lot of shitty luck – bad year for business, you know, what with the financial crisis and all. Edward Liddy, the company’s CEO, actually compared it to catching a cold: “The marketplace is a pretty crummy place to be right now,” he said. “When the world catches pneumonia, we get it too.” In a pathetic attempt at name-dropping, he even whined that AIG was being “consumed by the same issues that are driving house prices down and 401K statements down and Warren Buffet’s investment portfolio down.”

Liddy made AIG sound like an orphan begging in a soup line, hungry and sick from being left out in someone else’s financial weather. He conveniently forgot to mention that AIG had spent more than a decade systematically scheming to evade U.S. and international regulators, or that one of the causes of its “pneumonia” was making colossal, world-sinking $500 billion bets with money it didn’t have, in a toxic and completely unregulated derivatives market.

Nor did anyone mention that when AIG finally got up from its seat at the Wall Street casino, broke and busted in the afterdawn light, it owed money all over town – and that a huge chunk of your taxpayer dollars in this particular bailout scam will be going to pay off the other high rollers at its table. Or that this was a casino unique among all casinos, one where middle-class taxpayers cover the bets of billionaires.

People are pissed off about this financial crisis, and about this bailout, but they’re not pissed off enough. The reality is that the worldwide economic meltdown and the bailout that followed were together a kind of revolution, a coup d’état. They cemented and formalized a political trend that has been snowballing for decades: the gradual takeover of the government by a small class of connected insiders, who used money to control elections, buy influence and systematically weaken financial regulations.

The crisis was the coup de grâce: Given virtually free rein over the economy, these same insiders first wrecked the financial world, then cunningly granted themselves nearly unlimited emergency powers to clean up their own mess. And so the gambling-addict leaders of companies like AIG end up not penniless and in jail, but with an Alien-style death grip on the Treasury and the Federal Reserve – “our partners in the government,” as Liddy put it with a shockingly casual matter-of-factness after the most recent bailout.

The mistake most people make in looking at the financial crisis is thinking of it in terms of money, a habit that might lead you to look at the unfolding mess as a huge bonus-killing downer for the Wall Street class. But if you look at it in purely Machiavellian terms, what you see is a colossal power grab that threatens to turn the federal government into a kind of giant Enron – a huge, impenetrable black box filled with self-dealing insiders whose scheme is the securing of individual profits at the expense of an ocean of unwitting involuntary shareholders, previously known as taxpayers.

I. PATIENT ZERO

The best way to understand the financial crisis is to understand the meltdown at AIG. AIG is what happens when short, bald managers of otherwise boring financial bureaucracies start seeing Brad Pitt in the mirror. This is a company that built a giant fortune across more than a century by betting on safety-conscious policyholders – people who wear seat belts and build houses on high ground – and then blew it all in a year or two by turning their entire balance sheet over to a guy who acted like making huge bets with other people’s money would make his dick bigger.

That guy – the Patient Zero of the global economic meltdown – was one Joseph Cassano, the head of a tiny, 400-person unit within the company called AIG Financial Products, or AIGFP. Cassano, a pudgy, balding Brooklyn College grad with beady eyes and way too much forehead, cut his teeth in the Eighties working for Mike Milken, the granddaddy of modern Wall Street debt alchemists. Milken, who pioneered the creative use of junk bonds, relied on messianic genius and a whole array of insider schemes to evade detection while wreaking financial disaster. Cassano, by contrast, was just a greedy little turd with a knack for selective accounting who ran his scam right out in the open, thanks to Washington’s deregulation of the Wall Street casino. “It’s all about the regulatory environment,” says a government source involved with the AIG bailout. “These guys look for holes in the system, for ways they can do trades without government interference. Whatever is unregulated, all the action is going to pile into that.”

The mess Cassano created had its roots in an investment boom fueled in part by a relatively new type of financial instrument called a collateralized-debt obligation. A CDO is like a box full of diced-up assets. They can be anything: mortgages, corporate loans, aircraft loans, credit-card loans, even other CDOs. So as X mortgage holder pays his bill, and Y corporate debtor pays his bill, and Z credit-card debtor pays his bill, money flows into the box.

The key idea behind a CDO is that there will always be at least some money in the box, regardless of how dicey the individual assets inside it are. No matter how you look at a single unemployed ex-con trying to pay the note on a six-bedroom house, he looks like a bad investment. But dump his loan in a box with a smorgasbord of auto loans, credit-card debt, corporate bonds and other crap, and you can be reasonably sure that somebody is going to pay up. Say $100 is supposed to come into the box every month. Even in an apocalypse, when $90 in payments might default, you’ll still get $10. What the inventors of the CDO did is divide up the box into groups of investors and put that $10 into its own level, or “tranche.” They then convinced ratings agencies like Moody’s and S&P to give that top tranche the highest AAA rating – meaning it has close to zero credit risk.

Suddenly, thanks to this financial seal of approval, banks had a way to turn their shittiest mortgages and other financial waste into investment-grade paper and sell them to institutional investors like pensions and insurance companies, which were forced by regulators to keep their portfolios as safe as possible. Because CDOs offered higher rates of return than truly safe products like Treasury bills, it was a win-win: Banks made a fortune selling CDOs, and big investors made much more holding them.

The problem was, none of this was based on reality. “The banks knew they were selling crap,” says a London-based trader from one of the bailed-out companies. To get AAA ratings, the CDOs relied not on their actual underlying assets but on crazy mathematical formulas that the banks cooked up to make the investments look safer than they really were. “They had some back room somewhere where a bunch of Indian guys who’d been doing nothing but math for God knows how many years would come up with some kind of model saying that this or that combination of debtors would only default once every 10,000 years,” says one young trader who sold CDOs for a major investment bank. “It was nuts.”

Now that even the crappiest mortgages could be sold to conservative investors, the CDOs spurred a massive explosion of irresponsible and predatory lending. In fact, there was such a crush to underwrite CDOs that it became hard to find enough subprime mortgages – read: enough unemployed meth dealers willing to buy million-dollar homes for no money down – to fill them all. As banks and investors of all kinds took on more and more in CDOs and similar instruments, they needed some way to hedge their massive bets – some kind of insurance policy, in case the housing bubble burst and all that debt went south at the same time. This was particularly true for investment banks, many of which got stuck holding or “warehousing” CDOs when they wrote more than they could sell. And that’s were Joe Cassano came in.

Known for his boldness and arrogance, Cassano took over as chief of AIGFP in 2001. He was the favorite of Maurice “Hank” Greenberg, the head of AIG, who admired the younger man’s hard-driving ways, even if neither he nor his successors fully understood exactly what it was that Cassano did. According to a source familiar with AIG’s internal operations, Cassano basically told senior management, “You know insurance, I know investments, so you do what you do, and I’ll do what I do – leave me alone.” Given a free hand within the company, Cassano set out from his offices in London to sell a lucrative form of “insurance” to all those investors holding lots of CDOs. His tool of choice was another new financial instrument known as a credit-default swap, or CDS.

The CDS was popularized by J.P. Morgan, in particular by a group of young, creative bankers who would later become known as the “Morgan Mafia,” as many of them would go on to assume influential positions in the finance world. In 1994, in between booze and games of tennis at a resort in Boca Raton, Florida, the Morgan gang plotted a way to help boost the bank’s returns. One of their goals was to find a way to lend more money, while working around regulations that required them to keep a set amount of cash in reserve to back those loans. What they came up with was an early version of the credit-default swap.

In its simplest form, a CDS is just a bet on an outcome. Say Bank A writes a million-dollar mortgage to the Pope for a town house in the West Village. Bank A wants to hedge its mortgage risk in case the Pope can’t make his monthly payments, so it buys CDS protection from Bank B, wherein it agrees to pay Bank B a premium of $1,000 a month for five years. In return, Bank B agrees to pay Bank A the full million-dollar value of the Pope’s mortgage if he defaults. In theory, Bank A is covered if the Pope goes on a meth binge and loses his job.

