WASHINGTON — Eighty-three of the nation's 100 largest corporations, including Citigroup, Bank of America and News Corp., had subsidiaries in offshore tax havens in 2007, and some of the companies received federal bailout funding, a government watchdog said Friday.
The Government Accountability Office released a report that said Bank of America Inc., Citigroup Inc. and Morgan Stanley all had more than 100 units in countries that maintain low or no taxes. The three financial institutions were included in the $700 billion financial bailout approved by Congress.
Insurance giant American International Group Inc., which has received about $150 billion in bailout money, had 18 subsidiaries. JPMorgan Chase & Co. had 50 units and Wells Fargo & Co. had 18; both financial institutions received government bailout money.
Sens. Carl Levin, D-Mich., and Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., who requested the report, have pushed for tougher laws to fight offshore tax havens around the globe. Levin, who leads the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, has estimated abusive tax havens and offshore accounts cost the U.S. government at least $100 billion a year in lost taxes.
"I think we should take action to shut down these tax dodgers and we will be introducing legislation to do just that," Dorgan said.
General Motors Corp., which received $13.4 billion from the federal rescue package, had 11 offshore subsidiaries while GM's financing arm, GMAC LLC, had two offshore units. GMAC, whose majority owner is private equity firm Cerberus Capital Management LP, received $5 billion from the Treasury Department in late December.
Citigroup said in a statement that it has more than 4,000 subsidiaries around the globe "which enables us to serve hundreds of millions of individuals and institutions in more than 100 countries." A News Corp. spokeswoman declined comment. Messages were left with several of the companies identified in the report.
Separately, the GAO said 63 of the 100 largest federal contractors maintain subsidiaries in 50 tax havens.
Story continues below
Levin noted that many competitors use the tax havens to varying degrees. PepsiCo Inc. has 70 subsidiaries while the Coca-Cola Co. has eight units. Caterpillar Inc. had 49 while Deere & Co. had three.
"We need to put an end to the use of offshore secrecy jurisdictions as tax havens," Levin said.
The GAO said the subsidiaries could be established in the countries "for a variety of nontax business reasons" and said having a business unit in one of the countries "does not signify that a corporation or federal contractor established that subsidiary for the purpose of reducing its tax burden."
Citigroup had 427 units in 23 countries, including 91 subsidiaries in Luxembourg and 90 in the Cayman Islands. Morgan Stanley had 273 units, News Corp. had 152 and Bank of America had 115. Procter & Gamble Co. had 83 subsidiaries and Pfizer Inc. had 80 in the jurisdictions.
Several major corporations have announced plans to leave Bermuda, a leading offshore business center, amid the global financial crisis and fears of tighter tax rules. Tyco Electronics Ltd., which makes electronic components, and Foster Wheeler Ltd., an engineering and construction company, are reincorporating in Switzerland _ which has a tax treaty with the U.S. _ for tax and other reasons. Covidien Ltd., a health care products company, is heading to Ireland.
___
Saturday, January 17, 2009
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
BLOMQUINN Pettiness Personified
Got an interesting letter forwarded to me, and I am told I can run with it. I am hoping I am not stepping on the toes of either of the two good folks in this sad, petty tantrum. Tony Avella and Doris Diether don't deserve this kind of crap. But it is worth showing that Chritine Quinn is willing to stoop so low for such petty reasons. Not sure the full path of this leak, but I Tony Avella does not seem party to it. But at least one key link in the chain has given the go ahead for it.
SO the background is that Doris Diether, a wonderful member of Community Board 2, is having an 80th birthday. Sincere congratulations! May Doris have many more wonderful birthdays! Doris has served on the community board since a little before I was born!
Tony Avella apparently wished to honor this woman with a proclamation on her 80th birthday. This is a fairly common thing in our city government and something that can make people feel pretty good. It is nice when city government recognizes by official proclamation good people and groups. Avella was doing a nice thing here and from all I have heard, Avella generally does nice things.
Enter the grinch of the story.
Christine Quinn, apparently angry that Avella had, in the past, opposed her Majesty, stepped in. Quinn wanted to offer her own proclamation (which is her right) and had a little hissy fit about Avella. Normally under such circumstances, Quinn would merely invite Avella to sign onto her proclamation. Nice, neat, clean. Everyone is happy. But Quinn would have nothing of protocol, custom or diplomacy. Quinn preferred petty tantrums. Not only did she want her proclamation to take precidence (not a problem) but she refused to allow Avella to sign onto her proclamation, which is a clear violation of protocol...not to mention common decency.
Here is a scan of an email I was forwarded regarding Quinn's hissy fit:
Sorry if the image isn't the best. The text reads:
I am writing with some unfortunate news regarding Councilman Avella's proclamation for Ms. Diether on January 10th. It looks like the Councilman will not be able to attend nor present a proclamation. As you may know, Speaker Quinn will be presenting her own proclamation at the event. Normally, City Council protocol allows any interested Councilmember to sign on to the proclamation. However, given the Speaker's political differences with the Councilman, she is not allowing Tony's name to be attached to her proclamation nor is she letting him have his own proclamation. The Councilman is upset and angry over these circumstances and obviously does not want any of this political infighting to affect Ms. Diether's celebration...
So, in other words, Tsarina Quinn is allowing politics to interfere with honoring a valued member of the community. Upon hearing of this, my wife gave one of her usual very insightful comments:
Now we get to see Quinn's gratuitous abuse of power...in addition to her usual abuse of power that financially benefits her friends and allies.
A scan of Tony Avella's reply was also forwarded to me:
Again the image quality isn't the best. The key portion reads:
The nonsense that then ensued from your office defies explanation. It would seem that you wanted to do the proclamation. Without going into detail as to who first requested the proclamation, your refusal to allow me as a Member of the City Council to sign on to your proclamation is an absolute disgrace.
Frankly, your behavior in this regard is both unprofessional and childish. Surely, whatever political we may have can be set aside to celebrate the life and accomplishments of a woman who has dedicated herself to improving the quality of life of her neighborhood.
Remember that Christine Quinn is also the person who either was at the center of, or turned a blind eye to the Slushgate scandal. Then there was the massive insult to voters in reversing the term limits referenda overwhelmingly passed by voters. And now there is the fact that she is just plain a spoiled, pewling brat when you get right down to it.
For those who are sick of Tsarina Quinn, there are two good candidates running against her this year: Yetta Kurland and Maria Passannante Derr. I have heard particularly good things about Yetta, but Maria also seems good.
Assembly subpoenas Yankees over stadium
| |
By Michael Gormley, Associated Press Writer
ALBANY, N.Y. — A New York Assembly committee investigating the use of millions of dollars in public funding to build the new Yankee Stadium has subpoenaed the team's president.
Assemblyman Richard Brodsky, a Democrat from Westchester County, said Tuesday that his committee subpoenaed Yankees president Randy Levine as well as city Industrial Development Agency Chairman Seth Pinsky.
Brodsky said the subpoenas compel the officials to appear for questioning at a hearing Wednesday, and to provide documents the committee wants for its investigation into whether public money should be used for the new stadium in the Bronx.
Brodsky's move was criticized by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg's office.
"I guess it makes for good political theater because it's the Yankees, but when it comes to valuable taxpayer dollars, decisions should be made on return not rhetoric," said Bloomberg spokesman Andrew Brent. "The deal leverages a federal program and will result in New York City getting back more tax revenue than it will cost and the South Bronx getting thousands of new jobs and more than $1 billion in private investment."
FIND MORE STORIES IN: New York Yankees | New York Mets | Yankee Stadium | Queens of the Stone Age | Westchester County | New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg | Randy Levine | South Bronx | Alice McGillion | Brodsky | Andrew Brent
Levine learned he was going to be subpoenaed Monday night, but had already rearranged his schedule to attend Wednesday's hearing, said his spokeswoman, Alice McGillion.
Officials for the city and the Yankees have already appeared before the committee and provided documents, but Brodsky continues to investigate. Brodsky said the Yankees and the city have denied him records related to additional public financing requested by the team.
Brodsky has accused city and team officials of secret negotiations that altered property assessments to make the deal legal and to provide a free luxury suite for city officials. Brodsky says the project won't create enough permanent jobs to justify the public funding.
Both the Yankees and New York Mets have asked the city for more public bonds to finance their increasingly expensive ballparks, which are scheduled to open this spring.
