Justice In America: Unfit Judges, Lying Thugs, Screamingly Racist Lawyers and Only So Many Black Pastors Please


Judge Bruce Schroeder, ostensibly presiding over the Kyle Rittenhouse trial, takes a break on the bench with a cookie catalogue. Screenshot from courtroom livestream via YouTube.

ABBY ZIMET

November 11, 2021

This week we saw two dueling shitshows of egregious ineptitude, bias, WTF havoc and (likely) injustice in the high-profile trials of fake-crying idiot goon and hapless vigilante Kyle Rittenhouse, who randomly gunned down two protesters during BLM protests in Wisconsin with an AR-15 he got 'cause it "looked cool," and three vicious, racist Georgia good ole boys who somewhat more pointedly chased and gunned down Ahmaud Arbery for jogging while black in their lily-white Jim Crow neighborhood. The trial of the baby-faced "Vile Shittenhouse" has gotten far more press coverage, likely because he's been shamefully embraced as a heroic victim by a thug-loving right-wing that raised millions for his bail, insisted he went to Kenosha to "clean up the filth left by the rioting Biden voters,” and argued he “should walk away a free and rich man after suing for malicious prosecution" - never mind the leering photos of him in bars with Proud Boys giving a White Power sign in a T-shirt that gloats, "Free As Fuck." Claiming self-defence for killing Anthony Huber and Joseph Rosenbaum and wounding Gaige Grosskreutz, little Kyle has proved a less-than-compelling witness: Blank and dumb as a rock, he's been caught in lies, scrunched up his face in some dreadful, no-tears, Brett-Kavanaugh-style crying, and offered senseless narratives - ie: He went there to offer medical aid, yet walked away when his victim called for help. Twitter: "My kid wanted to be a medic for Halloween but I couldn’t find him an AR-15 in time...I don't always kill people in self-defense, but when I do I drive to a state I don't live in with an AR-15 and wander the streets with said AR-15, because...self defense.” Trayvon should have been so lucky.

Kyle's deficits have been matched by Judge Bruce Schroeder, 75, who has run such a blatantly partisan courtroom he seems to be working for the defence. Early on, he rejected multiple requests from prosecutors to allow proof of Kyle's white-supremacism and refused to let them call his victims "victims" - "too loaded" - while letting the defence call them "rioters" and "looters," though given they're dead who knows. Notes Elie Mystal, "(Refusing) to use linguistically accurate terms for people who did not voluntarily attempt to catch a bullet with their face" while allowing defence to use prejudicial language about them "is the very definition of bias." They were no angels, Schroeder implies, and neither are the prosecutors, which must be why he's repeatedly harangued and attacked them in court. He also babbled endlessly about tech things he doesn't get, let his cellphone ring in court to the Trumpian tune of "God Bless the U.S.A.," joked about the Asian food for lunch, and blithely sat on the bench perusing a cookie catalogue during breaks. The "racist-AR-15-toting-white-boys-will-be-racist-AR-15-toting-white boys" vibe was sumptiously reflected in a loopy New York Times puff piece (WTF NYT?!) that began, "Kyle Rittenhouse, who has idolized law enforcement since he was young, arrived in Kenosha (with) one mission: to play the role of police officer and medic.' Twitter: "Charles Manson, (who) idolized The Beatles, arrived in L.A. with dreams of recording success...John Wilkes Booth, who idolized theater since he was young, arrived at the Ford Theater with one mission: to catch a show from the balcony...Adolf Hitler, who has idolized artists, arrived in Berlin with one mission - to better his country...Jeffrey Dahmer, a shy polite loner, liked to go bar hopping, where he occasionally brought home people for dinner." If Kyle gets off, many speculate, he'll turn up on Dancing With the Stars and "Let's Go Vigilantes!" t-shirts will bloom. "BREAKING:" reads a Daily Show headline. "Judge in Case Reveals He Has Adopted Kyle Rittenhouse, Declares Mistrial 'Because He's My Son.'"

In Georgia, the trial of white thugs Gregory McMichael, his son Travis McMichael, and their neighbor William “Roddie” Bryan has gotten much less attention, maybe because the random death of another black man - in this case, Ahmaud Arbery, 25, out jogging in February 2020 - isn't news at this point, despite stomach-churning video that caught the three pudgy vigilantes chasing Arbery in two pickups, blocking his path, and shooting him like a dog with a shotgun in what's been called "a lynching in the 21st century." They've also claimed "self-defence," pleading not guilty to nine charges of murder, aggravated assault and false imprisonment. Here, too, dubious moves abound. In a state where African-Americans make up a third of the population, the jury is blindingly white - 11 white jurors, one black - after defence attorneys struck all but one potential black juror in what Judge Timothy Walmsley admitted was "intentional discrimination," though he did nothing to stop it; defence attorneys were so greedy for a skewed jury one even complained they hadn't gotten enough "bubbas or Joe six-packs," uneducated white hooligans looking for racist trouble. You know, like them. On Thursday, the jury heard from homeowner Larry English, whose unfinished house Arbery had been recorded wandering around, thus settlng up a narrative he was a thief. Nope, said English: He'd called 911 once before when video showed "a colored guy" who was "plundering around," but in fact Arbery had taken nothing. The day he was shot, English said, he was probably just stopping to take a drink of water from a faucet, which as far as we know isn't punishable by death yet, even in Georgia.