When Morgan presented their plans for credit swaps to regulators in the late Nineties, they argued that if they bought CDS protection for enough of the investments in their portfolio, they had effectively moved the risk off their books. Therefore, they argued, they should be allowed to lend more, without keeping more cash in reserve. A whole host of regulators – from the Federal Reserve to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency – accepted the argument, and Morgan was allowed to put more money on the street.

What Cassano did was to transform the credit swaps that Morgan popularized into the world’s largest bet on the housing boom. In theory, at least, there’s nothing wrong with buying a CDS to insure your investments. Investors paid a premium to AIGFP, and in return the company promised to pick up the tab if the mortgage-backed CDOs went bust. But as Cassano went on a selling spree, the deals he made differed from traditional insurance in several significant ways. First, the party selling CDS protection didn’t have to post any money upfront. When a $100 corporate bond is sold, for example, someone has to show 100 actual dollars. But when you sell a $100 CDS guarantee, you don’t have to show a dime. So Cassano could sell investment banks billions in guarantees without having any single asset to back it up.

Secondly, Cassano was selling so-called “naked” CDS deals. In a “naked” CDS, neither party actually holds the underlying loan. In other words, Bank B not only sells CDS protection to Bank A for its mortgage on the Pope – it turns around and sells protection to Bank C for the very same mortgage. This could go on ad nauseam: You could have Banks D through Z also betting on Bank A’s mortgage. Unlike traditional insurance, Cassano was offering investors an opportunity to bet that someone else’s house would burn down, or take out a term life policy on the guy with AIDS down the street. It was no different from gambling, the Wall Street version of a bunch of frat brothers betting on Jay Feely to make a field goal. Cassano was taking book for every bank that bet short on the housing market, but he didn’t have the cash to pay off if the kick went wide.

In a span of only seven years, Cassano sold some $500 billion worth of CDS protection, with at least $64 billion of that tied to the subprime mortgage market. AIG didn’t have even a fraction of that amount of cash on hand to cover its bets, but neither did it expect it would ever need any reserves. So long as defaults on the underlying securities remained a highly unlikely proposition, AIG was essentially collecting huge and steadily climbing premiums by selling insurance for the disaster it thought would never come.

Initially, at least, the revenues were enormous: AIGFP’s returns went from $737 million in 1999 to $3.2 billion in 2005. Over the past seven years, the subsidiary’s 400 employees were paid a total of $3.5 billion; Cassano himself pocketed at least $280 million in compensation. Everyone made their money – and then it all went to shit.

II. THE REGULATORS

Cassano’s outrageous gamble wouldn’t have been possible had he not had the good fortune to take over AIGFP just as Sen. Phil Gramm – a grinning, laissez-faire ideologue from Texas – had finished engineering the most dramatic deregulation of the financial industry since Emperor Hien Tsung invented paper money in 806 A.D. For years, Washington had kept a watchful eye on the nation’s banks. Ever since the Great Depression, commercial banks – those that kept money on deposit for individuals and businesses – had not been allowed to double as investment banks, which raise money by issuing and selling securities. The Glass-Steagall Act, passed during the Depression, also prevented banks of any kind from getting into the insurance business.

But in the late Nineties, a few years before Cassano took over AIGFP, all that changed. The Democrats, tired of getting slaughtered in the fundraising arena by Republicans, decided to throw off their old reliance on unions and interest groups and become more “business-friendly.” Wall Street responded by flooding Washington with money, buying allies in both parties. In the 10-year period beginning in 1998, financial companies spent $1.7 billion on federal campaign contributions and another $3.4 billion on lobbyists. They quickly got what they paid for. In 1999, Gramm co-sponsored a bill that repealed key aspects of the Glass-Steagall Act, smoothing the way for the creation of financial megafirms like Citigroup. The move did away with the built-in protections afforded by smaller banks. In the old days, a local banker knew the people whose loans were on his balance sheet: He wasn’t going to give a million-dollar mortgage to a homeless meth addict, since he would have to keep that loan on his books. But a giant merged bank might write that loan and then sell it off to some fool in China, and who cared?

The very next year, Gramm compounded the problem by writing a sweeping new law called the Commodity Futures Modernization Act that made it impossible to regulate credit swaps as either gambling or securities. Commercial banks – which, thanks to Gramm, were now competing directly with investment banks for customers – were driven to buy credit swaps to loosen capital in search of higher yields. “By ruling that credit-default swaps were not gaming and not a security, the way was cleared for the growth of the market,” said Eric Dinallo, head of the New York State Insurance Department.

The blanket exemption meant that Joe Cassano could now sell as many CDS contracts as he wanted, building up as huge a position as he wanted, without anyone in government saying a word. “You have to remember, investment banks aren’t in the business of making huge directional bets,” says the government source involved in the AIG bailout. When investment banks write CDS deals, they hedge them. But insurance companies don’t have to hedge. And that’s what AIG did. “They just bet massively long on the housing market,” says the source. “Billions and billions.”

In the biggest joke of all, Cassano’s wheeling and dealing was regulated by the Office of Thrift Supervision, an agency that would prove to be defiantly uninterested in keeping watch over his operations. How a behemoth like AIG came to be regulated by the little-known and relatively small OTS is yet another triumph of the deregulatory instinct. Under another law passed in 1999, certain kinds of holding companies could choose the OTS as their regulator, provided they owned one or more thrifts (better known as savings-and-loans). Because the OTS was viewed as more compliant than the Fed or the Securities and Exchange Commission, companies rushed to reclassify themselves as thrifts. In 1999, AIG purchased a thrift in Delaware and managed to get approval for OTS regulation of its entire operation.

Making matters even more hilarious, AIGFP – a London-based subsidiary of an American insurance company – ought to have been regulated by one of Europe’s more stringent regulators, like Britain’s Financial Services Authority. But the OTS managed to convince the Europeans that it had the muscle to regulate these giant companies. By 2007, the EU had conferred legitimacy to OTS supervision of three mammoth firms – GE, AIG and Ameriprise.

That same year, as the subprime crisis was exploding, the Government Accountability Office criticized the OTS, noting a “disparity between the size of the agency and the diverse firms it oversees.” Among other things, the GAO report noted that the entire OTS had only one insurance specialist on staff – and this despite the fact that it was the primary regulator for the world’s largest insurer!

“There’s this notion that the regulators couldn’t do anything to stop AIG,” says a government official who was present during the bailout. “That’s bullshit. What you have to understand is that these regulators have ultimate power. They can send you a letter and say, ‘You don’t exist anymore,’ and that’s basically that. They don’t even really need due process. The OTS could have said, ‘We’re going to pull your charter; we’re going to pull your license; we’re going to sue you.’ And getting sued by your primary regulator is the kiss of death.”

When AIG finally blew up, the OTS regulator ostensibly in charge of overseeing the insurance giant – a guy named C.K. Lee – basically admitted that he had blown it. His mistake, Lee said, was that he believed all those credit swaps in Cassano’s portfolio were “fairly benign products.” Why? Because the company told him so. “The judgment the company was making was that there was no big credit risk,” he explained. (Lee now works as Midwest region director of the OTS; the agency declined to make him available for an interview.)

In early March, after the latest bailout of AIG, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner took what seemed to be a thinly veiled shot at the OTS, calling AIG a “huge, complex global insurance company attached to a very complicated investment bank/hedge fund that was allowed to build up without any adult supervision.” But even without that “adult supervision,” AIG might have been OK had it not been for a complete lack of internal controls. For six months before its meltdown, according to insiders, the company had been searching for a full-time chief financial officer and a chief risk-assessment officer, but never got around to hiring either. That meant that the 18th-largest company in the world had no one checking to make sure its balance sheet was safe and no one keeping track of how much cash and assets the firm had on hand. The situation was so bad that when outside consultants were called in a few weeks before the bailout, senior executives were unable to answer even the most basic questions about their company – like, for instance, how much exposure the firm had to the residential-mortgage market.