Both teams have given long lists of reasons why they want more public bonds, including construction delays, government requirements such as security and fireproofing, and design changes such as enhanced scoreboards and bigger food service areas.
The Yankees are asking for another $259 million in tax-exempt bonds and $111 million in taxable bonds, on top of $940 million in tax-exempt bonds and $25 million in taxable bonds already granted for the $1.3 billion Bronx stadium.
The Mets are requesting an additional $83 million, after the $615 million already approved, for their $800 million Queens park.
Last week, the Bloomberg administration said it would forgo luxury boxes, valued at as much as $850,000 for the new Yankee Stadium and up to $500,000 at the new Mets ballpark, following months of criticism about its handling of the projects.
Copyright 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Sunday, January 11, 2009
Norm Siegel Wins Big Victory for Bloggers. 3 Are Granted Police Credentials
Norman Siegel, former head of the New York Civil Liberties Union who rode to notoriety as a local civil rights and free speech advocate, has become a knight in shining armor for bloggers.
Lawyer Siegel [photo], who will run for Public Advocate this year, represented three bloggers who said they were unfairly turned down for the police department-issued i.d.'s.
Normally, the New York City Police Department issues those cards (of which there are, actually, two types, but that's besides the point here) to reporters for major newspapers and TV and radio stations.
One of the three happy bloggers, Rafael Martínez Alequin, wrote a post on his blog YourFreePress, which he does on blogspot.
Martínez Alequin, on his website, pays homage to the rising blogosphere of which he is a denizen and (now) a hero:
"The Internet in just a few short years has put newspapers on their own obit page and elected a president. Most Americans today receive their news over the Internet; where a guy in his manhattan apartment can compete on the internet with old line institutions of journalism."
The only thing we'd add is that the above-mentioned Manhattan apartment could be in Brooklyn.
The other two bloggers savoring the sweet taste of victory are David Wallis and Ralph E. Smith. Wallis's blog is Featurewell and Smith's is The Guardian Chronicle.
Siegel has said this chapter in his federal law suit against the city has ended, but the struggle continues against police restrictions on who does and does not receive police credentials.
The higher level credentials allow reporters to cross police lines; the lower tier ones simply identify the person as a recognized representative of the media. The Three Musketeers of the Blogosphere received the latter ones, but they seem satisfied, for now.
Saturday, January 10, 2009
Popular Fury at Yet Another Police Murder Oakland's Not for Burning?
By GEORGE CICCARIELLO-MAHER
And this "disaster" has been more than merely hypothetical: in 1992, a BART cop shot unarmed Jerrold Hall in the back of the head with a shotgun as he walked away, after firing a warning shot. In 2001, BART police shot a mentally ill man who was unarmed and naked. And according to Tim Redmond, writing in the same paper, "BART made a monumental effort to cover [the Hall slaying] up," and in the end, "Nothing happenedŠ BART called the shooting justified." As of yesterday, BART hadn't yet interviewed the officer, Johannes Mehserle, who insisted on invoking Fifth Amendment rights not to speak. And just when they claim to have compelled him to do so, he abruptly resigned, thereby ending any internal affairs investigation that may have taken place. There still remains, according to BART, a criminal investigation, but if the past is any indicator, this won't get far.
But let's not fool ourselves. Even publicly-run organizations like the Oakland Police Department, which has all the ties in the world to elected power, operates with an informal shoot-to-kill policy for black teenagers. This was as clear in the 2007 murder of Gary King as it is with Oscar Grant today. And since the district attorney responsible for bringing charges against the police works closely with these same police on a daily basis and in a shared enterprise of delivering convictions, we should not be surprised that not a single police murder in recent years has even seen disciplinary action. "No one we talked with," writes the Chronicle, "from the district attorney's office to lawyers who work either side of police shootings - could remember a case in the last 20 years in which an on-duty officer had been charged in a fatal shooting in Alameda County."
Does It Matter What Really Happened?
We have all seen the video, and rumors are swirling about how to interpret its contents. The officer clearly fires a fatal shot into Oscar Grant's back while the latter is face-down on the floor. A flurry of "experts" have intervened to give their analysis. While such expert testimony usually functions to justify the police, even among these experts some are shocked and disgusted by what they see. One expert, after concluding that the gun had accidentally gone off, watched video from another angle, after which he changed his conclusion: "Looking at it, I hate to say this, it looks like an execution to me."
Others are insisting that Mehserle meant to pull out his (less fatal) Taser, but this theory has since been discredited. Firstly, a Sig-Sauer handgun weighs three times what a Taser weighs, and the shape is completely distinct, and another expert noticed in the tape that the officer had previously withdrawn his Taser, located for safety reasons on the other side of his belt. In other words, he knew he was going for the gun. Hence the claim of accidental discharge, but this too raises a serious question of plausibility: when Mehserle drew his gun, Grant couldn't see it, and so there could be no claim that it was meant to threaten the victim into passivity. In the end, if Mehserle is ever forced to give a statement, he will likely turn to the tried-and-true excuse that he "suspected" Grant had a gun in his pants.
But none of this matters, all the debate of the officer's "intention" only serves to reinforce the fact that, while white cops are allowed to have intention, this is a quantity denied to their victims. This fact of racist double-standards is not lost on those who, realizing that there will be no "justice" in this case, have taken to the streets to demonstrate their rage at the unprovoked execution.
"I'm Feeling Pretty Violent Right About Now"
While friends and family were gathered for Grant's funeral, a number of organizations called a demonstration where he was killed, at Fruitvale BART station. Circulating by internet and Facebook, the call reached many thousands, and in the end some 500-600 protestors and mourners came together to make speeches and lament this murder. At a makeshift memorial behind the BART station, candles are burning, and hand-written messages appear: "Oscar, we watched you grow up from a lil' boy down the street into a man," and "O., RIP, peaceful journey, God only pick da best."
As an indication of the contrasting sentiments that divided the crowd, where someone had scribbled "Fuck the police," another had covered the expletive with another message: "Forgive." But forgiveness wasn't on the minds of many. Several of the more radical protestors climbed onto the BART turnstiles, displaying a red, black, and green flag. One shouted:
I've got the mentality of my parents who were Black Panthers, I'm tired of talking, I'm thinking like L.A. in 1992. Y'all can have your megaphone speeches, I been through that, I'm black, I don't need more speeches. Let's take a stand today, because tomorrow ain't promised!
While some on the mic attempted to soothe the crowd, insisting that burning up the city was "too easy" and "useless," the message didn't seem to resonate much with the crowd. And why should it? We were standing in the middle of "Fruitvale Village," a corporate paradise in the middle of a historically Latino district, which clearly doesn't belong to the local residents. It was clear where the momentum was going, as the biggest cheers went up for the more radical voices who seized the mic: "I'm feelin pretty violent right now," one insisted, "I'm on some Malcolm X shit: by any means necessary. If I don't see some action, I'ma cause a ruckus myself."
Oakland Burning
While some remained to hear additional speakers, including hyphy hip-hopper Mistah FAB and the recently-founded Coalition Against Police Executions (CAPE), several hundred set out on a militant and rapidly-moving march north on International Boulevard. The police response was initially hands-off, despite the tenor of the chants: "No Justice, No Peace: Fuck the Police," and "La Migra, La Policia: La Misma Porqueria." If those in the passing cars and stuck in traffic were of any indication, the local population knew exactly what was going on, why we were protesting, and were largely sympathetic.
As the march wound around Lake Merritt, it turned sharply to the left, a shortcut to BART headquarters. This seems to have thrown off the police, who were clearly unprepared for what came next. A single police car, parked sideways at 8th and Madison to prevent access to the BART headquarters, became the target of the crowd's increasing fury. Sensing the tone of the crowd, a cop reached in and grabbed her helmet before scurrying away. Within moments, the police car was destroyed and nearly flipped over, and a nearby dumpster was burning.
A few seconds later, the air was thick with teargas. Evidently, seeing their own property destroyed was too much for the police to stomach. (Note: there is no truth to the CNN report that tear gas was deployed to protect a surrounded officer). I get a noseful of teargas, and a protestor near me is shot in the stomach with a rubber bullet, and needs to be helped off, as the crowd quickly sprints north toward downtown. Passing through Chinatown, dumpsters full of fresh produce are emptied into the street to slow the march of a line of riot police. When the crowd reaches Broadway, there is momentary confusion, with some continuing straight to Old Oakland, some pushing left toward Jack London Square, and others urging a move rightward toward the city center.