Still, that afternoon defence attorneys, evidently intent on proclaiming America's justice system is still by and for white people so let's not see too much uppityness around here, said the quiet part out loud and argued against the presence of a black pastor there to comfort Arbery's family - in this case, the Rev. Al Sharpton - seeing as how bringing "these people" in to sit with the victim's family would "intimidate" and "pressure" the jury, because, scary black men, and "there's only so many pastors they can have." “We don't want any more Black pastors coming in here, or other Jesse Jacksons (who was nowhere in sight, though the Rev. William Barber had led a prayer vigil outside and "these people" do kinda all look alike) trying to influence a jury in this case," said Kevin Gough, who represents Bryan, who last year on MLK Day sent a text that read, "I bet ya'll are truly having a Monkey Parade over there." Surprisingly declining to preface his remarks with, "I'm not a racist but," Gough said he's concerned about "bringing people in who really don’t have any ties to this case other than political interests” like the bond of humanity. In the bonkers twist of the day, he incomprehensibly added, "What if a bunch of people came in here dressed like Colonel Sanders with white masks...?" at which point he was mercifully interrupted by the judge, who said he was “not going to start blanketly excluding members of the public from this courtroom,” so forget it, dude. Because Gough doing such a crass racism was too weird to spark outrage, many observers were just baffled: Did they think the presence of servants of God undermined their effort to make Arbery "look like the perpetrator that he never was?...Does Gough have a problem with all Christians, or just the black ones?...Are they worried the Black pastors will pray too hard?" Apparently, they should be: There are reports that, when the trial resumes next week, 100 Black pastors will be in attendance. Meanwhile, watching American "justice" at work, Jesus, Lady Justice and MLK wept.



ABBY ZIMET  has written CD's Further column since 2008. A longtime, award-winning journalist, she moved to the Maine woods in the early 70s, where she spent a dozen years building a house, hauling water and writing before moving to Portland. Having come of political age during the Vietnam War, she has long been involved in women's, labor, anti-war, social justice and refugee rights issues.

How Buffalo News Helped Keep a Socialist Out of City Hall

There were many actors in the political establishment that worked hard to keep Byron Brown in office, and the Buffalo News was definitely one of them.


Community organizer and self-described socialist India Walton won the Democratic primary for mayor in Buffalo but has continued to face stiff opposition from the party establishment.

 (Photo: Indiawalton.com)

ARI PAUL

November 13, 2021

 by Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR)

Incumbent Buffalo Mayor Byron Brown's seemingly quixotic write-in campaign for re-election, launched after losing the Democratic primary to democratic socialist activist India Walton, turned out to be successful. He had a lot of help in his corner, such as unions with whom he had long-standing relationships (WIVB, 9/6/21), Republicans who worried about a left-wing mayor (WGRZ, 8/19/21) and high-ranking New York state Democrats who withheld their endorsement of the nominee (City and State, 10/25/21).

Brown, crucially, also had the key support of the hometown paper, the Buffalo News.

'Driven by grievances'

In its editorial endorsement (10/23/21) of Brown in the general election, the paper propped up Brown's power of incumbency against Walton, whom the paper called "dangerously unqualified" and the "municipal version of electing Donald Trump: expecting great things from an inexperienced and unqualified leader who is sometimes driven by grievances." It added that "many of her proposals would set the city back," chastising her for going too far in demanding a reduction in the police budget. The paper argued that "although she has toned down her rhetoric since the June primary," her "approach is divisive" and she is "a political rookie."


In its endorsement, the Buffalo News (10/23/21) said of Byron Brown, "There have been missteps, as there are with any mayor"—but it didn't say what any of them were.

The endorsement cited the News's coverage (10/19/21) of an affordable plan Walton had championed as a community leader that failed to come to fruition, quoting one person who cited Walton and her partner's "inexperience with complex housing projects of this scale." This was a follow-up to another story (10/5/21) in which the News gave Brown the chance to criticize her record on affordable housing.

After having also endorsed Brown (6/12/21) in the primary, the paper (6/29/21) supported his write-in campaign. Enough city voters are "concerned about having an inexperienced and self-proclaimed democratic socialist take over the city's top job that Brown's write-in campaign has a chance to succeed," the paper editorialized; Buffalo should not "undergo such a drastic change based on such a small number of primary voters."

The Trump comparison is a standard charge corporate media throw against left candidates (FAIR.org, 1/24/20), illustrative of the content-free dismissal of progressive challengers: Anyone who deviates from establishment politics is like Trump, and thus all those connotations of intransigence, dishonesty, bullying and divisiveness stick with the candidate, even if they disagree with Trump on everything from policing to taxation to immigration.

'Intimately impolite language'

The paper's attacks on Walton weren't limited to the editorial pages. The News (7/20/21) reported that "an allegation of drug activity at a house rented by Democratic mayoral nominee India B. Walton three years ago cast new perspectives on her campaign," although the paper admitted that "nobody was charged in connection with the complaints activity," adding that the "man suspected of dealing drugs from Walton's home was Anson Whitted, who served more than 12 years in state prison for selling cocaine, assault and possession of a weapon." It said, "Walton denied Whitted ever lived at her home, but acknowledged he occasionally stayed there."


A police investigation into someone else that led to no charges was the focus of repeated Buffalo News articles about India Walton (7/19/21, 7/20/21).