III. THE CRASH

Ironically, when reality finally caught up to Cassano, it wasn’t because the housing market crapped but because of AIG itself. Before 2005, the company’s debt was rated triple-A, meaning he didn’t need to post much cash to sell CDS protection: The solid creditworthiness of AIG’s name was guarantee enough. But the company’s crummy accounting practices eventually caused its credit rating to be downgraded, triggering clauses in the CDS contracts that forced Cassano to post substantially more collateral to back his deals.

By the fall of 2007, it was evident that AIGFP’s portfolio had turned poisonous, but like every good Wall Street huckster, Cassano schemed to keep his insane, Earth-swallowing gamble hidden from public view. That August, balls bulging, he announced to investors on a conference call that “it is hard for us, without being flippant, to even see a scenario within any kind of realm of reason that would see us losing $1 in any of those transactions.” As he spoke, his CDS portfolio was racking up $352 million in losses. When the growing credit crunch prompted senior AIG executives to re-examine its liabilities, a company accountant named Joseph St. Denis became “gravely concerned” about the CDS deals and their potential for mass destruction. Cassano responded by personally forcing the poor sap out of the firm, telling him he was “deliberately excluded” from the financial review for fear that he might “pollute the process.”

The following February, when AIG posted $11.5 billion in annual losses, it announced the resignation of Cassano as head of AIGFP, saying an auditor had found a “material weakness” in the CDS portfolio. But amazingly, the company not only allowed Cassano to keep $34 million in bonuses, it kept him on as a consultant for $1 million a month. In fact, Cassano remained on the payroll and kept collecting his monthly million through the end of September 2008, even after taxpayers had been forced to hand AIG $85 billion to patch up his fuck-ups. When asked in October why the company still retained Cassano at his $1 million-a-month rate despite his role in the probable downfall of Western civilization, CEO Martin Sullivan told Congress with a straight face that AIG wanted to “retain the 20-year knowledge that Mr. Cassano had.” (Cassano, who is apparently hiding out in his lavish town house near Harrods in London, could not be reached for comment.)

What sank AIG in the end was another credit downgrade. Cassano had written so many CDS deals that when the company was facing another downgrade to its credit rating last September, from AA to A, it needed to post billions in collateral – not only more cash than it had on its balance sheet but more cash than it could raise even if it sold off every single one of its liquid assets. Even so, management dithered for days, not believing the company was in serious trouble. AIG was a dried-up prune, sapped of any real value, and its top executives didn’t even know it.

On the weekend of September 13th, AIG’s senior leaders were summoned to the offices of the New York Federal Reserve. Regulators from Dinallo’s insurance office were there, as was Geithner, then chief of the New York Fed. Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson, who spent most of the weekend preoccupied with the collapse of Lehman Brothers, came in and out. Also present, for reasons that would emerge later, was Lloyd Blankfein, CEO of Goldman Sachs. The only relevant government office that wasn’t represented was the regulator that should have been there all along: the OTS.

“We sat down with Paulson, Geithner and Dinallo,” says a person present at the negotiations. “I didn’t see the OTS even once.”

On September 14th, according to another person present, Treasury officials presented Blankfein and other bankers in attendance with an absurd proposal: “They basically asked them to spend a day and check to see if they could raise the money privately.” The laughably short time span to complete the mammoth task made the answer a foregone conclusion. At the end of the day, the bankers came back and told the government officials, gee, we checked, but we can’t raise that much. And the bailout was on.

A short time later, it came out that AIG was planning to pay some $90 million in deferred compensation to former executives, and to accelerate the payout of $277 million in bonuses to others – a move the company insisted was necessary to “retain key employees.” When Congress balked, AIG canceled the $90 million in payments.

Then, in January 2009, the company did it again. After all those years letting Cassano run wild, and after already getting caught paying out insane bonuses while on the public till, AIG decided to pay out another $450 million in bonuses. And to whom? To the 400 or so employees in Cassano’s old unit, AIGFP, which is due to go out of business shortly! Yes, that’s right, an average of $1.1 million in taxpayer-backed money apiece, to the very people who spent the past decade or so punching a hole in the fabric of the universe!

“We, uh, needed to keep these highly expert people in their seats,” AIG spokeswoman Christina Pretto says to me in early February.

“But didn’t these ‘highly expert people’ basically destroy your company?” I ask.

Pretto protests, says this isn’t fair. The employees at AIGFP have already taken pay cuts, she says. Not retaining them would dilute the value of the company even further, make it harder to wrap up the unit’s operations in an orderly fashion.

The bonuses are a nice comic touch highlighting one of the more outrageous tangents of the bailout age, namely the fact that, even with the planet in flames, some members of the Wall Street class can’t even get used to the tragedy of having to fly coach. “These people need their trips to Baja, their spa treatments, their hand jobs,” says an official involved in the AIG bailout, a serious look on his face, apparently not even half-kidding. “They don’t function well without them.”

IV. THE POWER GRAB

So that’s the first step in wall street’s power grab: making up things like credit-default swaps and collateralized-debt obligations, financial products so complex and inscrutable that ordinary American dumb people – to say nothing of federal regulators and even the CEOs of major corporations like AIG – are too intimidated to even try to understand them. That, combined with wise political investments, enabled the nation’s top bankers to effectively scrap any meaningful oversight of the financial industry. In 1997 and 1998, the years leading up to the passage of Phil Gramm’s fateful act that gutted Glass-Steagall, the banking, brokerage and insurance industries spent $350 million on political contributions and lobbying. Gramm alone – then the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee – collected $2.6 million in only five years. The law passed 90-8 in the Senate, with the support of 38 Democrats, including some names that might surprise you: Joe Biden, John Kerry, Tom Daschle, Dick Durbin, even John Edwards.

The act helped create the too-big-to-fail financial behemoths like Citigroup, AIG and Bank of America – and in turn helped those companies slowly crush their smaller competitors, leaving the major Wall Street firms with even more money and power to lobby for further deregulatory measures. “We’re moving to an oligopolistic situation,” Kenneth Guenther, a top executive with the Independent Community Bankers of America, lamented after the Gramm measure was passed.

The situation worsened in 2004, in an extraordinary move toward deregulation that never even got to a vote. At the time, the European Union was threatening to more strictly regulate the foreign operations of America’s big investment banks if the U.S. didn’t strengthen its own oversight. So the top five investment banks got together on April 28th of that year and – with the helpful assistance of then-Goldman Sachs chief and future Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson – made a pitch to George Bush’s SEC chief at the time, William Donaldson, himself a former investment banker. The banks generously volunteered to submit to new rules restricting them from engaging in excessively risky activity. In exchange, they asked to be released from any lending restrictions. The discussion about the new rules lasted just 55 minutes, and there was not a single representative of a major media outlet there to record the fateful decision.

Donaldson OK’d the proposal, and the new rules were enough to get the EU to drop its threat to regulate the five firms. The only catch was, neither Donaldson nor his successor, Christopher Cox, actually did any regulating of the banks. They named a commission of seven people to oversee the five companies, whose combined assets came to total more than $4 trillion. But in the last year and a half of Cox’s tenure, the group had no director and did not complete a single inspection. Great deal for the banks, which originally complained about being regulated by both Europe and the SEC, and ended up being regulated by no one.

Once the capital requirements were gone, those top five banks went hog-wild, jumping ass-first into the then-raging housing bubble. One of those was Bear Stearns, which used its freedom to drown itself in bad mortgage loans. In the short period between the 2004 change and Bear’s collapse, the firm’s debt-to-equity ratio soared from 12-1 to an insane 33-1. Another culprit was Goldman Sachs, which also had the good fortune, around then, to see its CEO, a bald-headed Frankensteinian goon named Hank Paulson (who received an estimated $200 million tax deferral by joining the government), ascend to Treasury secretary.