The police took advantage of this momentary indecision, with a full line charge that send many of the furious demonstrators sprinting and left many arrested. When the crowd regrouped, it was promptly encircled at 14th and Broadway, and a standoff ensued. Either by design or by a predictable quirk of the police organization, nearly every riot cop in the street was white, some sneering defiantly. And if the crowd of demonstrators was largely multiethnic, it was clear by this point that the functional vanguard was composed largely of the young, black teenagers most acutely aware of their relationship to the police. There were chants of "We are all Oscar Grant!" and several protestors lay in the middle of the street with their hands behind their backs, mimicking the position in which Grant was executed.
Some small fires were set, and the police moved in again, pushing the crowd down 14th toward Lake Merritt. The spearhead of the demonstrators rushed forward to shouts of "We the police today!" smashing and torching vehicles, and while this was done out of anger it was far from irrational, as the press will certainly present it. Rather, it was the result of a very clear line of reasoning that goes something like this: we have to do something, and in the face of police impunity, this is all we can do. Nothing would be more irrational than a blind faith that the police will do the right thing, given all the historical evidence to the contrary. While the press is doing its best to find bystanders to decry the "vandalism" involved, it couldn't ignore the testimony Oakland Post reporter Ken Epstein, who was writing an article on the killing when he looked out his office window to see his Honda CRV in flames: "I'm sorry my car was burned," Epstein admitted, "but the issue is very upsetting."
The crisp wintry air swirled and the lights twinkled along the surface of Lake Merritt as demonstrators demolished a local McDonalds, at which point a line had clearly been crossed: a police armored personnel carrier came tearing down the street at 45 miles per hour, firing rubber bullets and sending the crowd scattering. The scene was surreal, with padded riot cops leaping off the vehicle in an effort to win an impossible footrace with younger and fitter demonstrators.
Dellums Steps In, Steps Out
From the early moments of the demonstration, the position of the mayor, Ron Dellums, was at issue. Here was a mayor with a great deal of popular respect, with longstanding civil rights credentials, but who had done little to slow the pace of police killing, among the other ongoing ills plaguing postindustrial Oakland. With tear gas swirling and the APCs circling, the mayor decided to make his appearance at around 9pm, walking the few blocks from City Hall down to 14th and Jackson to address the angry crowd himself. Several times he attempted to scurry away under hard questions that he could not answer, with the standard responses: we should all take it down a notch; there will be an investigation.
I don't remember what it was exactly that I yelled at the mayor, but it certainly got to him. As he was leaving the crowd, he turned and walked directly up to me, putting his face a mere inches from my own.
Dellums: What I want people to do now is calm down. I've told the police to stand down, and I hope you all can do the same. Both sides need to be peaceful right now so we can find out exactly what happened.
Me: But we know what happened! We've all seen the video: A cop pulled his gun and shot an unarmed black man in the back. And you know there are reasons that certain people have guns pulled on them and others don't.
Dellums: There are two processes currently underwayŠ
Me: The process is if I shoot someone, I'm arrested. But if a cop shoots someone, he gets put on paid administrative leave until everyone forgets about it.
Dellums: I'm asking both sides to be peacefulŠ
Me: Both sides? I haven't killed anybody, this crowd hasn't killed anybody. The police have killed somebody, and you're in charge of the police! Who runs this city? When will the prisoners be released?
Dellums: SoonŠ
Dellums then returned to City Hall, surveying the damage. But as he entered, the angry crowd booed thunderously. And despite his claim that the police had been ordered to stand down, clashes broke out immediately on the same block, more fires broke out, and more teargas was deployed. The mayor's intervention could do little to calm Oakland's frazzled nerves. His claim that the people have lost faith in the police rings empty for people who never had such faith in the first place, people who have seen vicious police murder after police murder without so much as an indictment.
The demonstrators continued to express their pent-up rage, engaging in running battles until nearly 11pm, when a mass arrest seems to have quelled the resistance for the moment. All in all, official numbers show 105 arrests (including 21 juveniles), more than 80 of which occurred after Dellums claims to have told OPD to stand down. Who knows if his promise of a speedy release means anything at all. Support and solidarity demonstrations are scheduled this week for the prisoners' arraignments, and with another mass mobilization scheduled for next Wednesday, this is far from over.
Intention as Privilege
As I have said, and at the risk of controversy I will repeat: it doesn't matter if Mehserle meant to pull the trigger. He had already assumed the role of sole arbiter over the life or death of Oscar Grant. He had already decided that Grant, by virtue of his skin color and appearance, was worth less than other citizens. And rather than acquitting the officer, all of the psychological analyses and possible explanations of the shooting that have been trotted-out in the press, and all the discussion of the irrelevant elements of Grant's criminal history, have only proven this fundamental point.
If a young black or Latino male pulls a gun and someone winds up dead, intention is never the issue, and first-degree murder charges are on the agenda, as well as likely murder charges for anyone of the wrong color standing nearby. If we reverse the current situation, and the gun is in Oscar Grant's hand, then racist voices would be squealing for the death penalty regardless of intention. And yet when it's a cop pulling the trigger, all the media and public opinion resources are deployed to justify, understand, and empathize with this unconscionable act. One side is automatically condemned; the other automatically excused.
For now, the fires are out. But despite the soothing words of Barack Obama and Ron Dellums, there is no lack of fuel and no lack of spark in Oakland.
George Ciccariello-Maher is a Ph.D. candidate in political theory at UC Berkeley. He lives in Oakland, and can be reached at gjcm(at)berkeley.edu.
Oakland, California
In 1968, Amory Bradford penned a volume entitled Oakland's Not For Burning, documenting the tinderbox that the city had become, and the lamenting the inevitability with which it would explode. But the assertion contained in the book's title was hardly credible, coming as it was from a Yale-educated former Wall Street lawyer and New York Times general manager whose only business in Oakland came via the U.S. Commerce Department. Some forty years later, in the early hours of this year of ostensible hope, the reality of the persistence of racism in Oakland became devastatingly clear, sparking a powerful response the likes of which this city hasn't seen in years. But luckily, the condescending voices of moderation, like that of Bradford a generation prior, seem have little traction with those who have seen enough police murder.
A New Year's Execution
After responding to reports of "a fight" on a Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) train, BART police detained the train at the Fruitvale station, forcibly removing several young men from the train as dozens of bystanders watched. Several of the men, all young and mostly black, were lined up, seated, along the platform. Some were cuffed, Oscar Grant was not. As he was attempting to defuse the situation, BART police decided to detain him, placing him face-down on the platform, with one officer kneeling near his neck, and another straddling his legs. For some still unexplained reason, one officer, now identified as Johannes Mehserle stood up, pulled his gun, and fired a shot directly into Oscar Grant's back.
The bullet went through Grant's back, ricocheting off the platform and puncturing his lung. There are gasps from the bystanders and shock on the face of the other officers, who clearly didn't expect the shot to be fired. Grant, who was begging not to be Tasered at the time of the shot, clearly didn't expect it either. But this surprise notwithstanding, the decision was then made to cuff the young man as he lay dying. As an added precaution, BART police then sought immediately to confiscate all videophones held by the train passengers, in an effort to cover up the murder. Luckily for everyone but the BART P.D. and Mehserle, several videos managed to make it into the public domain, where they went viral and were viewed on Youtube hundreds of thousands of times in the following days. In a rare show of journalistic integrity, local Fox affiliate KTVU aired one of the videos in its entirety.
The standard protocol---deny, distort, cover-up---had clearly been disrupted, and BART spokesman Linton Johnson even went so far as to criticize the leaking of the video, arguing that rather than clarifying events, public access to the video would "taint" the investigation. BART was on a back foot, and popular anger was on the offensive.
A Corporate Police Force
BART Police are a notoriously problematic organization, existing in a gray area between public and private, funded by taxpayers but operating under a corporate structure which lacks all accountability and oversight. According to the San Francisco Bay Guardian:
The structure of the BART police force is a recipe for disaster. BART's general manager (who is not an elected official and has no expertise in law enforcement) hires the BART police chiefŠ There is no police commission, no police review board, not even a committee of the elected BART board designated to handle complaints against and issues with the BART policeŠ There is, in other words, no civilian oversight.
