Psyche, Science, and Society

AirTran: The Bigot’s airline (TM)

Scott Horton reminds us of the horrifying  incident whereby a Muslim family was kicked off an AirTran flight for the crime of traveling while Muslim. Here is Scott’s article. Below it is a message I just sent to AirTran. remember, that is  AirTran: The Bigot’s airline (TM):

None Dare Call it Stupidity

By Scott Horton

CNN reports that a Muslim family is hustled off a plane after some morons misunderstand their conversation. (For the film version of this incident, check out Harold and Kumar Escape from Guantanamo Bay,–as usual, the most effective comedy carefully apes reality.) Note that the FBI behaves correctly and the airlines officials make asses out of themselves. This fits the recurrent pattern.

A Muslim family removed from an airliner Thursday after passengers became concerned about their conversation say AirTran officials refused to rebook them, even after FBI investigators cleared them of wrongdoing. Atif Irfan said federal authorities removed eight members of his extended family and a friend after passengers heard them discussing the safest place to sit and misconstrued the nature of the conversation.

Irfan, a U.S. citizen and tax attorney, said he was “impressed with the professionalism” of the FBI agents who questioned him, but said he felt mistreated when the airline refused to book the family for a later flight.

An incident to keep in mind next time you’re booking a flight. Remember the name of that airline: AirTran.

My message to AirTran: The Bigot’s airline (TM):

Sirs, As an American citizen, university professor, and frequent flyer, I am distressed and outraged at your airline’s bigoted actions in kicking off a Muslim family from a flight for no good reason. Even more inexcusable is your refusal to rebook them after they were cleared by the FBI.

I will remember this action when I choose an airline in the future. I will remind my traveling colleagues of your airline’s intolerant and inexcusable policies. And I will do what I can to alert the public.

I hope you will now do the right thing and publicly apologize and compensate this family. But such actions would be meaningless unless you also adopt clear nondiscriminatory policies to make sure such abuses never happen again.

Sincerely,

Let AirTran: The Bigot’s airline (TM) know what you think.

UPDATE: the media are reportiong that AirTran: the Bigot’;s Airline “apologized“:

“We regret that the issue escalated to the heightened security level it did,” AirTran said in a statement Friday afternoon. “But we trust everyone understands that the security and the safety of our passengers is paramount.” Read the full statement

They certainly made no acknowledgement that they did anything wrong. The did not discuss their refuisal to rebook the family after they were cleared by the FBI. And they have not a word about policies to prevent a recurrence. I still suggest that you let AirTran: The Bigot’s airline (TM) know what you think.

Add comment January 3rd, 2009

Gre Palast: Vote for him - because he’s Black

Greg Palast expresses what many are thinking — vote for Obama, despite his pro-corporate policies, because he’s black and his election will signal a profound cultural transformation in this country. [Then, of course, on Wednesday, start organizing those social movements that will force him to do the right thing at least some of the time.]:

Vote for him - because he’s Black

by Greg Palast

No question, Mr. Bruce was my favorite teacher in junior high.

I went to this Loser-ville school in the San Fernando Valley. It was all Chicano kids and working class white losers like me. Everyone had to take ‘metal shop’ so we could work the bottom-end jobs in the Chevy plant.

My brain was dying - until Mr. Bruce showed up, the new science teacher. DOCTOR Bruce, actually - the only Ph.d teacher in the place.

At lunch hour, instead of hanging out in the teachers’ lunchroom, Mr. Bruce would invite me and my friends into his classroom. Over coffee made on a Bunsen burner, he would talk about topics from Einstein to Buddha while munching on this strange stuff called “organic” food.

He was simply like no adult I’d ever met - an exceptional guy who could make us dull-brained students sizzle.

My parents had him over for Sunday brunch and he talked about his work as a ‘honey-dipper’ in the Deep South where he grew up. The honey-dipper was the guy who hunted for lost glasses and whatever else was dropped in outhouse cesspools. Dr. Bruce said he enjoyed the work because it taught him pleasures of quiet grace, of dignified acceptance.

The kids were crazy about him, but not all the parents. Some called to complain about the school hiring him.

So he left. Months later, Mr. Bruce mailed me a letter from Japan where he’d taken a university post.

It’s odd, but it was only this year that I put it all together: his exclusion by the other teachers, his job as a honey-dipper, his need to escape America.