Freed from all capital restraints, sitting pretty with its man running the Treasury, Goldman jumped into the housing craze just like everyone else on Wall Street. Although it famously scored an $11 billion coup in 2007 when one of its trading units smartly shorted the housing market, the move didn’t tell the whole story. In truth, Goldman still had a huge exposure come that fateful summer of 2008 – to none other than Joe Cassano.

Goldman Sachs, it turns out, was Cassano’s biggest customer, with $20 billion of exposure in Cassano’s CDS book. Which might explain why Goldman chief Lloyd Blankfein was in the room with ex-Goldmanite Hank Paulson that weekend of September 13th, when the federal government was supposedly bailing out AIG.

When asked why Blankfein was there, one of the government officials who was in the meeting shrugs. “One might say that it’s because Goldman had so much exposure to AIGFP’s portfolio,” he says. “You’ll never prove that, but one might suppose.”

Market analyst Eric Salzman is more blunt. “If AIG went down,” he says, “there was a good chance Goldman would not be able to collect.” The AIG bailout, in effect, was Goldman bailing out Goldman.

Eventually, Paulson went a step further, elevating another ex-Goldmanite named Edward Liddy to run AIG – a company whose bailout money would be coming, in part, from the newly created TARP program, administered by another Goldman banker named Neel Kashkari.

V. REPO MEN

There are plenty of people who have noticed, in recent years, that when they lost their homes to foreclosure or were forced into bankruptcy because of crippling credit-card debt, no one in the government was there to rescue them. But when Goldman Sachs – a company whose average employee still made more than $350,000 last year, even in the midst of a depression – was suddenly faced with the possibility of losing money on the unregulated insurance deals it bought for its insane housing bets, the government was there in an instant to patch the hole. That’s the essence of the bailout: rich bankers bailing out rich bankers, using the taxpayers’ credit card.

The people who have spent their lives cloistered in this Wall Street community aren’t much for sharing information with the great unwashed. Because all of this shit is complicated, because most of us mortals don’t know what the hell LIBOR is or how a REIT works or how to use the word “zero coupon bond” in a sentence without sounding stupid – well, then, the people who do speak this idiotic language cannot under any circumstances be bothered to explain it to us and instead spend a lot of time rolling their eyes and asking us to trust them.

That roll of the eyes is a key part of the psychology of Paulsonism. The state is now being asked not just to call off its regulators or give tax breaks or funnel a few contracts to connected companies; it is intervening directly in the economy, for the sole purpose of preserving the influence of the megafirms. In essence, Paulson used the bailout to transform the government into a giant bureaucracy of entitled assholedom, one that would socialize “toxic” risks but keep both the profits and the management of the bailed-out firms in private hands. Moreover, this whole process would be done in secret, away from the prying eyes of NASCAR dads, broke-ass liberals who read translations of French novels, subprime mortgage holders and other such financial losers.

Some aspects of the bailout were secretive to the point of absurdity. In fact, if you look closely at just a few lines in the Federal Reserve’s weekly public disclosures, you can literally see the moment where a big chunk of your money disappeared for good. The H4 report (called “Factors Affecting Reserve Balances”) summarizes the activities of the Fed each week. You can find it online, and it’s pretty much the only thing the Fed ever tells the world about what it does. For the week ending February 18th, the number under the heading “Repurchase Agreements” on the table is zero. It’s a significant number.

Why? In the pre-crisis days, the Fed used to manage the money supply by periodically buying and selling securities on the open market through so-called Repurchase Agreements, or Repos. The Fed would typically dump $25 billion or so in cash onto the market every week, buying up Treasury bills, U.S. securities and even mortgage-backed securities from institutions like Goldman Sachs and J.P. Morgan, who would then “repurchase” them in a short period of time, usually one to seven days. This was the Fed’s primary mechanism for controlling interest rates: Buying up securities gives banks more money to lend, which makes interest rates go down. Selling the securities back to the banks reduces the money available for lending, which makes interest rates go up.

If you look at the weekly H4 reports going back to the summer of 2007, you start to notice something alarming. At the start of the credit crunch, around August of that year, you see the Fed buying a few more Repos than usual – $33 billion or so. By November, as private-bank reserves were dwindling to alarmingly low levels, the Fed started injecting even more cash than usual into the economy: $48 billion. By late December, the number was up to $58 billion; by the following March, around the time of the Bear Stearns rescue, the Repo number had jumped to $77 billion. In the week of May 1st, 2008, the number was $115 billion – “out of control now,” according to one congressional aide. For the rest of 2008, the numbers remained similarly in the stratosphere, the Fed pumping as much as $125 billion of these short-term loans into the economy – until suddenly, at the start of this year, the number drops to nothing. Zero.

The reason the number has dropped to nothing is that the Fed had simply stopped using relatively transparent devices like repurchase agreements to pump its money into the hands of private companies. By early 2009, a whole series of new government operations had been invented to inject cash into the economy, most all of them completely secretive and with names you’ve never heard of. There is the Term Auction Facility, the Term Securities Lending Facility, the Primary Dealer Credit Facility, the Commercial Paper Funding Facility and a monster called the Asset-Backed Commercial Paper Money Market Mutual Fund Liquidity Facility (boasting the chat-room horror-show acronym ABCPMMMFLF). For good measure, there’s also something called a Money Market Investor Funding Facility, plus three facilities called Maiden Lane I, II and III to aid bailout recipients like Bear Stearns and AIG.

While the rest of America, and most of Congress, have been bugging out about the $700 billion bailout program called TARP, all of these newly created organisms in the Federal Reserve zoo have quietly been pumping not billions but trillions of dollars into the hands of private companies (at least $3 trillion so far in loans, with as much as $5.7 trillion more in guarantees of private investments). Although this technically isn’t taxpayer money, it still affects taxpayers directly, because the activities of the Fed impact the economy as a whole. And this new, secretive activity by the Fed completely eclipses the TARP program in terms of its influence on the economy.

No one knows who’s getting that money or exactly how much of it is disappearing through these new holes in the hull of America’s credit rating. Moreover, no one can really be sure if these new institutions are even temporary at all – or whether they are being set up as permanent, state-aided crutches to Wall Street, designed to systematically suck bad investments off the ledgers of irresponsible lenders.

“They’re supposed to be temporary,” says Paul-Martin Foss, an aide to Rep. Ron Paul. “But we keep getting notices every six months or so that they’re being renewed. They just sort of quietly announce it.”

None other than disgraced senator Ted Stevens was the poor sap who made the unpleasant discovery that if Congress didn’t like the Fed handing trillions of dollars to banks without any oversight, Congress could apparently go fuck itself – or so said the law. When Stevens asked the GAO about what authority Congress has to monitor the Fed, he got back a letter citing an obscure statute that nobody had ever heard of before: the Accounting and Auditing Act of 1950. The relevant section, 31 USC 714(b), dictated that congressional audits of the Federal Reserve may not include “deliberations, decisions and actions on monetary policy matters.” The exemption, as Foss notes, “basically includes everything.” According to the law, in other words, the Fed simply cannot be audited by Congress. Or by anyone else, for that matter.

VI. WINNERS AND LOSERS

Stevens isn’t the only person in Congress to be given the finger by the Fed. In January, when Rep. Alan Grayson of Florida asked Federal Reserve vice chairman Donald Kohn where all the money went – only $1.2 trillion had vanished by then – Kohn gave Grayson a classic eye roll, saying he would be “very hesitant” to name names because it might discourage banks from taking the money.

“Has that ever happened?” Grayson asked. “Have people ever said, ‘We will not take your $100 billion because people will find out about it?'”