In 1968, Amory Bradford penned a volume entitled Oakland's Not For Burning, documenting the tinderbox that the city had become, and the lamenting the inevitability with which it would explode. But the assertion contained in the book's title was hardly credible, coming as it was from a Yale-educated former Wall Street lawyer and New York Times general manager whose only business in Oakland came via the U.S. Commerce Department. Some forty years later, in the early hours of this year of ostensible hope, the reality of the persistence of racism in Oakland became devastatingly clear, sparking a powerful response the likes of which this city hasn't seen in years. But luckily, the condescending voices of moderation, like that of Bradford a generation prior, seem have little traction with those who have seen enough police murder.
A New Year's Execution
After responding to reports of "a fight" on a Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) train, BART police detained the train at the Fruitvale station, forcibly removing several young men from the train as dozens of bystanders watched. Several of the men, all young and mostly black, were lined up, seated, along the platform. Some were cuffed, Oscar Grant was not. As he was attempting to defuse the situation, BART police decided to detain him, placing him face-down on the platform, with one officer kneeling near his neck, and another straddling his legs. For some still unexplained reason, one officer, now identified as Johannes Mehserle stood up, pulled his gun, and fired a shot directly into Oscar Grant's back.
The bullet went through Grant's back, ricocheting off the platform and puncturing his lung. There are gasps from the bystanders and shock on the face of the other officers, who clearly didn't expect the shot to be fired. Grant, who was begging not to be Tasered at the time of the shot, clearly didn't expect it either. But this surprise notwithstanding, the decision was then made to cuff the young man as he lay dying. As an added precaution, BART police then sought immediately to confiscate all videophones held by the train passengers, in an effort to cover up the murder. Luckily for everyone but the BART P.D. and Mehserle, several videos managed to make it into the public domain, where they went viral and were viewed on Youtube hundreds of thousands of times in the following days. In a rare show of journalistic integrity, local Fox affiliate KTVU aired one of the videos in its entirety.
The standard protocol---deny, distort, cover-up---had clearly been disrupted, and BART spokesman Linton Johnson even went so far as to criticize the leaking of the video, arguing that rather than clarifying events, public access to the video would "taint" the investigation. BART was on a back foot, and popular anger was on the offensive.
A Corporate Police Force
BART Police are a notoriously problematic organization, existing in a gray area between public and private, funded by taxpayers but operating under a corporate structure which lacks all accountability and oversight. According to the San Francisco Bay Guardian:
The structure of the BART police force is a recipe for disaster. BART's general manager (who is not an elected official and has no expertise in law enforcement) hires the BART police chiefŠ There is no police commission, no police review board, not even a committee of the elected BART board designated to handle complaints against and issues with the BART policeŠ There is, in other words, no civilian oversight.
And this "disaster" has been more than merely hypothetical: in 1992, a BART cop shot unarmed Jerrold Hall in the back of the head with a shotgun as he walked away, after firing a warning shot. In 2001, BART police shot a mentally ill man who was unarmed and naked. And according to Tim Redmond, writing in the same paper, "BART made a monumental effort to cover [the Hall slaying] up," and in the end, "Nothing happenedŠ BART called the shooting justified." As of yesterday, BART hadn't yet interviewed the officer, Johannes Mehserle, who insisted on invoking Fifth Amendment rights not to speak. And just when they claim to have compelled him to do so, he abruptly resigned, thereby ending any internal affairs investigation that may have taken place. There still remains, according to BART, a criminal investigation, but if the past is any indicator, this won't get far.
But let's not fool ourselves. Even publicly-run organizations like the Oakland Police Department, which has all the ties in the world to elected power, operates with an informal shoot-to-kill policy for black teenagers. This was as clear in the 2007 murder of Gary King as it is with Oscar Grant today. And since the district attorney responsible for bringing charges against the police works closely with these same police on a daily basis and in a shared enterprise of delivering convictions, we should not be surprised that not a single police murder in recent years has even seen disciplinary action. "No one we talked with," writes the Chronicle, "from the district attorney's office to lawyers who work either side of police shootings - could remember a case in the last 20 years in which an on-duty officer had been charged in a fatal shooting in Alameda County."
Does It Matter What Really Happened?
We have all seen the video, and rumors are swirling about how to interpret its contents. The officer clearly fires a fatal shot into Oscar Grant's back while the latter is face-down on the floor. A flurry of "experts" have intervened to give their analysis. While such expert testimony usually functions to justify the police, even among these experts some are shocked and disgusted by what they see. One expert, after concluding that the gun had accidentally gone off, watched video from another angle, after which he changed his conclusion: "Looking at it, I hate to say this, it looks like an execution to me."
Others are insisting that Mehserle meant to pull out his (less fatal) Taser, but this theory has since been discredited. Firstly, a Sig-Sauer handgun weighs three times what a Taser weighs, and the shape is completely distinct, and another expert noticed in the tape that the officer had previously withdrawn his Taser, located for safety reasons on the other side of his belt. In other words, he knew he was going for the gun. Hence the claim of accidental discharge, but this too raises a serious question of plausibility: when Mehserle drew his gun, Grant couldn't see it, and so there could be no claim that it was meant to threaten the victim into passivity. In the end, if Mehserle is ever forced to give a statement, he will likely turn to the tried-and-true excuse that he "suspected" Grant had a gun in his pants.
But none of this matters, all the debate of the officer's "intention" only serves to reinforce the fact that, while white cops are allowed to have intention, this is a quantity denied to their victims. This fact of racist double-standards is not lost on those who, realizing that there will be no "justice" in this case, have taken to the streets to demonstrate their rage at the unprovoked execution.
"I'm Feeling Pretty Violent Right About Now"
While friends and family were gathered for Grant's funeral, a number of organizations called a demonstration where he was killed, at Fruitvale BART station. Circulating by internet and Facebook, the call reached many thousands, and in the end some 500-600 protestors and mourners came together to make speeches and lament this murder. At a makeshift memorial behind the BART station, candles are burning, and hand-written messages appear: "Oscar, we watched you grow up from a lil' boy down the street into a man," and "O., RIP, peaceful journey, God only pick da best."
As an indication of the contrasting sentiments that divided the crowd, where someone had scribbled "Fuck the police," another had covered the expletive with another message: "Forgive." But forgiveness wasn't on the minds of many. Several of the more radical protestors climbed onto the BART turnstiles, displaying a red, black, and green flag. One shouted:
I've got the mentality of my parents who were Black Panthers, I'm tired of talking, I'm thinking like L.A. in 1992. Y'all can have your megaphone speeches, I been through that, I'm black, I don't need more speeches. Let's take a stand today, because tomorrow ain't promised!
While some on the mic attempted to soothe the crowd, insisting that burning up the city was "too easy" and "useless," the message didn't seem to resonate much with the crowd. And why should it? We were standing in the middle of "Fruitvale Village," a corporate paradise in the middle of a historically Latino district, which clearly doesn't belong to the local residents. It was clear where the momentum was going, as the biggest cheers went up for the more radical voices who seized the mic: "I'm feelin pretty violent right now," one insisted, "I'm on some Malcolm X shit: by any means necessary. If I don't see some action, I'ma cause a ruckus myself."
Oakland Burning
While some remained to hear additional speakers, including hyphy hip-hopper Mistah FAB and the recently-founded Coalition Against Police Executions (CAPE), several hundred set out on a militant and rapidly-moving march north on International Boulevard. The police response was initially hands-off, despite the tenor of the chants: "No Justice, No Peace: Fuck the Police," and "La Migra, La Policia: La Misma Porqueria." If those in the passing cars and stuck in traffic were of any indication, the local population knew exactly what was going on, why we were protesting, and were largely sympathetic.
As the march wound around Lake Merritt, it turned sharply to the left, a shortcut to BART headquarters. This seems to have thrown off the police, who were clearly unprepared for what came next. A single police car, parked sideways at 8th and Madison to prevent access to the BART headquarters, became the target of the crowd's increasing fury. Sensing the tone of the crowd, a cop reached in and grabbed her helmet before scurrying away. Within moments, the police car was destroyed and nearly flipped over, and a nearby dumpster was burning.
A few seconds later, the air was thick with teargas. Evidently, seeing their own property destroyed was too much for the police to stomach. (Note: there is no truth to the CNN report that tear gas was deployed to protect a surrounded officer). I get a noseful of teargas, and a protestor near me is shot in the stomach with a rubber bullet, and needs to be helped off, as the crowd quickly sprints north toward downtown. Passing through Chinatown, dumpsters full of fresh produce are emptied into the street to slow the march of a line of riot police. When the crowd reaches Broadway, there is momentary confusion, with some continuing straight to Old Oakland, some pushing left toward Jack London Square, and others urging a move rightward toward the city center.