In short, she had nothing to do with any criminal activity whatsoever, but the Buffalo News sullied her name with racialized language about drugs and crime with a flimsy connection. About a dozen activists protested outside the paper's headquarters for what they called biased coverage against Walton, with one activist (WGRZ, 7/21/21) saying the News "article was full of 'half-truths, misstatements and misallegations.'"

The News also played up Walton's 2014 arrest when she was working as a nurse (8/19/21)—the details of which are murky, even by the News's own accounting—insinuating that she was too questionable to be in the city's highest office. The piece said that Walton was arrested "on a charge of second-degree harassment on June 27, 2014, at work at Children's Hospital," and that "the arresting officer said a fellow nurse had complained that Walton 'has continuously threatened to do bodily harm' to her." Later on in the piece, the News says "Walton denied that she ever harmed the co-worker," noting that she was "the victim of bullying on social media by the woman who had her arrested."

What's interesting about such lengthy coverage of the incident is that it ended with Walton receiving a slap on the wrist, as WIVB (7/8/21) reported that Walton "took an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal," which is "a legal mechanism that allows charges to be dropped as long as a defendant stays out of trouble."

And while one lengthy piece (10/23/21) praised her tenacity and commitment to her ideals, it questioned whether she was ready for political life, quoting one activist, "She has an angry temper." The paper added, "Walton indeed has a history of using raw language in protests and elsewhere," using "intimately impolite language referring" to a political opponent who had "criticized her call for cutting police funding."

"Is she ready to trade the trash talk of the community activist for the more polite ways of a mayor?" the Buffalo News (10/23/21) asked of Walton. "What would India Walton say to voters who think she's already proved herself too irresponsible to be mayor?"

Another piece (10/17/21), noting that she had softened her "defund the police" rhetoric in her run for mayor, reported that she had been captured on video during a demonstration, chanting: "No justice, no peace. Fuck these racist ass police."

The newspaper's coverage of Walton's colorful language and personal issues falls into tropes about assertive Black women: They are rough, unsophisticated and bullying. Passion about injustice isn't seen as a natural or even admirable response, but rather unchecked rage that should be kept from official levers of power.

Austerity mayor

A newspaper has the responsibility to treat all candidates with scrutiny. Yet, the editorial board's endorsement of Byron Brown doesn't acknowledge that he supported former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo's pension cuts (Business Council, 2/3/12) and signed a law limiting social services (Buffalo News, 10/4/06), two examples of his role as an austerity mayor. It's likely that the News just doesn't see these issues as problems; the editorial board hailed Brown's tax cuts, for example. As Jacobin (11/1/21) noted, Brown's tax vision always favoring bigger cuts for businesses, with commercial property taxes in the city having dropped 28% by 2017. The declining revenue left the city more dependent on federal and state aid to plug constant budget shortfalls, and led to painful spending cuts. By 2020, Brown was denying city workers a 2% raise.

The cuts to Buffalo's property tax rate could be justified by shifting the tax burden to those who could pay more. But instead, Brown stealthily raised taxes on the working class through hikes on user fees, increasingly aggressive parking and traffic fines, and other aggressive claw-back measures, like late fees on overdue bills—for some, anyway. After six years, Brown's administration had simply left $22 million of housing fines uncollected for nearly 1,500 property owners who had violated building and health codes, further starving the city of funds while undermining the work of city inspectors.

This didn't have much impact on the paper's coverage this fall.

Jacobin (11/1/21) noted that "Brown has successfully turned the conversation away from his own many scandals and misdeeds in elected office to the flaws of his opponent's private life."

'A fundamentally conservative paper'

The paper is owned by Iowa-based Lee Enterprises, the fourth-largest newspaper chain in the country; Lee bought the paper from Berkshire Hathaway in 2020 for a reported $140 million (Buffalo News, 1/29/20). The company's "board is stacked with Republican donors," the Intercept (5/24/17) reported. The company has clashed with the News union, which went on a byline strike in protest of Lee Enterprises, saying "the company wants the power to lay off any guild workers for any reason," and "wants to move jobs out of Buffalo" (WIVB, 6/15/21). Historically, according to Open Secrets, the company has backed Republicans, though in 2020 it gave overwhelmingly to Democrats.

The Intercept (5/24/17) noted that in the race for Montana's House seat between Republican Greg Gianforte (famous for physically attacking a reporter) and Democrat Rob Quist, Montana's Lee papers "focused their reporting heavily on Quist's debt and financial woes." Gianforte ended up winning the election.

Buffalo native Raina Lipsitz, a Nation and New Republic contributor who has covered Buffalo politics and is writing a book about the ascendant left for Verso Books, was interviewed by FAIR about the Buffalo News:

It's a fundamentally conservative paper that sees itself as embodying an old-school, "voice from nowhere" tone, but actually engages in a lot of fear-mongering about socialism and redistributive policies in general. It is squarely on the side of local developers and corporate interests—it's both beholden and naturally sympathetic to the business community, and sees business leaders and owners as the backbone of the community. From the News' perspective, the last, best hope of moving Buffalo forward is attracting as many big, splashy development deals as possible, which will in turn, the paper thinks, bring more jobs to Buffalo.

It's the paper of record in the city of Buffalo, and many of its star political reporters are white men in their 60s and 70s. Buffalo is a Democratic town and a union town, and everyday people are often sympathetic to labor. But, as a general rule, the News doesn't approve of people who go "too far," and that includes most left-wing candidates and movements. Sure, Black lives matter—all lives matter!—but it's always wrong, in the News's eyes, to make that point too loudly or "divisively." The News employs a number of traditional Catholics, and has historically been hostile to abortion rights.