“Well, we said we would not publish the names of the borrowers, so we have no test of that,” Kohn answered, visibly annoyed with Grayson’s meddling.

Grayson pressed on, demanding to know on what terms the Fed was lending the money. Presumably it was buying assets and making loans, but no one knew how it was pricing those assets – in other words, no one knew what kind of deal it was striking on behalf of taxpayers. So when Grayson asked if the purchased assets were “marked to market” – a methodology that assigns a concrete value to assets, based on the market rate on the day they are traded – Kohn answered, mysteriously, “The ones that have market values are marked to market.” The implication was that the Fed was purchasing derivatives like credit swaps or other instruments that were basically impossible to value objectively – paying real money for God knows what.

“Well, how much of them don’t have market values?” asked Grayson. “How much of them are worthless?”

“None are worthless,” Kohn snapped.

“Then why don’t you mark them to market?” Grayson demanded.

“Well,” Kohn sighed, “we are marking the ones to market that have market values.”

In essence, the Fed was telling Congress to lay off and let the experts handle things. “It’s like buying a car in a used-car lot without opening the hood, and saying, ‘I think it’s fine,'” says Dan Fuss, an analyst with the investment firm Loomis Sayles. “The salesman says, ‘Don’t worry about it. Trust me.’ It’ll probably get us out of the lot, but how much farther? None of us knows.”

When one considers the comparatively extensive system of congressional checks and balances that goes into the spending of every dollar in the budget via the normal appropriations process, what’s happening in the Fed amounts to something truly revolutionary – a kind of shadow government with a budget many times the size of the normal federal outlay, administered dictatorially by one man, Fed chairman Ben Bernanke. “We spend hours and hours and hours arguing over $10 million amendments on the floor of the Senate, but there has been no discussion about who has been receiving this $3 trillion,” says Sen. Bernie Sanders. “It is beyond comprehension.”

Count Sanders among those who don’t buy the argument that Wall Street firms shouldn’t have to face being outed as recipients of public funds, that making this information public might cause investors to panic and dump their holdings in these firms. “I guess if we made that public, they’d go on strike or something,” he muses.

And the Fed isn’t the only arm of the bailout that has closed ranks. The Treasury, too, has maintained incredible secrecy surrounding its implementation even of the TARP program, which was mandated by Congress. To this date, no one knows exactly what criteria the Treasury Department used to determine which banks received bailout funds and which didn’t – particularly the first $350 billion given out under Bush appointee Hank Paulson.

The situation with the first TARP payments grew so absurd that when the Congressional Oversight Panel, charged with monitoring the bailout money, sent a query to Paulson asking how he decided whom to give money to, Treasury responded – and this isn’t a joke – by directing the panel to a copy of the TARP application form on its website. Elizabeth Warren, the chair of the Congressional Oversight Panel, was struck nearly speechless by the response.

“Do you believe that?” she says incredulously. “That’s not what we had in mind.”

Another member of Congress, who asked not to be named, offers his own theory about the TARP process. “I think basically if you knew Hank Paulson, you got the money,” he says.

This cozy arrangement created yet another opportunity for big banks to devour market share at the expense of smaller regional lenders. While all the bigwigs at Citi and Goldman and Bank of America who had Paulson on speed-dial got bailed out right away – remember that TARP was originally passed because money had to be lent right now, that day, that minute, to stave off emergency – many small banks are still waiting for help. Five months into the TARP program, some not only haven’t received any funds, they haven’t even gotten a call back about their applications.

“There’s definitely a feeling among community bankers that no one up there cares much if they make it or not,” says Tanya Wheeless, president of the Arizona Bankers Association.

Which, of course, is exactly the opposite of what should be happening, since small, regional banks are far less guilty of the kinds of predatory lending that sank the economy. “They’re not giving out subprime loans or easy credit,” says Wheeless. “At the community level, it’s much more bread-and-butter banking.”

Nonetheless, the lion’s share of the bailout money has gone to the larger, so-called “systemically important” banks. “It’s like Treasury is picking winners and losers,” says one state banking official who asked not to be identified.

This itself is a hugely important political development. In essence, the bailout accelerated the decline of regional community lenders by boosting the political power of their giant national competitors.

Which, when you think about it, is insane: What had brought us to the brink of collapse in the first place was this relentless instinct for building ever-larger megacompanies, passing deregulatory measures to gradually feed all the little fish in the sea to an ever-shrinking pool of Bigger Fish. To fix this problem, the government should have slowly liquidated these monster, too-big-to-fail firms and broken them down to smaller, more manageable companies. Instead, federal regulators closed ranks and used an almost completely secret bailout process to double down on the same faulty, merger-happy thinking that got us here in the first place, creating a constellation of megafirms under government control that are even bigger, more unwieldy and more crammed to the gills with systemic risk.

In essence, Paulson and his cronies turned the federal government into one gigantic, half-opaque holding company, one whose balance sheet includes the world’s most appallingly large and risky hedge fund, a controlling stake in a dying insurance giant, huge investments in a group of teetering megabanks, and shares here and there in various auto-finance companies, student loans, and other failing businesses. Like AIG, this new federal holding company is a firm that has no mechanism for auditing itself and is run by leaders who have very little grasp of the daily operations of its disparate subsidiary operations.

In other words, it’s AIG’s rip-roaringly shitty business model writ almost inconceivably massive – to echo Geithner, a huge, complex global company attached to a very complicated investment bank/hedge fund that’s been allowed to build up without adult supervision. How much of what kinds of crap is actually on our balance sheet, and what did we pay for it? When exactly will the rent come due, when will the money run out? Does anyone know what the hell is going on? And on the linear spectrum of capitalism to socialism, where exactly are we now? Is there a dictionary word that even describes what we are now? It would be funny, if it weren’t such a nightmare.

VII. YOU DON’T GET IT

The real question from here is whether the Obama administration is going to move to bring the financial system back to a place where sanity is restored and the general public can have a say in things or whether the new financial bureaucracy will remain obscure, secretive and hopelessly complex. It might not bode well that Geithner, Obama’s Treasury secretary, is one of the architects of the Paulson bailouts; as chief of the New York Fed, he helped orchestrate the Goldman-friendly AIG bailout and the secretive Maiden Lane facilities used to funnel funds to the dying company. Neither did it look good when Geithner – himself a protégé of notorious Goldman alum John Thain, the Merrill Lynch chief who paid out billions in bonuses after the state spent billions bailing out his firm – picked a former Goldman lobbyist named Mark Patterson to be his top aide.

In fact, most of Geithner’s early moves reek strongly of Paulsonism. He has continually talked about partnering with private investors to create a so-called “bad bank” that would systemically relieve private lenders of bad assets – the kind of massive, opaque, quasi-private bureaucratic nightmare that Paulson specialized in. Geithner even refloated a Paulson proposal to use TALF, one of the Fed’s new facilities, to essentially lend cheap money to hedge funds to invest in troubled banks while practically guaranteeing them enormous profits.

God knows exactly what this does for the taxpayer, but hedge-fund managers sure love the idea. “This is exactly what the financial system needs,” said Andrew Feldstein, CEO of Blue Mountain Capital and one of the Morgan Mafia. Strangely, there aren’t many people who don’t run hedge funds who have expressed anything like that kind of enthusiasm for Geithner’s ideas.

As complex as all the finances are, the politics aren’t hard to follow. By creating an urgent crisis that can only be solved by those fluent in a language too complex for ordinary people to understand, the Wall Street crowd has turned the vast majority of Americans into non-participants in their own political future. There is a reason it used to be a crime in the Confederate states to teach a slave to read: Literacy is power. In the age of the CDS and CDO, most of us are financial illiterates. By making an already too-complex economy even more complex, Wall Street has used the crisis to effect a historic, revolutionary change in our political system – transforming a democracy into a two-tiered state, one with plugged-in financial bureaucrats above and clueless customers below.