The police took advantage of this momentary indecision, with a full line charge that send many of the furious demonstrators sprinting and left many arrested. When the crowd regrouped, it was promptly encircled at 14th and Broadway, and a standoff ensued. Either by design or by a predictable quirk of the police organization, nearly every riot cop in the street was white, some sneering defiantly. And if the crowd of demonstrators was largely multiethnic, it was clear by this point that the functional vanguard was composed largely of the young, black teenagers most acutely aware of their relationship to the police. There were chants of "We are all Oscar Grant!" and several protestors lay in the middle of the street with their hands behind their backs, mimicking the position in which Grant was executed.
Some small fires were set, and the police moved in again, pushing the crowd down 14th toward Lake Merritt. The spearhead of the demonstrators rushed forward to shouts of "We the police today!" smashing and torching vehicles, and while this was done out of anger it was far from irrational, as the press will certainly present it. Rather, it was the result of a very clear line of reasoning that goes something like this: we have to do something, and in the face of police impunity, this is all we can do. Nothing would be more irrational than a blind faith that the police will do the right thing, given all the historical evidence to the contrary. While the press is doing its best to find bystanders to decry the "vandalism" involved, it couldn't ignore the testimony Oakland Post reporter Ken Epstein, who was writing an article on the killing when he looked out his office window to see his Honda CRV in flames: "I'm sorry my car was burned," Epstein admitted, "but the issue is very upsetting."
The crisp wintry air swirled and the lights twinkled along the surface of Lake Merritt as demonstrators demolished a local McDonalds, at which point a line had clearly been crossed: a police armored personnel carrier came tearing down the street at 45 miles per hour, firing rubber bullets and sending the crowd scattering. The scene was surreal, with padded riot cops leaping off the vehicle in an effort to win an impossible footrace with younger and fitter demonstrators.
Dellums Steps In, Steps Out
From the early moments of the demonstration, the position of the mayor, Ron Dellums, was at issue. Here was a mayor with a great deal of popular respect, with longstanding civil rights credentials, but who had done little to slow the pace of police killing, among the other ongoing ills plaguing postindustrial Oakland. With tear gas swirling and the APCs circling, the mayor decided to make his appearance at around 9pm, walking the few blocks from City Hall down to 14th and Jackson to address the angry crowd himself. Several times he attempted to scurry away under hard questions that he could not answer, with the standard responses: we should all take it down a notch; there will be an investigation.
I don't remember what it was exactly that I yelled at the mayor, but it certainly got to him. As he was leaving the crowd, he turned and walked directly up to me, putting his face a mere inches from my own.
Dellums: What I want people to do now is calm down. I've told the police to stand down, and I hope you all can do the same. Both sides need to be peaceful right now so we can find out exactly what happened.
Me: But we know what happened! We've all seen the video: A cop pulled his gun and shot an unarmed black man in the back. And you know there are reasons that certain people have guns pulled on them and others don't.
Dellums: There are two processes currently underwayŠ
Me: The process is if I shoot someone, I'm arrested. But if a cop shoots someone, he gets put on paid administrative leave until everyone forgets about it.
Dellums: I'm asking both sides to be peacefulŠ
Me: Both sides? I haven't killed anybody, this crowd hasn't killed anybody. The police have killed somebody, and you're in charge of the police! Who runs this city? When will the prisoners be released?
Dellums: SoonŠ
Dellums then returned to City Hall, surveying the damage. But as he entered, the angry crowd booed thunderously. And despite his claim that the police had been ordered to stand down, clashes broke out immediately on the same block, more fires broke out, and more teargas was deployed. The mayor's intervention could do little to calm Oakland's frazzled nerves. His claim that the people have lost faith in the police rings empty for people who never had such faith in the first place, people who have seen vicious police murder after police murder without so much as an indictment.
The demonstrators continued to express their pent-up rage, engaging in running battles until nearly 11pm, when a mass arrest seems to have quelled the resistance for the moment. All in all, official numbers show 105 arrests (including 21 juveniles), more than 80 of which occurred after Dellums claims to have told OPD to stand down. Who knows if his promise of a speedy release means anything at all. Support and solidarity demonstrations are scheduled this week for the prisoners' arraignments, and with another mass mobilization scheduled for next Wednesday, this is far from over.
Intention as Privilege
As I have said, and at the risk of controversy I will repeat: it doesn't matter if Mehserle meant to pull the trigger. He had already assumed the role of sole arbiter over the life or death of Oscar Grant. He had already decided that Grant, by virtue of his skin color and appearance, was worth less than other citizens. And rather than acquitting the officer, all of the psychological analyses and possible explanations of the shooting that have been trotted-out in the press, and all the discussion of the irrelevant elements of Grant's criminal history, have only proven this fundamental point.
If a young black or Latino male pulls a gun and someone winds up dead, intention is never the issue, and first-degree murder charges are on the agenda, as well as likely murder charges for anyone of the wrong color standing nearby. If we reverse the current situation, and the gun is in Oscar Grant's hand, then racist voices would be squealing for the death penalty regardless of intention. And yet when it's a cop pulling the trigger, all the media and public opinion resources are deployed to justify, understand, and empathize with this unconscionable act. One side is automatically condemned; the other automatically excused.
For now, the fires are out. But despite the soothing words of Barack Obama and Ron Dellums, there is no lack of fuel and no lack of spark in Oakland.
George Ciccariello-Maher is a Ph.D. candidate in political theory at UC Berkeley. He lives in Oakland, and can be reached at gjcm(at)berkeley.edu.
After launching the BLOG Oakland Police COP WATCH yesterday I been overflooded with emails tips testimony's etc.
I Just got a video that was sent to me this morning with ABSOLUTE proof that the COP that Killed OSCAR GRANT did it premeditated and with anticipated intentions to commit FIRST DEGREE MURDER. Please download and distribute widely
http://oaklandcopwatch.blogspot.com
Copy the following to embed the movie into another web page: | download video: bart_police_shoot_oscar_grant_1_.flv (2.7 MB) |
--
After Police Relent, Bloggers Get Press Credentials
Saturday, January 10, 2009
Blolggers Get Their Press Passes
“Now bloggers will have a venue to apply to get their credentials. . . I’ve been in City Hall for almost 25 years, and I’m not going to stop now.”
cccccccccccMartínez Alequin, City Hall Gadfly
Three bloggers who had sued New York City after the Police Department denied them press credentials because they work for online or nontraditional news outlets were issued credentials on Friday after the police relented, the bloggers’ lawyer, Norman Siegel, said.
Bloggers saw their victory as a major step in gaining respect for the job they are doing of keeping the public informed. Others saw the city's turnaround as a realization of the the changing ways New Yorkers are receiving their news and interacting with local government, politics and and their community. A generation ago all news flowed thru the City's Newspapers. In the 60 and 70's TV news began to compete with the city's papers. In the last 5 years changing technology and economies have brought a new major player to the table of news provider, the Internet and bloggers.
The Internet has transformed our world as dramatically as the Gutenberg Press. But there is a big difference. When Johannes Gutenberg invented the printing press in 1439 it took generations to feel its full effect. The Internet in just a few short years has put newspapers on their own obit page and elected a president. Most Americans today receive their news over the Internet; where a guy in his manhattan apartment can compete on the internet with old line institutions of journalism. While the quality of citwide coverage of the old time newspapers have yet to appear in the blogging community, there are some very good bloggers reporting daily in serveral communities. With the dumbing down of newspapers and TV news caused by economic realities, the blogging community is the only place were quality is improving. In other words the city acknowledged the certainty that blogging will soon control news distribution.
The three bloggers — Rafael Martínez Alequin - Your Free Press, Ralph E. Smith- The Guardian Chronicle and David Wallis - featurewell.com — filed a federal lawsuit in November asserting that they were denied press credentials in 2007 “with little explanation or opportunity for appeal.” They argued that the system for issuing press credentials was “inconsistent and constitutionally flawed.” Mr. Siegel sad he was delighted with the outcome, but he vowed to continue the lawsuit, saying further reforms were needed. "This is an important first step, but only a first step," Siegel said. We still need to address the constitutional problems in the system of granting press credentials in new York City that has run amok and needs to be changed immediately, so the lawsuit continues." Siegel said he would prefer to see the city Department of Consumer Affairs handle press credentials, calling it inappropriate for a high-profile agency like the police department to have the final word on who is a journalist. *** Score One For The Bloggers ***After Police Relent, Bloggers Get Press Credentials *** Bloggers Battles NYPD And Win Sorta
Friday, January 9, 2009
Score One For The Bloggers
January 9, 2009
Maverick City Hall blogger Rafael Martinez-Alequin has won his battle to get the NYPD to give him an official press card, the DN's Frank Lombardi reports.