Dr. Bruce, of course, is Black.

So, I’m going to do something that Dr. Bruce would think little of. I’m going to vote for the Black man. Because he’s Black.

The truth is, I’m wary of Barack Obama. His cozy relations with the sub-prime loan sharks who funded his early campaign; his vote, at the behest of his big donor ADM corporation, for the horrific Bush energy bill.

But there’s one thing that overshadows policy positions, one thing he cannot change once in office: the color of his skin. The same as Mr. Bruce’s.

I’m going to say something that I know the Obama campaign will just hate; but that many others are feeling but won’t say out loud. We must vote for Barack Obama because he’s Black.

For four centuries, our nation has poisoned itself with the corrosive venom of racism. From the slave trade, to our still-segregated schools, to the Bush family stealing the White House by cynically, and sinfully, calling Florida Black voters felons; to the exile of a brilliant science teacher four decades ago.

The time has come to cleanse the wound that will not heal.

Add comment November 3rd, 2008

Ackerman on “The Race Card”

In a few qwords Spencer Ackerman explains the true horrors of John McCain’s latest campaign antics. We as a country will pay for years:

My ex-boss explains the dark and awful road ahead:

Let’s see how this works. McCain runs his Britney/Paris ad on the alleged but improbable basis that they’re the #2 and #3 celebs in the world, according to Rick Davis. McCain camp seizes on Obama statement that Obama has made multiple times before, accuses him of playing “race card”. Now McCain repeats Race Card, Race Card, Race Card a hundred times.

McCain has made the strategic decision that he can only win the election on the basis of Obama as friend of terrorists, unpatriotic suspicious outsider and radical, black guy who’s really more a flashy showbiz star (call it playing the Diddy card) than someone with the heft to be president. He’s probably right. That’s his only chance. And it may work.

It’s important to remember that Race Card is a euphemism. It’s a device to scare white people into believing the Dark One is out past the fence, sending signals to his Dark allies that stoke their resentment. It’s meant to cause the political equivalent of the mental shudder that makes white women grip their purses tighter on the subway. To stoke an impulse that ugly is evil.   I don’t believe John McCain can win the election. The hurdles — financial, electoral — are too great, the GOP base trusts him too little, and the narrative of his campaign is too solipsistic. But what he can do is prepare the country for four years of vile, small ugliness, in which new euphemisms are invented to allow white people to say This country’s gone to shit ever since they let Those People in charge… Is there something worse than Nixonland?

Add comment August 2nd, 2008

Mildred Loving on the meaning of Loving v Virginia

Mildred Loving died May 2 at home in Virginia. Here is her statement prepared for delivery on June 12, 2007, the 4oth anniversary of Loving v Virginia. It was not that long ago that these ordinary heroes had to fight for the right to marry a partner of a different race. Gays and lesbians today are still fighting for the right to marry whom they choose:

Loving for All

By Mildred Loving

Prepared for Delivery on June 12, 2007,
The 40th Anniversary of the Loving vs. Virginia Announcement

When my late husband, Richard, and I got married in Washington, DC in 1958, it wasn’t to make a political statement or start a fight. We were in love, and we wanted to be married.

We didn’t get married in Washington because we wanted to marry there. We did it there because the government wouldn’t allow us to marry back home in Virginia where we grew up, where we met, where we fell in love, and where we wanted to be together and build our family. You see, I am a woman of color and Richard was white, and at that time people believed it was okay to keep us from marrying because of their ideas of who should marry whom.

When Richard and I came back to our home in Virginia, happily married, we had no intention of battling over the law. We made a commitment to each other in our love and lives, and now had the legal commitment, called marriage, to match. Isn’t that what marriage is?

Not long after our wedding, we were awakened in the middle of the night in our own bedroom by deputy sheriffs and actually arrested for the “crime” of marrying the wrong kind of person. Our marriage certificate was hanging on the wall above the bed. The state prosecuted Richard and me, and after we were found guilty, the judge declared: “Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.” He sentenced us to a year in prison, but offered to suspend the sentence if we left our home in Virginia for 25 years exile.

We left, and got a lawyer. Richard and I had to fight, but still were not fighting for a cause. We were fighting for our love.

Though it turned out we had to fight, happily Richard and I didn’t have to fight alone. Thanks to groups like the ACLU and the NAACP Legal Defense & Education Fund, and so many good people around the country willing to speak up, we took our case for the freedom to marry all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. And on June 12, 1967, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that, “The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men,” a “basic civil right.”