The most galling thing about this financial crisis is that so many Wall Street types think they actually deserve not only their huge bonuses and lavish lifestyles but the awesome political power their own mistakes have left them in possession of. When challenged, they talk about how hard they work, the 90-hour weeks, the stress, the failed marriages, the hemorrhoids and gallstones they all get before they hit 40.

“But wait a minute,” you say to them. “No one ever asked you to stay up all night eight days a week trying to get filthy rich shorting what’s left of the American auto industry or selling $600 billion in toxic, irredeemable mortgages to ex-strippers on work release and Taco Bell clerks. Actually, come to think of it, why are we even giving taxpayer money to you people? Why are we not throwing your ass in jail instead?”

But before you even finish saying that, they’re rolling their eyes, because You Don’t Get It. These people were never about anything except turning money into money, in order to get more money; valueswise they’re on par with crack addicts, or obsessive sexual deviants who burgle homes to steal panties. Yet these are the people in whose hands our entire political future now rests.

Good luck with that, America. And enjoy tax season.

Another bigtime culprit is former Texas Senator Phil Gramm. He’s the one that led the charge to gutting key regulations that allowed the greedy to go all out and stuff themselves to death. He’s a true Axis of evil
Wanna know why we are in so much trouble? This dimwit Joseph Cassano was the one who who came along and almost singlehandidly destroyed AIG.. He’s a real piece of work..remember his face..
Davey D

In the Bay Area we all know the infamous story about AK 47s and all sorts of high powered firearms being found on an abandon train in Richmond.

We all heard the stories in LA about how the local gangs at the height of the crack wars were able to come across guns left behind by military personel on a train yard.

We heard about how dirty cops in the Bronx was hitting off Larry Davis with weapons. Pick a city anywhere in the US and there’s a similar story.

It was just last week at the Powershift Summit in DC that such stories surfaced about guns being flooded into our neighborhoods sparking off drama for a new generation of folks..

It is with all this in mind that I read the following story about American arms dealers and the bloodbath going on in Mexico, 3 things immediately came to mind. 1-Destablization 2-Demonization and 3-Domination.

The guns in the hands of warring factions leads to destablization. It doesn’t matter whether its in the hood, the barrio or in another country like Mexico. Guns make it easy to escalate conflict. Especially if one feels they have tactical advantage over another. Anyone who’s lived in a drug infested neighborhood, need not have me tell them the drama guns bring.

Once destablization kicks in, we have demonization. The media has a field day broadcasting all the horror stories about uncontrolled violence. Sadly we have our own folks buying into and promoting the madness. So we start to nickname our cities ‘Lil Beruit, Lil Saigon, Lil Vietnam, Fort Apache, Killa Kali, Killadelphia The Killing Fields. Pick a name that evokes images of bloodshed and mayhem and we are likely to hold it up for the world to see as if its a badge of honor. We hold it up as a way to show how tough we are because we survived living in such conditions.

Sadly many go off and even tell war stories about gunshots and murders as if we actually did them ourselves. Y’all know what I’m talking about. I been to too many places where the conversation switches to how tough our hoods are and how we somehow survived. In fact there used to be time where those convos indicated how Black and how down you were. It meant you were in touch with the hood.

Well anyway this sort of thing further demonizes a community resulting in police task forces and an entire ‘war on drug industry’ stating that more police are needed to calm things down. The media usually finds a sympathetic victim of some horrendous crime who is on TV begging for more police to come in. We have preachers leading the charge vowing to stop the violence and before long, their wishes are answered. Drug task forces, new weaponary, new surveillence technology and even talk of the National Guard being deployed all show up at our door steps. If a particular neighborhood is being gentrified (translation-lots of young rich white folks are moving in..), the police presence becomes higher.

Our neighborhoods become backdrops for ambitous politicians seeking to show how tough they are on crime. Our community members become poster children for everything wrong in America. Everyone gets paid and we go to jail in increasing numbers.

Next comes Domination-This is the end result of a destablized community that has been demonized. Outsiders come in, move everyone out or wall everyone in and make sure there’s an armed presence there to keep everyone civilized.The end game is to control, resources, the economy, the politics and the people. This happenes to us all across the country and its about to happen in Mexico.

The pattern is the same-American Guns and we know have a horrific drug war. We next have all sorts of news pundits from Lou Dobbs to 9-11 whistle-blowers like Alex Jones all pointing to the so called Brown threat south of the border. Complicating this scenario is in some places where you have gang activity you’ll have on the news Black and American born Brown faces who have one too many run ins with gang members calling for more law and order and even espousing the same heated rhetoric as a Lou Dobbs.

Next we have all sorts of money headed to the border to keep law and order, keep Americans safe and yes the goal will be the eventual demonination of an area. Something to think about..

-Davey D-

Return to Davey D’s Hip Hop Corner

Mexico’s Drug War Bloodbath: Guns from the U.S. Are Destabilizing the Country

By Silja J.A. Talvi, AlterNet. Posted March 18, 2009.
http://…com/d2o5nn 

Mexican drug cartels have easy access to thousands of American gun dealers just on the other side of the border.

 

 

A minute is all the time that it takes for an employee in one of almost 7,000 gun shops dotting the U.S./Mexico border to accept a wad of cash from an eager customer, fill out a triplicate sales slip, and slide a nice, new Taurus .45 caliber pistol across the counter. Or two, or three, or twenty, as the case may be. Add those handguns to the countless tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands of pistols, sniper and assault rifles, semi-automatic machine guns, shield-piercing bullets, grenades, plastic explosives, as well as anti-tank weapons outfitted with self-propelling rockets — plus countless thousands of drug warriors, of one sort or another, who are ready, willing, and able to use them. If it looks like you’ve got a battle on your hands, you do — the Mexican drug war has hit boiling point.

Mexican authorities have been quite vocal in the past year about the role that the U.S. is playing in the escalation of gun violence in Mexico. Last year, no less than 20,000 weapons were seized in drug-related actions, raids, arrests, and shoot-outs; nearly all of them were sold in the U.S. (The Mexican government has finally been given electronic access, by the U.S. Department of Justice, to be able to trace the origins of registered weapons, but only if they are used in the commission of crimes.)

Last month, the U.S. government’s own Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs, released its policy-shaping “2009 International Narcotics Strategy Report.” As the bureau had to admit, “U.S.-purchased or stolen firearms account for an estimated 95% of the Mexico’s drug-related killings.”

Nowhere in the report was it emphasized, however, that there are at least 6,600 licensed gun dealers in the four states adjacent to the Mexico border. Or that legal loopholes grant thousands of other unlicensed gun “enthusiasts” and collectors across the country to sell their wares, without inspection or oversight, at weekend gun shows across the country.

“A vast arms bazaar is rampant along the four border states, enabled by porous to nonexistent American gun laws,” The New York Times editorialized on February 27, 2009, after the indictment of George Iknadosian, a gun-shop owner facing federal charges for knowingly providing weapons to members of the Sinaloa cartel. “There should be immense shame on this side of the border that America’s addiction to drugs is bolstered by its feckless gun controls.”

The shame is warranted, and worth pondering. The action that needs to be taken, on the other hand, can afford no such luxury, because the people who have the misfortune to live in one of Mexico’s deadly drug war zones have already become the casualties of our demanding drug habits, our orgiastic worship of guns, and our obsession with profit without concern for consequence.

In the international munitions and intelligence-gathering marketplace, the U.S. is the #1 supplier/dealer of arms, military transport, law-enforcement and detention equipment, surveillance technology, and “non-lethal” weaponry. On the higher end, weapons deals are usually on the up-and-up, insofar as they’re attached to complex military aid packages, contracts with private contractors, and international “drug interdiction” agreements of the sort that Mexico has with the U.S. through the $1.3 billion Merida Initiative. Other times, the large-scale transfer of weaponry is far less “legitimate,” as in the urban battleground that Mexican law enforcement and military forces now find themselves contending with, courtesy of the weaponry provided to Reagan and Bush-era Central American “allies.” These weapons of war have found their way back up north — and into the hands of Mexican drug cartels.