“It’s done,” said the gadfly journalist after receiving his press credentials Friday morning at NYPD headquarters, where he was accompanied by his lawyer (and public advocate candidate) Norman Siegel.
Similar press cards were issued to two other independent journalists who had joined Martinez-Alequin in filing a federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the city’s system of granting credentials through the NYPD.
The others are: Ralph E. Smith, reporter and publisher for GuardianChronicle.com and David Wallis, editor of Featurewell.com.
One wrinkle: The crendentials are "identification" cards, which offer less access than those issued to "working press." The latter allow the bearer to cross police lines.
Martinez-Alequin and Siegel said the three would continue their federal suit despite being granted press credentials.
"This is an important first step, but only a first step," Siegel said. We still need to address the constitutional problems in the system of granting press crednetials in new York City that has run amok and needs to be changed immediately, so the lawsuit continues."
Siegel said he would prefer to see the city Department of Consumer Affairs handle press credentials, calling it inappropriate for a high-profile agency like the police department to have the final word on who is a journalist.
The civil rights attorney hopes to determine during the discovery phase of his lawsuit whether the NYPD has been using press passes to punish reporters who have been more critical of the government by denying or revoking their credentials while going easier on those perceived as more "pro-establishment."
Martinez-Alequin has a Web site - New York City Free Press - that reprints news stories by mainstream publications and also features commentary by its writer, who, until recently, also had a part-time job with former Sen. Efrain Gonzalez Jr.
The site delights in negative coverage of Mayor Bloomberg and his administration.
Martinez-Alequin had been a fixture around City Hall under several prior mayors, and always had an NYPD press pass until 2007, when the NYPD refused to renew it on grounds that he wasn’t “a full-time employee of a news gathering organization covering spot or breaking news events on a regular basis.”
Known for shouting out barbed questions in the Blue Room, where Bloomberg much prefers reporters to raise their hands and wait for him to acknowledge them, Martinez-Alequin was banned from mayoral press conferences at City Hall after he lost his press credential.
While the mayor has since lifted that ban, he has studiously refused to accept questions from Martinez-Alequin. Recently, even Council Speaker Christine Quinn has joined in giving him the silent treatment.
This isn't the only lawsuit Siegel has brought against the city in which Martinez-Alequin is a plaintiff. He's also a party to the attorney's slush fund suit, which is still pending.
1 Comments
Thursday, January 8, 2009
Rachel Maddow On "Daily Show": "Insulted," "Embarrassed" By Bush, MSNBC Compared To Munsters
Rachel Maddow appeared on "The Daily Show" Wednesday night, where she and Jon Stewart discussed the MSNBC family, President-Elect Obama's policy knowledge, and George Bush's Blair House snub of the incoming First Family.
Stewart opened the interview by telling Maddow hers is "a lovely voice to have out there on the air," and then he compared MSNBC anchors to the Munster family.
"Ever see The Munsters?" he asked. "Here's what I think when I watch MSNBC: you're Marilyn," referring to the only normal member of a family of monsters. "But everyone else over there is **** nuts. I'm not gonna tell you who Herman Munster is, but I will tell you I believe Chris Matthews is the dragon who lives under the stairs."
"You know, I'm new there!" Maddow shot back.
Watch:
Maddow explained that she doesn't watch cable news because she doesn't have a TV — "I watch you on the online machine," she said to Stewart — but that she tries to stand out as a different voice from the "homogenized" landscape of cable news.
The two then discussed Maddow's debates with Pat Buchanan (Grandpa Munster in Stewart's analogy) and her interviews with Barack Obama, who she described as "a policy dork."
"I don't necessarily agree with him on everything on policy, but I want him to care," she said of the President-Elect, adding that Bill Clinton's policy-obsession was one of his most endearing traits as President.
"I know this is a small thing," Maddow then said, "but I'm insulted as an American, and a little bit embarrassed as an American, that a guy whose salary I pay, President Bush, has decided that the First Family can't stay in the Presidential guest house."
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
Machine membership has its privileges
"I pulled into the back parking lot of a small shopping center located at the corner of 73rd Avenue and 188th Street, and traffic was backing up trying to pull in. Just inside the entrance to the lot is a fire lane along the back entrances of the stores and people were having difficulty coming into the lot because a car was parked right there, blocking one side of the entryway. Other cars were coming out of the lot onto busy 73rd Avenue, so they stop there to look for traffic, and that takes a while. There was no room to pull around this car parked in the fire lane because of the exiting cars. Consequently, traffic backed up. When my husband and I could finally get around this car, lo and behold it had a City Council plate with C.D. 23 on it!! David Weprin's car!
Behind the wheel of his car was a teenage boy, I am assuming it was Weprin's son. He could have parked the car. He could have at least moved up a bit so as not to block the parking lot entrance, but he just sat there. I observed him there for at least 10 minutes. He was right behind the Citi Bank. My husband went into Citi Bank to do some banking and he said he did not see David Weprin in there. Maybe it was his wife in the bank? Anyway, it seems that Councilman Weprin was nowhere to be seen, so it must be concluded that he lets his family members drive the car with the council plates.
When we exited the parking lot I asked my husband to pull over to a parking spot on the street so I could get a better picture of the rear of the car and the traffic back-up it was causing. As I got out to do this, 2 men came out of Citi Bank and noticing the backed up traffic and the cars honking, they yelled at the teenager in the car to move it! He moved the car and unfortunately, I lost the opportunity to take the picture from that angle.
I am sure that it is not appropriate for family of a council member to drive the car with the special council plates, and it is downright arrogant and inconsiderate to have the car idling in a fire lane, blocking traffic AND creating a dangerous situation with the cars lining up down the street trying to get into the parking lot. One would think that a council member and his family (especially one who is running for citywide office) would behave in a more considerate manner especially when it affects that council member's constituents! But alas, that is apparently not the case. Several months ago I saw a car with Councilmember Eric Gioia's council plates on it. This car was double parked in front of a row of stores, at night, right near a firehouse. Councilmember Gioia was nowhere to be seen.
Apparently many members of the New York City Council feel that the special council plate on their cars is also a special pass to park illegally, unsafely and inconsiderately!" - anonymous
Behind the wheel of his car was a teenage boy, I am assuming it was Weprin's son. He could have parked the car. He could have at least moved up a bit so as not to block the parking lot entrance, but he just sat there. I observed him there for at least 10 minutes. He was right behind the Citi Bank. My husband went into Citi Bank to do some banking and he said he did not see David Weprin in there. Maybe it was his wife in the bank? Anyway, it seems that Councilman Weprin was nowhere to be seen, so it must be concluded that he lets his family members drive the car with the council plates.When we exited the parking lot I asked my husband to pull over to a parking spot on the street so I could get a better picture of the rear of the car and the traffic back-up it was causing. As I got out to do this, 2 men came out of Citi Bank and noticing the backed up traffic and the cars honking, they yelled at the teenager in the car to move it! He moved the car and unfortunately, I lost the opportunity to take the picture from that angle.
I am sure that it is not appropriate for family of a council member to drive the car with the special council plates, and it is downright arrogant and inconsiderate to have the car idling in a fire lane, blocking traffic AND creating a dangerous situation with the cars lining up down the street trying to get into the parking lot. One would think that a council member and his family (especially one who is running for citywide office) would behave in a more considerate manner especially when it affects that council member's constituents! But alas, that is apparently not the case. Several months ago I saw a car with Councilmember Eric Gioia's council plates on it. This car was double parked in front of a row of stores, at night, right near a firehouse. Councilmember Gioia was nowhere to be seen.