My generation was bitterly divided over something that should have been so clear and right. The majority believed that what the judge said, that it was God’s plan to keep people apart, and that government should discriminate against people in love. But I have lived long enough now to see big changes. The older generation’s fears and prejudices have given way, and today’s young people realize that if someone loves someone they have a right to marry.

Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don’t think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the “wrong kind of person” for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people’s religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people’s civil rights.

I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard’s and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That’s what Loving, and loving, are all about.

Add comment May 8th, 2008

Bronx students discuss Obama speech on race

A very moving video of Bronx students discussing Barack Obama’s speech on race. If discussions like this are occurring elsewhere in the country, it’s a very good sign for democracy. The Nation has referred to the Obama campaign’s community organizing. This video gives a sense of what that might mean to high school freshman who talk about being inspired to reject a life of crime and abuse and to aspire. Perhaps we’re on the cusp of some profound changes.

1 comment March 29th, 2008

Social psychology of racial equality: Unequal perspectives

The Washington Post today has an interesting exploration of new results on the social psychology of race relations. Whites, they report, think more about how far we’ve come from the bad old days, and think things are nearly fine. Blacks, however, think of how far we are from true equality and are profoundly disturbed. Whites claim they would be willing to be born black for a mere $5,000:

Unequal Perspectives on Racial Equality

By Shankar Vedantam

Imagine that you are waiting in line to be born . . . Presently, you are scheduled to be born white. However, you are offered an alternative arrangement. In exchange for a cash gift, to be deposited in a bank account for you when you are born, you can choose to instead be born black.

Social psychologists Philip Mazzocco and Mahzarin Banaji once asked white volunteers how much money would cover the “costs” of being born black instead of white. The volunteers guessed that about $5,000 ought to cover the lifetime disadvantages of being an average black person rather than an average white person, in the United States. By contrast, when asked how much they wanted to go without television, the volunteers demanded a million dollars.

Mazzocco and Banaji were taken aback: The average black person in America is 447 percent more likely to be imprisoned than the average white person, and 521 percent more likely to be murdered. Blacks earn 60 cents to the dollar compared with whites who have the same education levels and marital status. The black poverty rate is nearly twice the white poverty rate. Blacks tend to die five years earlier than whites; the infant mortality rate among black babies is nearly 1 1/2 times the rate among white babies. And because of long-standing patterns of inheritance, blacks and whites begin life with substantial disparities in family wealth.

“The point we were making is, whatever the cost of being black might be, whites are vastly underestimating it,” said Mazzocco, of Ohio State University at Mansfield. “You throw in the 5-to-1 wealth gap . . . if you wanted to put a dollar-and-cents value on the difference, you would come up with a number much larger than $5,000.”

The unusual experiment is one of dozens that have found that whites tend to have a relatively rosy impression of what it means to be a black person in America. Whites are more than twice as likely as blacks to believe that the position of African Americans has improved a great deal. Blacks are more than twice as likely as whites to believe that conditions for African Americans are growing worse.

This long-standing war of perceptions created the perfect storm last week after sermons by the Rev. Jeremiah Wright — former pastor of Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) — painted a picture of stark inequality at odds with white perceptions.

Mazzocco and Banaji, who teaches at Harvard, found that when volunteers learned about the disparities, they started to demand much larger sums of money.

“Many whites assume blacks are making use of old crimes to gain present-day benefits that are unearned,” Mazzocco said. “Underlying this is a misunderstanding and ignorance about black costs and white privilege.”

But knowledge about disparities is not the only reason whites and blacks have different perceptions about racial equality. Social psychologist Richard Eibach at Yale University has shown that whites and blacks often employ different yardsticks to measure racial equality. Whites tend to measure progress by comparing the present and the past — and America has made giant strides since the Jim Crow era. Nonwhites, Eibach found, are likely to evaluate racial equality in comparison with an idealized future. These yardsticks create entirely different perceptions.

When Eibach asked each group to use the other’s yardstick — whites to focus on the future and nonwhites to think about the past — the differences disappeared. Now, everyone agreed the country had come a long way — and had a long way to go.

In a speech last week, Obama similarly argued that his former pastor had failed to acknowledge how America had changed for the better. But Wright’s critics, Obama added, were also wrong — because true equality is still remote.