November 2021 was not a good month for Democrats (FAIR.org, 11/5/21), as the Republican victory in the Virginia governor's race indicated they were likely headed for trouble in the 2022 midterms. But it was also a disappointment for progressives and socialists, who had thought that Walton's election was all but assured. And given the fact that Rupert Murdoch's New York Post (11/3/21) welcomed Brown's victory as a "law and order" candidate, Walton's loss does feel like a win for the right. There were many actors in the political establishment that worked hard to keep Brown in office, and the Buffalo News was definitely one of them.

© 2021 Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR)


Ari Paul is a New York-based journalist who has reported for the Nation, the Guardian, the Forward, the Brooklyn Rail, Vice News, In These Times, Jacobin and many other outlets.

I'm an athlete, and I happen to wear a hijab. Get over it

Social Sharing

• Facebook

• Twitter

• Email

• Reddit

• LinkedIn

My hijab doesn't define me, but it's part of who I am and I will never give it up

Fairouz Gaballa · for CBC First Person · Posted: Nov 13, 2021 5:00 AM AT | Last Updated: November 13

Fairouz Gaballa started wearing her hijab in Grade 8, and now sees it as an integral part of her identity. (Submitted by Fairouz Gaballa)

This is a First Person column by Fairouz Gaballa, a student in Charlottetown. For more information about CBC's First Person stories, please see the FAQ.

There are moments when I'm running when I feel out of sorts and completely different from everyone around me.

I wear a hijab and you don't see many others wearing them on the track — or in other places on Prince Edward Island.

However, there are other times when I forget that I look different from everyone else because I feel so comfortable doing something that makes me feel good about myself.

There are a lot of people who genuinely believe that women are oppressed in the Islamic faith. A hijab — a head covering that many Muslim women wear — is perceived by some as symbol of oppression.

When I first began wearing my hijab in Grade 8, it was just a religious act. But a few years down the road, it became who I was — a sweet proclamation of my identity in the face of Islamophobia.

There are awesome things that come from wearing a hijab — like never having another bad hair day. But in a western society, there are a few setbacks to wearing a hijab. Aside from the prejudice and discrimination I face regularly, I realized that there aren't many athletes who are also hijabis.

A drastic change, overnight

When I started wearing my hijab, my life changed drastically.

I went from having friends to having no friends, from people thinking I was of mixed race (because of my pre-hijab appearance) to people automatically assuming I must have been a refugee from Syria who spoke no English. I had immigrated as a child from Egypt, but I grew up on P.E.I., and I speak English fluently with a Canadian accent. 

Whether anyone decides to admit it or not, there are some teachers and kids who discriminate against students who are different.

I went from being a friend to a "terrorist" or a "towel head." People avoided me. Living on P.E.I. was especially hard because the Island at the time was not as diverse as it is now. 

Fairouz Gaballa says no one remarked on her appearance until she started wearing a hijab while still in school. That's when nasty, hate-filled comments filled her ears. (Fairouz Gaballa)

Fast forward to 2021, and there are still bigots who think any individual who wears a hijab is automatically a refugee or a "terrorist" or some terrible human being.

Finding my place on the track

While wearing a hijab, I've been part of two sports. From 2016 until 2020, I was part of Charlottetown Martial Arts where I competed in many tournaments and a couple of championships. Aside from myself and my sister, there was only one other female competitor who wore a hijab, and she wasn't from P.E.I.

I joined the track team in my last year of high school in 2019, and I've been running ever since. I'm now on the women's distance team at UPEI. I'm again the only athlete on my team who wears a hijab.

I'm happy to prove bigots wrong, and I'm happy to smile at people who call me 'towel head' as I run past them

Sometimes, when I'm running, all some people do is stare, and not the "hmm … cool" kind of stare. Those stares lead to a smile, and then those people go on with their day. These stares are different: eyebrows pinch together, mouths open, heads turn and follow me as I move. There are no smiles, and it's uncomfortably awkward. 

Fairouz Gaballa, centre of front row, is a proud member of UPEI's track team. (Submitted by Fairouz Gaballa)

My varsity coach, who got me into running in the first place, creates an inclusive and tolerant team culture, and everyone is expected to work as a team. I don't think there's any space for intolerance or bigotry. 

As well, there have been some awesome teammates who genuinely go out of their way to make me feel comfortable and part of the team. And that effort definitely goes a long way.

I am happy to be an athlete who happens to wear a hijab. My hijab doesn't define me as a person, but it is part of who I am, and it's something I will never give up.

I'm happy that I know for sure at least one person who feels like they're the odd one out will see me running, and feel like they too can do something regardless of how they look.

I'm happy that regardless of how much insecure, angry individuals try to put me down, I don't stop running. I'm happy that I'm doing something I love.

I'm happy to prove bigots wrong and I'm happy to smile at people who call me "towel head" as I run past them.

Fairouz Gaballa says she will not stop running with her hijab regardless of what bigots call her. (Submitted by Fairouz Gaballa)

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Fairouz Gaballa

Contributor

Fairouz Gaballa is a third-year psychology student at the University of Prince Edward Island, where she is also an athlete on the women's cross-country team. She was born in Cairo, and immigrated to Charlottetown when she was nine years old.

Ilhan Omar Unveils Resolution to Block 'Unconscionable' Saudi Arms Sale

"We should never be selling human rights abusers weapons, but we certainly should not be doing so in the midst of a humanitarian crisis they are responsible for."

Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) speaks during a press conference in Brooklyn Center, Minnesota on April 20, 2021. (Photo: Kerem Yucel/AFP via Getty Images)

JAKE JOHNSON

COMMONDREAMS

November 12, 2021

Rep. Ilhan Omar unveiled a resolution Friday aimed at blocking a Biden administration-approved sale of $650 million worth of missiles and other military equipment to the Saudi government, which has been bombing Yemen—often with U.S. weaponry—since 2015.

"Congress has the authority to stop these sales, and we must exercise that power."

Omar (D-Minn.), a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said in a statement that "it is simply unconscionable to sell weapons to Saudi Arabia while they continue to slaughter innocent people and starve millions in Yemen, kill and torture dissidents, and support modern-day slavery."

"We should never be selling human rights abusers weapons, but we certainly should not be doing so in the midst of a humanitarian crisis they are responsible for," added Omar. "Congress has the authority to stop these sales, and we must exercise that power."

The U.S. State Department formally notified Congress of the weapons sale last week, meaning lawmakers now have less than a month to review it.

The new Saudi arms deal is the second that the administration has approved in recent weeks, leading anti-war critics to accuse President Joe Biden of reneging on his promise to end U.S. support for the regime's deadly assault on Yemen, where an estimated 11 million children are in urgent need of humanitarian assistance.

According to Omar's office, the Biden administration's latest sale would give Saudi Arabia "280 advanced medium-range air-to-air missiles, along with 596 missile launchers, support equipment, spare parts, U.S. government and contractor engineering, and technical support." The Defense Security Cooperation Agency said in a statement that the "principal contractor" will be Raytheon, a massive weapons manufacturer.

Raed Jarrar, advocacy director for Democracy for the Arab World Now—an organization founded by murdered Saudi dissident Jamal Khashoggi—warned in a statement Friday that "these air-to-air missiles could be used in offensive operations or they could be used to enforce the Saudi blockade, which humanitarian aid groups have identified as one of the reasons behind the prices of medicine being out of reach for millions of Yemenis."

"Rather than selling more weapons," Jarrar added, "the Biden administration should compel Saudi Arabia to lift the blockade and end its war on Yemen.”

Related Content

Ilhan Omar Is Working to Stop 'Unacceptable' $650 Million Weapons Sale to Saudi Arabia

HuffPost reported Friday that progressive Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) has backed Omar's resolution, but it's unclear how much more support the measure will garner in the House. The Minnesota Democrat is currently working to find "an ally in the Senate to introduce matching legislation soon," according to the outlet.

"I can't understand how we would even contemplate [the sale] before they end their involvement in the Yemen war, before they lift the blockade, and before there's some consequences for MBS," said Khanna, referring to Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, who U.S. intelligence agencies believe approved the operation that led to Khashoggi's gruesome murder in 2018.

Biden has faced backlash from human rights groups for refusing to punish the crown prince for his alleged role in the killing.

Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.

The Worst Instincts at the Very Wrong Time: Fed Chair Jerome Powell Must Go

On all of the defining issues of the moment, US Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell has shown that his instincts are out of step with what the country needs. In deciding whom to appoint to the position next, US President Joe Biden must not be swayed by clichés about bipartisanship and continuity.


Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell walks between meetings with Senators on Capitol Hill on October 06, 2021 in Washington, DC. 

(Photo: Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)

JOSEPH STIGLITZ

November 11, 2021

 by Project Syndicate

US President Joe Biden faces a critical decision: whom to appoint as chair of the Federal Reserve—arguably the most powerful position in the global economy.

The wrong choice can have grave consequences. Under Alan Greenspan and Ben Bernanke, the Fed failed to regulate the banking system adequately, setting the stage for the worst global economic downturn in 75 years. That crisis and policymakers' response to it have had far-reaching political consequences, exacerbating inequality and nurturing a lingering sense of grievance in those who lost their houses and jobs.

Powell would say that climate issues are not included in the Fed's mandate, but he would be wrong. Part of the Fed's mandate is to ensure financial stability, and there is no greater threat to that than climate change.

There are a host of clichés about why the current chair, Jerome Powell, should be reappointed. Doing so would be a demonstration of bipartisanship. It would reinforce the Fed's credibility. We need a seasoned hand to steer us through the post-pandemic recovery. And so on. I heard all the same arguments 25 years ago when I was chair of the US President's Council of Economic Advisers and Greenspan was being considered for reappointment. They were enough to convince Bill Clinton, and the country paid a high price for his decision.

Ironically, President Ronald Reagan gave short shrift to these arguments when he effectively fired Paul Volcker in 1987, denying him reappointment after he had tamed inflation. Reagan owed Volcker a great deal, but because he wanted to pursue deregulation, he opted for Greenspan, an acolyte of Ayn Rand.

Economic policymaking requires careful judgment and a recognition of trade-offs. How important is inflation versus jobs and growth? How confident can we be that markets are efficient, stable, fair, and competitive on their own? How concerned should we be about inequality? America's two main parties have always had markedly different but clearly articulated perspectives on these matters (at least until the Republicans' descent into populist madness).

To my mind, the Democrats are right to worry more about the consequences of joblessness. The 2008 crisis showed that unfettered markets are neither efficient nor stable. Moreover, we know that marginalized groups have been brought into the economy and wage disparities reduced only when labor markets are tight.