Apparently many members of the New York City Council feel that the special council plate on their cars is also a special pass to park illegally, unsafely and inconsiderately!" - anonymous
Sunday, January 4, 2009
What If the Media Had Blackout Watergatge?
by Gary Tilzer
Member Item Slush Fund
Cover Up
The media the prosecutors and even challengers to the 29 incumbents who voted in favor of extending term limits have have been strangely silent for months about the Council's criminal member item slush fund scandal - the earmarking millions of dollars to fictitious organizations in the council's discretionary budget.
by Gary Tilzer
Member Item Slush Fund
Cover Up
The media the prosecutors and even challengers to the 29 incumbents who voted in favor of extending term limits have have been strangely silent for months about the Council's criminal member item slush fund scandal - the earmarking millions of dollars to fictitious organizations in the council's discretionary budget.
Media Switch On then Off - Slush Fund Story
From a period of two weeks before the indictments of two city council aids to about a month after the arrests the newspapers hammered away almost every day at the slush fund scandal. From the beginning of April to the the end of May over 100 story and several editorials were published about the scandal and the need for reform, including over two dozen investigative reports that exposed how councilmembers used member items for family, friends and reelection efforts. Since the end of May less than a handful of stories have been written about the slush funds, none during and since the debate and vote extending the council's term limits. It is unexplainable why challengers who use the Internet and Facebook for requests for funding, have not tried to use the online community against the media blackout to organize against the council's term limits vote.
Slush Fund Coverage Day by Day, April - May
Pork handouts offered to pressure council members to OK congestion plan, April 2, 2008 *** City Council investigated for slush fund, April 3, 2008 *** City Council Speaker's "Slush Fund" Investigated, April 3, 2008 *** Slush Fund Scandal May Drag Quinn To Court *** City Council invented phony charities to hide more than $17M, aides say, April 3 *** Christine Quinn Joins the Scandal Bandwagon, April 3, 2008 *** The perils of Christine, April 4, 2008 *** NYC City Council Hiding Taxpayer Money, Created a Slush Fund, April 4, 2008 *** NYC pol caught in slush fund probe - April 5, 2008 *** City Comptroller To Audit Council Over Slush Fund - April 9, 2008 *** Discretionary funds in City Council must now be OK'd, April 11, 2008 Speaker Quinn Decides to Talk to a Lawyer, April 12, 2008 *** *** Slush Probers Eye Fraud Rap for Quinn, April 13, 2008 *** Unanswered Questions: City Council's Phantom Funds - April 14, 2008 *** 2 NYC Council workers indicted in slush fund probe -April 16, 2008 *** What Roll Did Chuck Meara Have In Creating The City Council Speaker's Slush Fund, April 16, 2008 *** Council member in funding flap, April, 17, 2008 *** SLUSH-FUND SHENANIGANS - April 17, 2008 *** Lobbyists’ Role in Council Slush Fund Scandal Probed - April 17, 2008 *** AIDS Groups Have Doubts On Quinn Reforms, April 17, 2008 *** Indictments fall as Quinn eyes reforms in slush fund scandal - April 18, 2008 *** NYC pol caught in slush fund probe, April 18, 2008 *** Quinn Offers Apologies to Council, April 18, 2008 *** City Council scandal has nonprofits nervous, hampers budget talks, April 19, 2008 *** CITY HAUL POLS WANT YOU TO PAY LAW BILLS, April 19, 2008 *** DA weighs charges in City Council slush fund scandal - April 21, 2008 *** Quinn would flush ‘slush fund’ in a budget overhaul proposal - April 22, 2008 *** Daily News Editorial: All in the family - April 22, 2008 *** Brooklyn Pol Put $187G of Your Dough into Wife's Nonprofit, April 22, 2008 *** City Freezes Bronx Councilman’s Million-Dollar Non-Profit Play, April 24, 2008 *** The City Council Operates Under "Afikomen Rules", April 25, 2008 *** Councilman sent $406G to nonprofit with sister on board, April 25, 2008 *** Baez Tied to Council Slush Fund Scandal - April 30, 2008 *** Daily News Editorial: All in the family - April 22, 2008 *** Feds Probing Larry Seabrook Non-Profits in Council Slush Fund Inquiry - April 30, 2008 *** Slush pols look after their own, -April 30, 2008
Bloomberg downplays slush fund scandal, May 2, 2008 *** Papers Filed for Judicial Hearing on City Council Spending, May 3, 2008 *** More slush fund shadiness exposed, May 5, 2008 *** Gifford Miller: Slush-Fund Refugee, May 6, 2008 *** WHILE THE COUNCIL ROILS IN SCANDAL, THE FORMER SPEAKER STAYS MUM, HANGS WITH DEVELOPER CHUM - May 7, 2008 *** Brooklyn councilwoman Darlene Mealy's 25G for nonprofit run by sister tabled, May 11, 2008 *** Once Again, Quinn Tries to End the Funding Furor, May 12, 2008 ***Quinn: SLUSH FUND HELPED ME, May 12, 2008 *** Slush Probe rs Eye Fraud Rap for Quinn, May 13, 2008 *** More City Hall Slush, This Time From Mayor Bloomberg - May 14, 2008 *** Council slush fund quid quo pro, - May 15, 2008 *** Slush Fund Follies in New York - May 15, 2008 *** Vallone, Sr. subpoenaed in slush probe, May 19, 2008 *** Council slush funds date back to 1998 - June 1, 2008 *** Kendall Stewart - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, June 11, 2008 *** Lobbyists' Role in Council Slush Fund Scandal Probed, June 20, 2008 *** Role of Lobbyists Examined in Council Slush Fund Scandal - June 20, 2008 *** Baez Silent Amid Sea of Controversy, July 10, 2008
When asked if the mayor's recent addition of Spanish was merely pandering, Ferrer said. "Of course it is ....
Mayor Bloomberg starts speaking Spanish at pressers
Sunday, January 4th 2009, 4:00 AM
Schwartz for News
Mayor Michael Bloomberg has started using Spanish during press conferences as a way to reach out to the Spanish speaking community.
Mayor Bloomberg - who has his eye on a third term at City Hall - has introduced a new twist to his standard news conference: Translation or, rather, traducción.
"Before we go to questions, I would like to summarize today's announcements for some of our Spanish speakers," he says at the end of most public events.
He then launches into two sentences of Spanish that - though heavily accented and somewhat mispronounced - are sure to land him on Spanish-language TV and radio.
"It's extremely smart," said Fernando Mateo, president of Hispanics Across America who advised Bloomberg on Latino outreach in his 2005 campaign.
"To hear it through a translator is not as good," he said. "It's someone else interpreting what you're saying."
Latinos are a sizable and rapidly growing segment of city voters - as much as 20% by some estimates - and with no Latinos in the race at the moment, every viable mayoral candidate is brushing up on his pretérito verbs.
City Controller William Thompson has been taking Spanish lessons - and pays his tutor out of campaign funds.
U.S. Rep. Anthony Weiner routinely brings prepared Spanish remarks to press conferences to read for the Spanish-language outlets.
"Anthony has taken Spanish lessons in the past and practices his Spanish whenever he can," spokesman John Collins said.
Bloomberg has famously taken Spanish lessons for years - as often as every day - and uses it at public events, including Spanish-language press conferences on a visit to Mexico in 2007.
He added Spanish to his almost-daily public events about two weeks ago.
"It's a smart idea," said Endy Rodriguez, a senior assignment editor at Noticiero 47, a Spanish language news program on Telemundo.
The station recently ran a live feed of the mayor speaking Spanish at a time when the cameras would otherwise have turned away.
The mayor's pronunciation might trigger laughter among native speakers, Rodriguez said, but "as a Spanish-speaking person, you would understand."
Getting on major Spanish networks could be good for politics. More New York adults watched the 6 p.m. weekday newscasts on the two major Spanish channels in November than were watching on CBS or NBC, according to Univision.
Simply speaking Spanish, though, isn't enough.
"At the end of the day, what's going to mean something to Latinos is policy," said Bloomberg's 2005 Democratic rival, Fernando Ferrer, who says he was the first mayoral candidate to hold bilingual press conferences.
When asked if the mayor's recent addition of Spanish was merely pandering, Ferrer said. "Of course it is .... Would it have anything to do with the fact that we're a few days from 2009, which is an election year? You think? That is certainly propitious."
Bloomberg spokesman Stu Loeser did not respond to requests for comment on why the mayor is using more Spanish.
Mayor's reelection effort will be lacking Kevin Sheeke
Sunday, January 4th 2009, 4:00 AM
Hermann for News
Deputy Mayor for Government Affairs Kevin Sheekey
Kevin Sheekey must have something up his sleeve.