The intriguing question prompted by Eibach’s study is why whites and blacks are unconsciously drawn to different yardsticks. Eibach said one reason might be that racial equality means different things to whites and blacks: Whites see it as an ideal, blacks as a necessity. When people evaluate progress toward idealistic or optional goals — saving for a vacation — they tend to focus on progress made. But when people think of necessities — paying the rent — they focus on how much they are short.

In another set of experiments, social psychologist Amanda Brodish at the University of Michigan’s Institute for Social Research showed that prejudice may play a role, too. Whites with high levels of prejudice — who think blacks are not as smart as whites, who think blacks and whites are inherently unequal, and who reported being uncomfortable with a black roommate — invariably evaluated racial equality only in comparison with the past.

By contrast, said Brodish’s co-author, Patricia Devine of the University of Wisconsin at Madison, low-prejudice whites were equally willing to apply the yardsticks of both past and future.

While comparisons with a dreadful past and an ideal future produce glass-is-half-empty-vs.-half-full perceptions, the choices are not equivalent. Each perception is accurate, but Eibach said that progress toward true equality required whites to focus on where the country ought to be instead of becoming complacent about how far the country had come.

“There is a disconnect between whites and blacks about what it feels like to be a victim of mundane discrimination,” Eibach concluded. “There is a tendency to say, ‘These mundane things are nothing like the past,’ but the lived reality of bearing that weight — the frustrations and indignities — that is a major source of the disconnect.”

Add comment March 24th, 2008

PBS series on health disparities: Unatural Causes

Apropos the New York Times article I posted earlier today o increasing health disparities between rich and poor in the US, a friend has just sent this notice of a related upcoming PBS series, Unnatural Causes, which asks “is inequality making us sick?” that starts this week. Here is the series summary that she sent:

UNNATURAL CAUSES sheds light on mounting evidence that demonstrates how work, wealth, neighborhood conditions and lack of access to power and resources can actually get under the skin and disrupt human biology as surely as germs and viruses. But it’s not just the poor who are sick—so are the middle classes. At each descending rung of the socio-economic ladder, people tend to be sicker and die sooner. What’s more, at every level, many communities of color are worse off than their white counterparts. Compelling personal stories—spanning the country—demonstrate how social conditions are as vital to our health as diet, smoking and exercise.  As Harvard epidemiologist David Williams points out, investing in our schools, improving housing, integrating neighborhoods, better jobs and wages, giving people more control over their work, these are as much health strategies as smoking diet and exercise. And these are the stories that UNNATURAL CAUSES tells.

HOUR ONE: In Sickness and In Wealth (56 mins) What are the connections between healthy bodies and healthy bank accounts? In Louisville, Kentucky, the issues faced by a CEO, a lab supervisor, a janitor, and a welfare mother bring into sharp relief how socio-economic status shapes opportunities to lead healthy lives.  People of color face an additional burden. Solutions, public health officials believe, lie not in more pills but in better social policies.

HOUR TWO: When the Bough Breaks (28 mins) and Becoming American (28 min)
Why do African American infant mortality rates remain more than twice as high as white Americans? Researchers are circling in on a provocative hypothesis:  the chronic stress of racism can become embedded in African American mothers’ bodies and take a toll on their children even before they leave the womb.

In contrast, recent Mexican immigrants, though often poorer, tend to be healthier than the average American. But the longer they live here, the worse their relative health becomes. What’s protective about new immigrant communities that we can all learn from? And what erodes this shield over time?

HOUR THREE: Bad Sugar (28 min) and Place Matters (28 min) The O’odham Indians of Arizona suffer one of the highest rates of Type 2 diabetes in the world. But is this due to their genes, or is it part of the body’s response to decades of poverty, oppression and historical trauma? A new approach rooted in the community re-gaining control over its destiny offers hope where medical-only interventions have failed.

Why is your street address such a good predictor of your health? How can your surrounding built and social environment get inside your body like smog and toxic waste? As recent immigrants move into long-neglected African American urban neighborhoods, their health is beginning to deteriorate too. What can be done to create healthy communities?

HOUR FOUR:  Collateral Damage (28 min) and Not Just a Paycheck (28 min)

Globalization and the U.S. military have disrupted the lives of Marshall Islanders. Many have ended up in the unlikely place of Springdale, Arkansas where a legacy of poverty and powerlessness continues to take a toll on their bodies.