The coming years are likely to test any Fed chair. The United States is already facing tough judgment calls concerning inflation and what to do about it. Are recent price increases mostly hiccups resulting from an unprecedented economic shutdown? How should the Fed think about the African-American employment rate, which still has not recovered to its pre-pandemic levels? Would raising interest rates (and thus unemployment) be a cure worse than the disease?

Equally, while the mispricing of mortgage-backed securities was central to the 2008 meltdown, there is now evidence of an even greater and more pervasive mispricing of assets related to climate change. What should the Fed do about that?

Powell is not the man for the moment. For starters, he supported former President Donald Trump's deregulatory agenda, risking the world's financial health. And even now, he is reluctant to address climate risk, even though other central bankers around the world are declaring it the defining issue of the coming decades. Powell would say that climate issues are not included in the Fed's mandate, but he would be wrong. Part of the Fed's mandate is to ensure financial stability, and there is no greater threat to that than climate change.

The Fed is also responsible for approving mergers in the financial sector, and Powell's record suggests that he has never seen a bad one. Such laxity is the last thing the economy needs right now. A glaring lack of competition and the absence of adequate regulation are already allowing for outsize profits, diminishing the supply of finance for small businesses, and providing the dominant players greater scope for taking advantage of others.

Some commentators have given Powell credit for the Fed's response to the pandemic. But any college sophomore would have known not to tighten monetary policy and raise interest rates during a recession. Moreover, as Simon Johnson of MIT has argued, Powell does not have a deep commitment to full employment. On the contrary, as a member of the Fed Board of Governors for the past decade, Powell has a history of misjudgments in tightening monetary policy dating back to the "taper tantrum" of 2013.

Though many Fed watchers insist that inequality is not the central bank's business, the fact is that Fed policies have major distributional effects that cannot be ignored. Just as prematurely raising interest rates can choke off growth, weak enforcement of the Community Reinvestment Act allows for deeper concentrations of market power.

Finally, the recent ethics scandal involving market trades by top Fed officials has undermined confidence in the institution's leadership. Powell's seeming insensitivity to conflicts of interest has long worried me, including in the management of some of the Fed's pandemic-response programs. With four years of Trump having already weakened trust in US institutions, there is a real risk that confidence in the Fed's integrity will be undermined even further. No Fed official should need an ethics officer to decide when certain trades would appear unseemly.

The Fed is in some ways like the US Supreme Court. It's supposed to be above politics, but at least since Bush v. Gore, we've known that's not true. Trump clarified that for any doubters. The Fed, too, is supposed to be independent, but Powell and Greenspan, as they followed their party's deregulatory agenda, made clear that that also was not the case. But while the Board makes crucial decisions affecting every aspect of the economy, power historically has been concentrated in the chair—far more so than with the Supreme Court chief justice. It is the Fed chair who decides what to bring to a vote, and which issues to slow-roll or fast-track. The climate issue is just one example of where it absolutely matters who is at the head of the table.

The US needs a Fed that is genuinely committed to ensuring a stable, fair, efficient, and competitive financial sector. Anyone who thinks that we can rely on unfettered markets, or that regulation has already gone too far, is not seeing clearly. We need neither an ideologue like Greenspan nor a Wall Street-minded lawyer like Powell. Rather, we need someone who has a deep understanding of economics, and who shares Biden's values and concerns about both inflation and employment.

There are undoubtedly many figures who could meet these conditions. But Biden doesn't have to look far to find someone who has already shown her mettle. Lael Brainard is already on the Board, where she has demonstrated her competence and gained the respect of markets—without compromising her values. Biden can have his cake and eat it: a Fed chair who maintains continuity and won't roil markets, but shares his economic and social agenda.

© 2021 Project Syndicate


Joseph E. Stiglitz is University Professor at Columbia University. His most recent book is "Measuring What Counts: The Global Movement for Well-Being" (2019). Among his many other books, he is the author of "The Price of Inequality: How Today's Divided Society Endangers Our Future" (2013), "Globalization and Its Discontents" (2003), "Free Fall: America, Free Markets, and the Sinking of the World Economy" (2010), and (with co-author Linda Bilmes) "The Three Trillion Dollar War: The True Costs of the Iraq Conflict" (2008). He received the Nobel Prize in Economics in 2001 for research on the economics of information.

MONOPOLY CAPITALI$M

The Real Source of Inflation? Consolidated Corporate Power and Greed

This structural problem is amenable to only one thing: the aggressive use of antitrust law.


P&G faces very little competition. According to a report released this month from the Roosevelt Institute, "The lion's share of the market for diapers," for example, "is controlled by just two companies (P&G and Kimberly-Clark), limiting competition for cheaper options." 

(Photo Illustration by Thiago Prudencio/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images)


ROBERT REICH

November 12, 2021

 by RobertReich.org

The biggest culprit for rising prices that's not being talked about is the increasing economic concentration of the American economy in the hands of a relative few giant big corporations with the power to raise prices.

If markets were competitive, companies would seek to keep their prices down in order to maintain customer loyalty and demand. When the prices of their supplies rose, they'd cut their profits before they raised prices to their customers, for fear that otherwise a competitor would grab those customers away.

The underlying structural problem isn't that government is over-stimulating the economy. It's that big corporations are under competitive.

But strange enough, this isn't happening. In fact, even in the face of supply constraints, corporations are raking in record profits. More than 80 percent of big (S&P 500) companies that have reported results this season have topped analysts' earnings forecasts, according to Refinitiv.