Nearly every governing body or law enforcement entity imaginable (including Mexico’s equivalent of the FBI, its federal drug control agency, and Attorney General’s office) has been infiltrated by the cartels and wracked with espionage, graft, and corruption scandals. But Mexico is right to insist that the U.S. truly acknowledge the extent to which its own citizens (and policies) create and sustain the consumer market for illicit drugs. There’s no getting around the fact that Americans have the highest illicit substance use and abuse rates in the world, and Mexican drug cartels are but the latest of our transnational network of “suppliers.”

In the 21st century, the drug trade is like any other major industry in that it has been fully globalized — sin fronteras, without borders. In just so happens that Mexico’s narco-cartels are now in the lucrative position of picking up where other players in the transnational drug trade have left off — or, more to the point, were temporarily or permanently forced out because of individual arrests, sting operations, asset seizures, or other interdiction efforts. Even if the Gulf, Sinaloa, Juárez, and Tijuana cartels were to be completely dismantled tomorrow, there will always be some enterprising individual, group, or full-fledged criminal syndicate to step in where others have been derailed. Why? Americans have a seemingly insatiable appetite for mind-altering substances, whether in the form of cocaine, heroin, hallucinogens, tranquilizers, uppers, downers, and painkillers of all kinds. And what a profit-generating market this is. According to the National Drug Intelligence Center, wholesale drug profits amount to somewhere between $18 billion and $39 billion annually for the Columbian and Mexican drug cartels. Internationally, the illicit drug trade is estimated to generate at least $320 billion per year.

In light of that, the international drug war coordinating agency known as the United Nations on Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), has become a bit more forthcoming about pointing out the causal and interconnected variables linking the U.S. with their “supplier” nations.

Leading up to the International Commission on Narcotic Drugs, which was called into session on March 11th in Vienna, UNODC Executive Director Antonio Maria Costa oversaw the preparation of several reports to measure the extent of progress toward a “drug-free” world, as outlined by an United Nations meeting and strategy in 1998. These reports, “The Threat of Narco-Trafficking in the Americas” (October 2008), and “Organized Crime and its Threat to Security: Tackling a disturbing consequence of drug control” (March 2009), are unsurprisingly opposed to the decriminalization or legalization of drugs. But they do, somewhat surprisingly, sing a different tune about the U.S. role in the international drug trade than in previous years.

Noting that 95% of the world’s population does not engage in illicit drug use, and that there are far more deaths attributable to alcohol, tobacco, and legal drugs, the “Organized Crime” report highlights a “disturbing consequence of drug control,” by way of “creation of a lucrative black market for controlled substances, dominated by powerful crime cartels and resulting in unprecedented violence and corruption.”

“Drugs are a commodity,” as the UNODC states. “Profits are ploughed back into increasing the capacity for violence and into corrupting public officials. Together, violence and corruption drive away investment and undermine governance to the point that the rule of law itself becomes questionable.”

In his preface to “The Threat of Narco-Trafficking in the Americas,” Costa makes another bolder-than-expected statement: “Tackling the threat of narco-trafficking in the Americas is a shared responsibility. No country is immune from the problem: all participate, either as a source of drugs, a transit country for trafficking, or an importer.”

On this point, Costa is absolutely right. By now, it has been clearly and abundantly demonstrated that Americans aren’t just the biggest consumers of illicit drugs in the world, but that the sheer number of our gun shops — and the ease with which weapons can be purchased — are significantly responsible for the level of gun violence in Mexico. Still, as recently as August 2008, by comparison, FBI Director Mueller’s speech at the 5th Annual Border Security Conference made no mention whatsoever of the role of American-sold weaponry in the violence on Mexican streets. (Instead, he attributed the situation, as many American drug warriors do, to “gangs,” “stronger border security,” and “progress” by the Mexican government in taking down drug cartels.)

The cartels are swimming in money, while everyday Mexican citizens in several parts of the country are swimming in terror and fear, edged in between violence between the narco-traffickers (and their School of Americas-trained assassins, The Zetas), the federal police, and the military. But never mind all of that, because there are bigger things for Americans to worry about.

For the past month, the crisis of drug-related violence in Mexico has (finally) become the focal point of numerous Congressional subcommittee hearings, press conferences, and high-level Cabinet meetings. (It took nearly 6,300 murders last year, and more than 1,000 since the beginning of 2009, to get this country to start paying attention.) U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder has called Mexican drug trafficking cartels “a national security threat,” while President Obama met with Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Admiral Michael Mullen to discuss options to support the Mexican government, including surveillance and reconnaissance. And last week, Roger Rufe, director of operations for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), appeared before a Congressional subcommittee to explain that DHS is ready to act, if necessary, to secure border towns. The Defense Department and National Guard would only be called in, he assured members of the House, if a “tipping point” were reached — without explaining what such circumstances would entail.

For their part, television news networks ranging from FOX to CNN have set about creating a hysterical flutter of speculation about the likelihood of about teenage Latino “sleeper cells;” hypothetical collaborations between Hezbollah and drug cartels; the “nightmare scenario” of a crazed, drug-fueled invasion from Mexico; and the perceived need to militarize our border to new heights.

None of this would seem to be of particular comfort to the people of Ciudad Juárez. They wouldn’t have much time to contemplate why CNN anchorman Don Lemon would take the time to argue with a Texan mayor about the “spillover effect” that the town of McAllen knows isn’t taking place; or why FOX News’ Geraldo Rivera turned to “terrorism expert” Bernard Kerik (disgraced Homeland Security nominee, former Taser-executive, and multiple felony-charged former NYC police commissioner), for his opinion on whether the U.S. federal agencies and military forces should be moving into Mexican territory to get the situation under control. (Although the connection was never made clear, Kerik and NYC comrade Rudy Giuliani were hired in Mexico City, several years ago, as high-level policing and counterterrorism preparedness consultants to the government.)

And that’s because, across the border from El Paso, Texas, the people of Ciudad Juárez (pop. 1.5 million), exist for this moment in time underneath the unyielding thumb of Mexican military occupation. Daily life is being dictated by the commands and checkpoint interrogations of nearly 8,000 federales (black-riot-gear-clad federal police officers) and fatigue-green-clad military troops (nicknamed the “green tsunami” by Juárez media), who have taken complete control over local law enforcement agencies. Stationed across the state of Chihuahua, but concentrated in Juárez, most of these troops are exclusively trained in wartime offensive strategy and tactical maneuvers that leave little or no room for anything but a violent outcome. Although barely reported in the U.S. press, citizens of Juárez (and other cities or towns) have accused the military of serious human rights violations since President Felipe Calderón launched his 2006 crackdown on narco-trafficking, including beating people for “confessions,” electrical torture, rape, and the practice of enclosing heads in plastic bags filled with water to simulate (or achieve) drowning.

Calderón wasn’t without public support for the crackdown on drug cartels, who were battling each other—with increasing displays of public violence–for dominance in the drug business. Indeed, crime had long since been an issue in border cities like Juárez owing, in large part, to the constant influx of hopeful migrants and dislocated workers looking for employment in one of the legions of foreign-owned factories, assembly plants built by foreign companies looking to cash in on the low-wage workforce handed to them by the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Among other developments in the post-NAFTA border region, hundreds of young women have disappeared, raped, and been murdered in Juárez, by the hundreds, and they still do. Drugs are readied for cross-border journeys here in ways that are both mundane (e.g., kilos of cocaine hidden in the frame of a car) and mind-boggling (e.g., 140 pounds of marijuana strapped to the back of a man flying, in darkness, in an “ultralight,” a motorized aircraft resembling a hang glider.) Increasingly, many of the drugs stay in Juárez, and other parts of Mexico, something that has led to large-scale addiction the likes of which the nation has never seen.