In western Michigan, a factory closure undermines the lives and health of a white, working class community. But the same company shut down their Swedish plant with hardly a ripple thanks to very different social policies.

http://www.unnaturalcauses.org/

Add comment March 23rd, 2008

The Obama Speech

If anyone hasn’t seen Obama’s speech on race today:

1 comment March 18th, 2008

US: The prison society

Derrick Z. Jackson reminds us of the barbarity of our society, which imprisons 6% of its black males and 1% of its adult population, far more than any other country on earth. Combine that with the fact that the US spends as much on its War Department as all other nations on earth and we see the magnitude of the institutional violence upon which our country is based:

Prisoners of sentencing politics

by Derrick Z. Jackson

WITH ODIOUS sanctimony, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice released the annual State Department human rights report. She praised people around the world who work “to hold their leaders accountable and to achieve equal justice under the law.”

The report knocked Russia’s “selectivity in enforcement of the law,” Burma’s “abysmal” level of “indefinite detentions,” Iran’s “arbitrary arrests,” Syria’s trying of “political prisoners in criminal courts,” and China’s “20 percent increase over 2006 in convictions of citizens under China’s overly broad state security law.”

In specific numbers, the report cited China’s 1.8 million inmates and Russia’s 889,600 prisoners, the latter of whom languish in “extremely harsh” and “overcrowded” facilities where “one in 25 was HIV-positive.” Rice wrote in the report’s preface, “Leaders who are insufficiently committed to reform may revert to authoritarian habits or take disastrous detours from the rule of law.”

Missing from the State Department report was the disastrous detour of our own nation. Our inflexible reforms have for two decades turned nonviolent criminals into prisoners of politics.

The United States is the world’s leading prison state. For the first time in our history, more than one out of every 100 adults is behind bars. We have 2.3 million people in jail or prison, according to a Pew Center on the States study released last month. Our rate of imprisonment easily beats second-place Russia and is six times the rate of China, seven times the rate of Germany or France, 10 times the rate of Italy, and 12 times the rate of Japan.

State spending on prisons has grown from $12 billion in 1987 to $49 billion last year. For that, we still have overcrowded prisons where the rate of HIV/AIDS is 2.5 times that of the general population.

The reason is not crime, not when our total levels declined in the 1990s to under those of the European Union, according to the United Nations. But the impact of mandatory federal and state drug laws enacted during the crack panic of the 1980s - and never changed when the panic over drug trade violence proved unjustified - continue to devastate communities and state budgets.

The most well known of those laws are the ones that treat possession of crack cocaine much more harshly than for being caught with powdered cocaine. The Supreme Court is taking an ever-dim view of the laws and the federal US Sentencing Commission has softened them somewhat. But there is no State Department concern for black men.

One in 15 adult black men are behind bars, compared with 1 in 106 adult white men. This is despite the fact that Americans consume illegal drugs at about their racial share of the population, that crack and powder are the same pharmacologically, and that the majority of the drug trade, including crack, is nonviolent. It is wrong that crack offenders, 70 percent of them nonviolent, spend on average 3 1/2 years more in jail (10.8 years to 7.2 years) than those convicted of powder offenses.

Of the presidential candidates, Republican John McCain is likely to march to President Bush’s agenda. The Democrats are not unified in their desire to end this madness. In the 1990s, President Clinton wooed black votes, then sacrificed the black poor to his centrist politics, calling the 1994 crime bill that preserved the disparate laws the “smartest crime bill in the history of the United States.”

Fourteen years later - years which include the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections that Democrats narrowly lost as 13 percent of black men could not vote because of convictions, according to the Sentencing Project - Clinton called the laws he maintained “a cancer.” He pledged to “spend a significant portion of whatever life I’ve got left on the earth trying to fix this.”

Then again, Clinton is still sacrificing black people, almost single-handedly inciting a stampede of undecided black voters from his wife’s presidential campaign toward Barack Obama with ham-handed, racially tinged denigration of Obama.

Both Hillary Clinton and Obama say the laws are unfair. But only Obama approved of the recent decision by the bipartisan Sentencing Commission to “mitigate the unwarranted sentencing disparity” by granting mild retroactive reductions of crack sentences for mostly nonviolent offenders. Clinton’s response was, “I have problems with retroactivity.” As Condoleezza Rice rails about nations insufficiently committed to reform, we remain at high risk at home of staying on our disastrous detour.