Obviously, supply constraints have not eroded these profits. Corporations are simply passing the added costs on to their customers. Many are raising their prices even further, and pocketing even more.

How can this be? For a simple and obvious reason: Most don't have to worry about competitors grabbing their customers away. They have so much market power they can relax and continue to rake in big money.

The underlying structural problem isn't that government is over-stimulating the economy. It's that big corporations are under competitive.

Corporations are using the excuse of inflation to raise prices and make fatter profits. The result is a transfer of wealth from consumers to corporate executives and major investors.

This has nothing to do with inflation, folks. It has everything to do with the concentration of market power in a relatively few hands.

It's called "oligopoly," where two or three companies roughly coordinate their prices and output.

Judd Legum provides some good examples in his newsletter. He points to two firms that are giants in household staples: Procter & Gamble and Kimberly Clark. In April, Procter & Gamble announced it would start charging more for everything from diapers to toilet paper, citing "rising costs for raw materials, such as resin and pulp, and higher expenses to transport goods."

Baloney. P&G is raking in huge profits. In the quarter ending September 30, after some of its price increases went into effect, it reported a whopping 24.7% profit margin. Oh, and it spent $3 billion in the quarter buying its own stock.

How can this be? Because P&G faces very little competition. According to a report released this month from the Roosevelt Institute, "The lion's share of the market for diapers," for example, "is controlled by just two companies (P&G and Kimberly-Clark), limiting competition for cheaper options."

So it wasn't exactly a coincidence that Kimberly-Clark announced similar price increases at the same time as P&G. Both corporations are doing wonderfully well. But American consumers are paying more.

Or consider another major consumer product oligopoly: PepsiCo (the parent company of Frito-Lay, Gatorade, Quaker, Tropicana, and other brands), and Coca Cola. In April, PepsiCo announced it was increasing prices, blaming "higher costs for some ingredients, freight and labor."

Rubbish. The company recorded $3 billion in operating profits and increased its projections for the rest of the year, and expects to send $5.8 billion in dividends to shareholders in 2021.

If PepsiCo faced tough competition it could never have gotten away with this. But it doesn't. In fact, it appears to have colluded with its chief competitor, Coca-Cola—which, oddly, announced price increases at about the same time as PepsiCo, and has increased its profit margins to 28.9%.

And on it goes around the entire consumer sector of the American economy.

You can see a similar pattern in energy prices. Once it became clear that demand was growing, energy producers could have quickly ramped up production to create more supply. But they didn't.

Why not? Industry experts say oil and gas companies (and their CEOs and major investors) saw bigger money in letting prices run higher before producing more supply.

They can get away with this because big oil and gas producers don't face much competition. They're powerful oligopolies.

Again, inflation isn't driving most of these price increases. Corporate power is driving them.

Since the 1980s, when the federal government all but abandoned antitrust enforcement, two-thirds of all American industries have become more concentrated.

Monsanto now sets the prices for most of the nation's seed corn.

The government green-lighted Wall Street's consolidation into five giant banks, of which JPMorgan is the largest.

It okayed airline mergers, bringing the total number of American carriers down from twelve in 1980 to four today, which now control 80 percent of domestic seating capacity.

It let Boeing and McDonnell Douglas merge, leaving America with just one major producer of civilian aircraft, Boeing.

Three giant cable companies dominate broadband [Comcast, AT&T, Verizon].

A handful of drug companies control the pharmaceutical industry [Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Johnson & Johnson, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck].

So what's the appropriate response to the latest round of inflation? The Federal Reserve has signaled it won't raise interest rates for the time being, believing that the inflation is being driven by temporary supply bottlenecks.

Meanwhile, Biden Administration officials have been consulting with the oil industry in an effort to stem rising gas prices, trying to make it simpler to issue commercial driver's licenses (to help reduce the shortage of truck drivers), and seeking to unclog over-crowded container ports.

But none of this responds to the deeper structural issue—of which price inflation is symptom: the increasing consolidation of the economy in a relative handful of big corporations with enough power to raise prices and increase profits.

This structural problem is amenable to only one thing: the aggressive use of antitrust law.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License.


Robert Reich, is the Chancellor’s Professor of Public Policy at the University of California, Berkeley, and a senior fellow at the Blum Center for Developing Economies. He served as secretary of labor in the Clinton administration, for which Time magazine named him one of the 10 most effective cabinet secretaries of the twentieth century. His book include: "Aftershock" (2011), "The Work of Nations" (1992), "Beyond Outrage" (2012) and, "Saving Capitalism" (2016). He is also a founding editor of The American Prospect magazine, former chairman of Common Cause, a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and co-creator of the award-winning documentary, "Inequality For All." Reich's newest book is "The Common Good" (2019). He's co-creator of the Netflix original documentary "Saving Capitalism," which is streaming now.

SEE

Monthly Review | Monopoly Capitalism

Monthly Review | What Is Monopoly Capital?

Monthly Review | The Age of Monopoly-Finance Capital

Monthly Review | The New Imperialism of Globalized Monopoly-Finance Capital

#ABOLISHICE

We Need to Shut Down ICE's Mass Immigration Detention Machine

Effective oversight and transparency are not enough.