The deputy mayor for government affairs says he plans to sit out this year's reelection campaign for his boss and patron, Mayor Bloomberg.
"I expect to be at City Hall through the end of this year," Sheekey said. "I think I better serve the mayor's interest at City Hall."
It's a surprising statement from the guy who ran Bloomberg's 2005 campaign, and who roamed the country for more than a year laying the groundwork for his abortive presidential run.
When that didn't work, Sheekey stoked the speculation that a lame-duck mayor could be a vice-presidential contender for either party. And when all else failed, Sheekey ran the effort to allow Bloomberg to run for a third term as mayor.
Now that Bloomberg '09 is humming in its Third Ave. office, though, Bradley Tusk is the campaign manager and Howard Wolfson is the communications maven - and Sheekey says he'll stick around City Hall doing his day job, pushing bills through the Council and Albany.
Running a campaign is a big job. But nobody really thinks Sheekey just wants to spend more time with his family.
"Am I a little surprised by Kevin not leaving? Yes," said one of his former colleagues, who like the others expects Sheekey will still have a quiet voice in the campaign.
If Sheekey is for real, he's not just turning down the hottest game in town - he's turning his back on half a million bucks. He was paid $700,000 to run the 2005 campaign, but his city salary is just under $200,000.
"He probably sees some payday in his staying around," said another former co-worker.
Yet the campaign Sheekey has been pushing hardest lately involves Caroline Kennedy. She may be a political novice, but he is putting his strategy to work for her - rounding up key figures in unions, the business world and politics to support her early, trying to make her look like the winner when the game has barely started.
Sheekey grew up in Washington. He still feels at home in Washington. If his campaign works, he will create the most dazzling new senator in Washington - and create plenty of new opportunities for himself.
But it would be hard to take advantage of them if he were locked into a job as Bloomberg's campaign manager from now until November. A deputy mayor, though, can have something else up his sleeve.
Saturday, January 3, 2009
New York's Sinking Vote
1. 337,110 more New Yorkers voted in 2004 than 2008.
2. New York Ranked 42 of 50 in Voting Age Turnout 50.7% 2008.
3. In 1944 NY had 6,291,885 votes for president and 47 Electoral votes.
4. In 1944 Florida had 482,592 votes for president and 8 Electoral votes.
5. In 2008 Florida had 1,204,479 more votes for president than NY.
6. In 1944 New York had 3,423,467 more votes than California.
7. In 2008 California had 6,291,885 more votes than NY.
8. In 1944 New York cast 13.1% of the Nation's vote.
9. In 2008 New York cast 5.5% of the Nation's vote.
Presidential Results 1944 to 2008
1944 Electoral delegates 47 - Roosevelt 52.31% Dewey 47.30%
1948 Electoral delegates 47 - Truman 45.01% Dewey 45.99%
1952 Electoral delegates 45 - Stevenson 43.55% Eisenhower 55.45%
1956 Electoral delegates 45 - Stevenson 38.78% Eisenhower 61.19%
1960 Electoral delegates 45 - Kennedy 52.53% Nixon 47.27%
1964 Electoral delegates 43 - Johnson 68.56% Goldwater 31.31%
1968 Electoral delegates 43 - Humphrey 49.76% Nixon 44.30% Wallace 5.29%
1972 Electoral delegates 41 - McGovern 41.21% Nixon 58.54%
1976 Electoral delegates 41 - Carter 51.95% Ford 47.52%
1980 Electoral delegates 41 - Carter 43.99% Reagan 46.66% Anderson 7.54%
1984 Electoral delegates 36 - Mondale 45.83% Reagan 53.84%
1988 Electoral delegates 36 - Dukakis 51.62% Bush 47.52% Paul 0.19%
1992 Electoral delegates 33 - Clinton 49.73% Bush 33.88% Perot 15.76%
1996 Electoral delegates 33 - Clinton 59.47% Dole 30.61% Perot 7.97%
2000 Electoral delegates 33 -Gore 60.21% Bush 35.23% Nader 3.58%
2004 Electoral delegates 31 - Kerry 58.37% Bush 40.08%
2008 Electoral delegate 31 - Obama 62% McCain 37%
1. 337,110 more New Yorkers voted in 2004 than 2008.
2. New York Ranked 42 of 50 in Voting Age Turnout 50.7% 2008.
3. In 1944 NY had 6,291,885 votes for president and 47 Electoral votes.
4. In 1944 Florida had 482,592 votes for president and 8 Electoral votes.
5. In 2008 Florida had 1,204,479 more votes for president than NY.
6. In 1944 New York had 3,423,467 more votes than California.
7. In 2008 California had 6,291,885 more votes than NY.
8. In 1944 New York cast 13.1% of the Nation's vote.
9. In 2008 New York cast 5.5% of the Nation's vote.
Presidential Results 1944 to 2008
1944 Electoral delegates 47 - Roosevelt 52.31% Dewey 47.30%
1948 Electoral delegates 47 - Truman 45.01% Dewey 45.99%
1952 Electoral delegates 45 - Stevenson 43.55% Eisenhower 55.45%
1956 Electoral delegates 45 - Stevenson 38.78% Eisenhower 61.19%
1960 Electoral delegates 45 - Kennedy 52.53% Nixon 47.27%
1964 Electoral delegates 43 - Johnson 68.56% Goldwater 31.31%
1968 Electoral delegates 43 - Humphrey 49.76% Nixon 44.30% Wallace 5.29%
1972 Electoral delegates 41 - McGovern 41.21% Nixon 58.54%
1976 Electoral delegates 41 - Carter 51.95% Ford 47.52%
1980 Electoral delegates 41 - Carter 43.99% Reagan 46.66% Anderson 7.54%
1984 Electoral delegates 36 - Mondale 45.83% Reagan 53.84%
1988 Electoral delegates 36 - Dukakis 51.62% Bush 47.52% Paul 0.19%
1992 Electoral delegates 33 - Clinton 49.73% Bush 33.88% Perot 15.76%
1996 Electoral delegates 33 - Clinton 59.47% Dole 30.61% Perot 7.97%
2000 Electoral delegates 33 -Gore 60.21% Bush 35.23% Nader 3.58%
2004 Electoral delegates 31 - Kerry 58.37% Bush 40.08%
2008 Electoral delegate 31 - Obama 62% McCain 37%
Girfriend backs former City Councilman Hiram Monserrate's story: I just fell down
Friday, January 2nd 2009, 11:13 PM
It was all a big misunderstanding, the girlfriend of former City Councilman Hiram Monserrate said in a new interview, backing his claim that he didn't mean to slash her in the face with a broken glass.
"He stumbled over something in the room. I was startled, and we stumbled into each other. I felt the water on my body and saw the blood on my face," Karla Giraldo said in an interview with the Spanish-language weekly where she writes a column.
"He said, 'Baby, you're cut, let's go to the hospital.' When he said that to me, I got more nervous knowing that my face was cut."
Monserrate, a 41-year-old ex-cop, was arrested Dec. 19 and charged with felony assault after he took Giraldo to a Long Island emergency room to get 20 stitches around her eye.
He resigned from the City Council on New Year's Eve and has taken the oath of office for his new job as a state senator. The Council referred him to its Ethics Committee, but Senate Democrats have not taken any action.
Sources told the Daily News that Monserrate became enraged when he found another man's card in Giraldo's purse after the Queens Democrats' Christmas party.
In the interview with her cousin Jasmina Abril de Rojas, who publishes the Resumen newspaper, Giraldo confirmed that Monserrate found a police officer's card and threw it away - but said it didn't spark a fight.
"I told him that it was from a police officer friend of mine," Giraldo said. "He responded that I didn't need to have other people's cards, that in case of any emergencies that he was here to help me. He then threw the card in the garbage."
She said she asked to go to Long Island Jewish Medical Center on the Nassau County line because it has a plastic surgeon, instead of to the city-run Elmhurst Hospital Center a few blocks from Monserrate's apartment.
"We got to the emergency room. The police then got there and took my boyfriend away under arrest," Giraldo said. "When I saw this, I insisted various times that he should not be arrested. Up until that moment, I did not understand why they arrested him."
Prosecutors have pressed forward with the case, even though Giraldo has been largely uncooperative.
Monserrate is due back in court on Tuesday.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Jones Bronx
January 9, 2009
12:43 PM
Way to go Martinez!, I've read your blogs and they're very insightful. fight for your rights Rafael John Zenger Martinez!