Derrick Z. Jackson’s e-mail address is jackson@globe.com.

Add comment March 15th, 2008

Palast: The destruction of Spitzer and the bank bailout

As is often the case, Greg Palast provides a unique vantage point on the destruction of Elliot Spitzer, connecting it to the $200 billion bailout of the criminal suprime banks. [Complementing Palast are a number of pieces by Scott Horto arguing that the case against Spitzer is politically-motivated. See here, here, and here. Horton, however, views it through the lens of the (In)Justice Department's long-standing campaign to criminalize Democrats.]:

The $200 billion bail-out for predator banks and Spitzer charges are intimately linked

By Greg Palast
Reporting for Air America Radio’s Clout

While New York Governor Eliot Spitzer was paying an ‘escort’ $4,300 in a hotel room in Washington, just down the road, George Bush’s new Federal Reserve Board Chairman, Ben Bernanke, was secretly handing over $200 billion in a tryst with mortgage bank industry speculators.

Both acts were wanton, wicked and lewd. But there’s a BIG difference. The Governor was using his own checkbook. Bush’s man Bernanke was using ours.

This week, Bernanke’s Fed, for the first time in its history, loaned a selected coterie of banks one-fifth of a trillion dollars to guarantee these banks’ mortgage-backed junk bonds. The deluge of public loot was an eye-popping windfall to the very banking predators who have brought two million families to the brink of foreclosure.

Up until Wednesday, there was one single, lonely politician who stood in the way of this creepy little assignation at the bankers’ bordello: Eliot Spitzer.

Who are they kidding? Spitzer’s lynching and the bankers’ enriching are intimately tied.

How? Follow the money.

The press has swallowed Wall Street’s line that millions of US families are about to lose their homes because they bought homes they couldn’t afford or took loans too big for their wallets. Ba-LON-ey. That’s blaming the victim.

Here’s what happened. Since the Bush regime came to power, a new species of loan became the norm, the ‘sub-prime’ mortgage and it’s variants including loans with teeny “introductory” interest rates. From out of nowhere, a company called ‘Countrywide’ became America’s top mortgage lender, accounting for one in five home loans, a large chuck of these ‘sub-prime.’

Here’s how it worked: The Grinning Family, with US average household income, gets a $200,000 mortgage at 4% for two years. Their $955 a month payment is 25% of their income. No problem. Their banker promises them a new mortgage, again at the cheap rate, in two years. But in two years, the promise ain’t worth a can of spam and the Grinnings are told to scram - because their house is now worth less than the mortgage. Now, the mortgage hits 9% or $1,609 plus fees to recover the “discount” they had for two years. Suddenly, payments equal 42% to 50% of pre-tax income. Grinnings move into their Toyota.

Now, what kind of American is ‘sub-prime.’ Guess. No peeking. Here’s a hint: 73% of HIGH INCOME Black and Hispanic borrowers were given sub-prime loans versus 17% of similar-income Whites. Dark-skinned borrowers aren’t stupid – they had no choice. They were ‘steered’ as it’s called in the mortgage sharking business.

‘Steering,’ sub-prime loans with usurious kickers, fake inducements to over-borrow, called ‘fraudulent conveyance’ or ‘predatory lending’ under US law, were almost completely forbidden in the olden days (Clinton Administration and earlier) by federal regulators and state laws as nothing more than fancy loan-sharking.

But when the Bush regime took over, Countrywide and its banking brethren were told to party hardy – it was OK now to steer’m, fake’m, charge’m and take’m.

But there was this annoying party-pooper. The Attorney General of New York, Eliot Spitzer, who sued these guys to a fare-thee-well. Or tried to.

Instead of regulating the banks that had run amok, Bush’s regulators went on the warpath against Spitzer and states attempting to stop predatory practices. Making an unprecedented use of the legal power of “federal pre-emption,” Bush-bots ordered the states to NOT enforce their consumer protection laws.

Indeed, the feds actually filed a lawsuit to block Spitzer’s investigation of ugly racial mortgage steering. Bush’s banking buddies were especially steamed that Spitzer hammered bank practices across the nation using New York State laws.