SELF REGULATION FAILS, OF COURSE

An ACLU analysis found that ICE's inspection system remains ineffective at identifying violations by detention facilities and ensuring compliance with detention standards. (Photo: Gerald Herbert/AP Images)

EUNICE CHO, PATRICK TAUREL, ADITI SHAH

November 14, 2021 by Speak Freely / ACLU

Every day, ICE locks up over 20,000 people in a sprawling nationwide network of more than 200 detention facilities. The ACLU believes that this system of mass incarceration of immigrants should be dismantled—it's unnecessary and inhumane. For as long as ICE maintains its detention network, though, it has a responsibility to create an oversight system that is actually effective at detecting, addressing, and deterring abuse of detained people. Our analysis of recent ICE inspection documents shows that ICE's inspection system remains ineffective at identifying violations by detention facilities and ensuring compliance with detention standards, allowing facilities with clear records of poor conditions, including some of the deadliest facilities, such as the Stewart Detention Facility in Georgia, to evade accountability.

Even facilities that are deficient in 30 or more components receive a rating of "meets standards."

Virtually all detention facilities are required to adhere to detention standards that establish consistent conditions of confinement and ensure minimum standards of care for people who are detained by ICE. ICE currently monitors compliance with these standards primarily through external audits performed by a private contractor called the Nakamoto Group. Nakamoto's fitness to serve as ICE's auditor has been called into question by multiple oversight bodies. In 2018, the Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General (OIG) found that Nakamoto's "inspection practices are not consistently thorough."

ICE employees in the field and managers at headquarters told OIG that Nakamoto inspectors "breeze by the [detention] standards" and do not "have enough time to see if the [facility] is actually implementing the policies." They also described Nakamoto inspections as being "very, very, very difficult to fail." One ICE official suggested these inspections are "useless." The House Homeland Security Committee issued a similarly scathing critique of Nakamoto. In September 2020, the committee's majority staff reported that Nakamoto "has demonstrated a lack of credibility and competence."

We reviewed every inspection report that Nakamoto issued in 2021 and found that little has changed. The same problems identified by OIG and the House Homeland Security Committee continue to plague Nakamoto's inspections.

First, virtually no facility fails their inspections. Even facilities that are deficient in 30 or more components receive a rating of "meets standards." Moreover, we found that inspections fail to account for clear indications of poor conditions. For example, Nakamoto's inspection of the Stewart Detention Center in Georgia found that the facility "meets standards," identified only one deficient component in the standard of "Correspondence and Other Mail," and stated that "there were no areas of concern or significant observation." Yet more detained people have died at Stewart than any other ICE facility in the last four years; since May 2017, eight people have died in custody at Stewart. Felipe Montes, a 57-year-old man from Mexico, died there only a few weeks before Nakamoto's inspection. Yet Nakamoto's inspection failed to note any concerns about the provision of medical or mental health care or COVID-19 protocols at the facility.

Second, Nakamoto continues to conduct only pre-announced inspections, often remotely or partially remotely, making a meaningful audit all but impossible. Pre-announced inspections permit facilities to temporarily cure or mask deficiencies to pass inspection. (This is on ICE though, because they are the ones that put this requirement into Nakamoto's contract.)

Third, Nakamoto's detainee interviews remain flawed, often occurring in nonconfidential settings where detainees will feel less free to speak their mind about detention conditions. We also found that detainee complaints are rarely taken seriously.

A meaningful inspection and monitoring system requires rigorous inspections of facilities and a commitment from the agency to impose sanctions.

Finally, Nakamoto inspectors appear to continue to trust, rather than verify, the representations of jailers and ICE officers. For example, at the Prairieland Detention Center in Texas, one detainee housed in the Special Management Unit (SMU), which is how ICE refers to segregation or solitary confinement, "stated he had not seen an ICE officer while housed in the SMU." Nakamoto accepted the facility's documentation that "ICE officers routinely visit the SMU," even though "[d]ocumentation that an ICE officer had visited this particular detainee was not available."

These and other examples make clear that Nakamoto's inspections lack integrity. As appropriators in Congress have indicated, it's past time for DHS to terminate its contract with Nakamoto.

ICE's detention oversight problem is ultimately bigger than Nakamoto. ICE must ensure that it holds facilities accountable for violating ICE's own standards. A meaningful inspection and monitoring system requires rigorous inspections of facilities and a commitment from the agency to impose sanctions, including contract termination, for facilities that do not pass inspection. And the public deserves transparency. We need to know which standards detention facilities are failing to comply with, and what consequences, if any, ICE imposes on them.

Effective oversight and transparency, though, are not enough. When the Immigration and Naturalization Service—ICE's precursor agency—first rolled out its detention standards, the then-head of the agency told the New York Times that the goal was to "provide safe, secure, and humane conditions of detention." That goal is based on the flawed premise that detention can be safe and humane. It cannot. ICE's record of abuse, neglect, and death proves that point. Ultimately, ICE must shut down its mass immigration detention machine.

© 2021 ACLU

Eunice Cho is Senior Staff Attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union.

Patrick Taurel is a senior staff attorney at the ACLU's National Prison Project.

Aditi Shah is the Borchard Fellow in the ACLU's National Prison Project, where she litigates cases challenging unlawful immigration detention conditions and pursues strategic litigation and advocacy to increase access to counsel at immigration detention facilities, with a focus on addressing the needs of older adults in detention. Aditi holds a B.A. in history and health: science, society, and policy from Brandeis University and a J.D. from Harvard Law School, where she was a student attorney at the Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinic and a research assistant to Professor William B. Rubenstein. Following graduation, she clerked for the Hon. Richard C. Wesley of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.