But just as the acts of gruesome sexual violence, murders and disappearances of young women in Juárez have gone beyond the realm of random sexual violence, so, too, have the escalating cartel v. cartel-military v. cartel battles over ‘narco-turf’ gone beyond what anyone would reasonably consider “drug-related crime.” In this border city, nearly 2,000 drug-related murders have occurred since January 2008, including more than 200 murdered in the first two months of 2009.

In this sense, the people of Juárez are the actual, immediate victims of (our very own) drug war “spillover effect.” It’s too late for the thousands of people who have already lost their lives to related violence, but it’s not too late to pull the plug on the easy flow of weaponry to Mexico. And it’s certainly not too late for the American people to recognize and resolve, once and for all, that this is a war that cannot be won: not under any circumstance, not by any country, not by any political leader, and not with all the firepower in the world.

For the sake of Mexican people, the welfare of all of our global neighbors, and yes, for ourselves, it’s time to close this ill-begotten book on the war on drugs, once and for all.

Silja J.A. Talvi is an investigative journalist and the author of Women Behind Bars: The Crisis of Women in the U.S. Prison System (Seal Press: 2007). Her work has already appeared in many book anthologies, including It’s So You (Seal Press, 2007), Prison Nation (Routledge: 2005), Prison Profiteers (The New Press: 2008), and Body Outlaws (Seal Press: 2004). She is a senior editor at In These Times.

Many are pointing to the American gun dealers who have businesses along the border as a major cause for the bloodshed in Mexico. They supply arms to both sides, make akilling while so many are being killed
 
Guns in communities having conflict always leads to destablization, later followed by demonization and then demonination by outside forces that have an interest in controlling resources.

 

Zach Thomas: Same Dallas officer

mistreated my wife

 NFL linebacker says line was crossed in 2008 traffic stop; Powell’s attorney sees no improper actions

 Sunday, March 29, 2009 By TODD ARCHER / The Dallas Morning News
tarcher@dallasnews.com

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/spt/stories/032909dnspo1athomas.3ecf949.html?nTar=OPUR

 Maritza Thomas, the wife of NFL linebacker Zach Thomas, saw a familiar face as she watched the video of Officer Robert Powell detaining Houston Texans running back Ryan Moats as he and his family rushed to a hospital to see a dying loved one. That face was Powell’s.

On July 27, 2008, while her husband was at training camp with the Cowboys in Oxnard, Calif., Maritza Thomas was pulled over by Powell for an illegal U-turn near NorthPark Center.

Maritza Thomas was issued five tickets by Powell, four of which were later dismissed. Thomas was handcuffed, placed in the back of a police cruiser, spent about three hours in the Dallas County Jail and was threatened with the possibility of spending the night behind bars.

“This in no way compares to what happened to Ryan Moats and his family,” said Zach Thomas, who played for the Cowboys last season and is now a free agent. “But we wanted to tell our story, not knowing how many others have been affected by Officer Powell. We know the vast majority of the Dallas police force are good and professional people, but this guy just seems excessive.”

The charges that were dropped were failure to show proof of insurance, running a red light, having an improper address on a driver’s license and not having a registration sticker on the windshield. She accepted deferred adjudication for the illegal U-turn charge, and her record will be cleared next month.

In total, Maritza Thomas, who is Hispanic, was detained roughly five hours.

“This situation never should’ve happened,” said Maritza Thomas’ attorney, Brody Shanklin. “Unless extraordinary circumstances exist, no person should be arrested for a Class C citation. In this case, it was an example of Officer Powell being overzealous and exerting his authority in a manner that he never should have.”

Bob Gorsky, Powell’s attorney, questioned the timing of Thomas’ allegations, saying she had not complained about her arrest until the Moats incident became public.

“After her arrest, she may have mentioned that her husband was a football player, but that played no role in her arrest or the disposition of the case,” Gorsky said.

“I do understand that an arrest on multiple traffic charges happens often and is absolutely proper under these circumstances,” Gorsky said. “Often, when there are multiple charges, an arrest made and bond posted, some of the charges from a single event are later dropped.”

According to Maritza Thomas, a pharmacist with no prior criminal record, Powell would not accept the explanation of where the proper paperwork was before she was taken to jail. Her mother, Teresa Lozano, who was making her first trip to Dallas and speaks little English, was forced to ride with the tow truck driver when the car was impounded. She later posted bail for her daughter’s release.

“My mom was begging for him to let her go to the apartment that was five minutes away to get the paperwork,” Maritza Thomas said. “He unbuckled his holster, and she got scared.”

The Thomases said Powell was dismissive, but they did not allege that he used abusive language. There is no dash-cam video available of the incident, but the police report lists the five citations and confirms that Thomas was taken to jail.

Judge C. Victor Lander, the city of Dallas’ chief municipal judge, said under Texas law a person can be arrested for any Class C misdemeanor citation except speeding and having an open container.

When an officer gives someone a traffic citation, it is in lieu of arrest, Lander said. The officer does have the option of making an arrest, he said.

“It really is giving the individual a break by issuing them a ticket. But it’s a break most people get,” Lander said.

He called it “relatively rare” for an officer to arrest someone on the spot. That’s because it’s time consuming to take someone to jail and fill out the paperwork, he said. Usually, an arrest occurs if the person has a warrant for unpaid traffic tickets, Lander said.

When an officer does decide to make an arrest for a minor traffic offense, it’s usually because of how the person behaved during the traffic stop, Lander said.

“The defense bar refers to it as contempt of cop,” Lander said. “If the officer was offended by something the person said or did, they may arrest them.”

Dallas police say it is not unusual for an officer to arrest someone who is issued three or more citations during one traffic stop.

“If there are so many violations that it could be viewed that it’s an egregious situation, that person can be arrested,” said Assistant Chief Floyd Simpson, who oversees the department’s seven patrol divisions.

Simpson said he did not know the details of Powell’s encounter with Maritza Thomas.

Based on the five citations she received, Simpson said, an arrest would not be required, but it also generally would not be inappropriate.

“It’s a judgment thing on the cops at that moment,” Simpson said. “The core of what we do is just discretion, and it needs to be that way.”

According to the Dallas police Web site, complaints against an officer must be made within 60 days of an incident, except in special cases, including criminal misconduct or when good cause can be shown by the person making the complaint.

At the time of the incident, the Thomases considered filing a complaint against Powell but declined, “because we didn’t want to cause a stir,” said her husband, Zach Thomas, believing it “was maybe a guy having a bad day.” However, they plan to file one now.

Sr. Cpl. Kevin Janse, a Dallas police spokesman, declined to comment on Thomas’ allegation.

However, he said police would investigate all complaints submitted to the department about Powell.

“If she feels Officer Powell did something wrong, we’ll investigate it,” Janse said. “We are not going to go back and track everything this officer has done,” he said. “If people come to us with concerns, we’ll look into it.”

The department is investigating Powell’s actions on the night of the Moats traffic stop, as well as any other questionable encounters involving the officer, Janse said.

Maritza Thomas said, “I hope that by telling my story that it will help prevent situations like this from happening in the future.”

Powell issued an apology Friday for his actions in which Moats and his mother-in-law’s father were unable to see Jonetta Collinsworth before she died of breast cancer this month. Powell has been put on paid leave.

With the grim news of Collinsworth’s health, Moats, his wife, Tamishia, and her grandfather rushed to Baylor Regional Medical Center at Plano, rolling through a red light that prompted Powell to turn on his lights.

Outside the emergency room, Powell detained Moats for 13 minutes, and Collinsworth died before everybody could say goodbye.

Staff Writer Scott Goldstein contributed to this report.

Zach Thomas, Wife Maritza, Officer Robert Powell

Zach Thomas, Wife Maritza, Officer Robert Powell