Spitzer not only took on Countrywide, he took on their predatory enablers in the investment banking community. Behind Countrywide was the Mother Shark, its funder and now owner, Bank of America. Others joined the sharkfest: Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch and Citigroup’s Citibank made mortgage usury their major profit centers. They did this through a bit of financial legerdemain called “securitization.”

What that means is that they took a bunch of junk mortgages, like the Grinnings, loans about to go down the toilet and re-packaged them into “tranches” of bonds which were stamped “AAA” - top grade - by bond rating agencies. These gold-painted turds were sold as sparkling safe investments to US school district pension funds and town governments in Finland (really).

When the housing bubble burst and the paint flaked off, investors were left with the poop and the bankers were left with bonuses. Countrywide’s top man, Angelo Mozilo, will ‘earn’ a $77 million buy-out bonus this year on top of the $656 million - over half a billion dollars – he pulled in from 1998 through 2007.

But there were rumblings that the party would soon be over. Angry regulators, burned investors and the weight of millions of homes about to be boarded up were causing the sharks to sink. Countrywide’s stock was down 50%, and Citigroup was off 38%, not pleasing to the Gulf sheiks who now control its biggest share blocks.

Then, on Wednesday of this week, the unthinkable happened. Carlyle Capital went bankrupt. Who? That’s Carlyle as in Carlyle Group. James Baker, Senior Counsel. Notable partners, former and past: George Bush, the Bin Laden family and more dictators, potentates, pirates and presidents than you can count.

The Fed had to act. Bernanke opened the vault and dumped $200 billion on the poor little suffering bankers. They got the public treasure – and got to keep the Grinning’s house. There was no ‘quid’ of a foreclosure moratorium for the ‘pro quo’ of public bail-out. Not one family was saved – but not one banker was left behind.

Every mortgage sharking operation shot up in value. Mozilo’s Countrywide stock rose 17% in one day. The Citi sheiks saw their company’s stock rise $10 billion in an afternoon.

And that very same day the bail-out was decided – what a coinkydink! – the man called, ‘The Sheriff of Wall Street’ was cuffed. Spitzer was silenced.

Do I believe the banks called Justice and said, “Take him down today!” Naw, that’s not how the system works. But the big players knew that unless Spitzer was taken out, he would create enough ruckus to spoil the party. Headlines in the financial press – one was “Wall Street Declares War on Spitzer” - made clear to Bush’s enforcers at Justice who their number one target should be. And it wasn’t Bin Laden.

It was the night of February 13 when Spitzer made the bone-headed choice to order take-out in his Washington Hotel room. He had just finished signing these words for the Washington Post about predatory loans:

“Not only did the Bush administration do nothing to protect consumers, it embarked on an aggressive and unprecedented campaign to prevent states from protecting their residents from the very problems to which he federal government was turning a blind eye.”

Bush, said Spitzer right in the headline, was the “Predator Lenders’ Partner in Crime.” The President, said Spitzer, was a fugitive from justice. And Spitzer was in Washington to launch a campaign to take on the Bush regime and the biggest financial powers on the planet.

Spitzer wrote, “When history tells the story of the subprime lending crisis and recounts its devastating effects on the lives of so many innocent homeowners the Bush administration will not be judged favorably.”

But now, the Administration can rest assured that this love story – of Bush and his bankers - will not be told by history at all – now that the Sheriff of Wall Street has fallen on his own gun.

A note on “Prosecutorial Indiscretion.”

Back in the day when I was an investigator of racketeers for government, the federal prosecutor I was assisting was deciding whether to launch a case based on his negotiations for airtime with 60 Minutes. I’m not allowed to tell you the prosecutor’s name, but I want to mention he was recently seen shouting, “Florida is Rudi country! Florida is Rudi country!”

Not all crimes lead to federal bust or even public exposure. It’s up to something called “prosecutorial discretion.”

Funny thing, this ‘discretion.’ For example, Senator David Vitter, Republican of Louisiana, paid Washington DC prostitutes to put him diapers (ewww!), yet the Senator was not exposed by the US prosecutors busting the pimp-ring that pampered him.
Naming and shaming and ruining Spitzer – rarely done in these cases - was made at the ‘discretion’ of Bush’s Justice Department.

Or maybe we should say, ‘indiscretion.’

Listen to Palast on Clout at www.GregPalast.com

Add comment March 14th, 2008