1848+: Last and First Men

Don’t Let Occupy Be Occupied: 6 Ways to Fight the Creep to Institutionalize
Crucial movements of the past with clear and radical demands suffered a diminished voice when traditional organizational standards took hold. Hopefully not Occupy.
It’s worth a long night’s conversation over your beverage of choice to explore the history of how becoming institutionalized affected the course of the civil rights and women’s movements, among others. Was the radical spirit of each distracted or stifled? Each of those movements came out of the gate with a powerful set of demands. Yet, once organizational dynamics took hold and divisions were confirmed by structure (think SCLC vis-à-vis SNCC, or NOW vis-à-vis NARAL) the chance of maintaining one strong voice committed to radical change diminished.

Radicals became captive to a mindset dominated by the imperatives of competitive fundraising and institutions, rather than movement building. There were paydays to be met, auditors to be satisfied, board members and donors to be placated. To be clear, there is a stage when that evolution is inevitable in order to make the shift from fostering outrage to changing policy. At their best, strong, transparent and accountable formal organizations are essential building blocks for social change. But is this the appropriate role for Occupy? My eloquent colleague Alexa Bradley wrote:

The beauty of Occupy is that it is popular, wild, free. I don’t mean that in a romantic sense, although there is that appeal too and it is part of its magnetism in an all-too-cynical time. I mean it in a political and social sense — it exists outside the non-profit framework that is all too captive to a set of assumptions, norms, limits and needs. The resonance globally of Occupy is its clear roots in popular sentiment and movement, not a professionalized advocacy staff or agenda. Its power rests in the fact that it is un-circumscribed and therefore perhaps infinite in its circumference. We are all part of its we if we agree.

Paolo Freire said that all strategies are either domesticating or liberating. I see the institutionalization of Occupy as likely to be domesticating. It will become a creature of foundation funding and of the need to become “legitimate” in the eyes of other NGOs and political players. It will also lose contact with its base, people who do not want to come in from the cold, because they believe this is a position of power and integrity. Without them and the “we don’t play by your rules” attitude, what power can OWS actually muster, whether moral, popular or otherwise?

Assuming that we don’t want to see any diminution of the spirit of Occupy, here are six thoughts about what could neutralize the impact of Occupy; consider them for that long comradely conversation about the tensions between movement- and institution-building.

1. Don’t put the IRS in charge.

…

I have always enjoyed the stories about speculative insanity in
Mackay’s Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds. I
was surprised to read the New York Times reporting that nothing has
changed in the last century and a half. First, here is a famous
snippet from the book:

Mackay, Charles. 1852. Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness
of Crowds (NY: Noonday, 1932).

55: One projector set up a company to profit from a wheel for
perpetual motion. Another projector proposed “A company for carrying
on an undertaking of great advantage, but nobody to know what it is.”
“Next morning, at nine o’clock, this great man opened an office in
Cornhill. Crowds of people beset his door, and when be shut up at
three o’clock, he found that no less than one thousand shares had been
subscribed for, and the deposits paid. He was thus, in five hours,
the winner of 2000 pounds. He set off the same evening for the
Continent. He was never heard of again.”

Bilton, Nick. 2012. “Disruptions: Tech Valuations Defy the Restraints
of Reality.” New York Times (23 January): p. B 4.

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/22/disruptions-the-sloshing-sound-of-tech-valuations/

“Some investors no longer even need to hear about a company to hand
out money. Jakob Lodwick, an entrepreneur and co-founder of Vimeo,
recently raised $2 million simply on the promise that he might have a
good idea for a company in the near future.”

–
Michael Perelman

http://www.marxmail.org/msg99474.html

An interesting piece here < http://tinyurl.com/7qs6lvt > thanks to
Moshé Machover.

Paul F

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

By: Yassine Temlali

Published Wednesday, 25 January 2012

The working class in the Arab world has accomplished a lot in the
course of one year of uprisings. Some of these accomplishments are
material, including higher wages and improvements in working
conditions. Others are political, such as the right to democratic
representation (the rise of Egyptian independent unions and changing
the leadership of the Tunisian general workers’ union, among others).

There is no doubt that these achievements are important. However,
whether dictators left or became ‘reformers’, such advances have not
yet been accompanied by changes in economic policy. This was the case
even in Egypt and Tunisia, where the revolutionary tide overthrew two
symbols of authoritarian rule and liberal looting.

In Egypt, the military council acts as though Hosni Mubarak gave up
power peacefully and voluntarily, not under popular pressure in which
labor strikes played no small part. There is hardly any difference
between the budget that the first Egyptian prime minister after the
revolution, Essam Sharaf, prepared for the council in July 2011 and
that which Mubarak’s last Prime Minister Ahmad Nadif proposed in July
2010.

Even worse, after a ‘careful reading’ by the military council of
Sharaf’s proposals — and under the pretext of ‘protecting the
revolution’ from itself — the council ordered him to reduce some
public expenditures on social programs, which he reluctantly tried to
avoid (particularly in the fields of health, housing, wages, and
unemployment benefits).

The current Prime Minister, Kamal Ganzouri, is just as bad as his
predecessor. Despite the ongoing popular protests in all their forms
(labor strikes, protests demanding the supply of gas, etc.), no
differences can be detected between the economic policy that is to be
implemented under the military’s rule and those implemented under
Mubarak’s governments.

The current government’s plan appears to continue to place the
economic burden on the poor. This will be done by increasing taxes on
the poor and borrowing massive amounts from abroad, which ordinary
people and their children will spend their lives paying back.

There is no better indication of the continuity between past and
present, and between civil tyranny and military democracy, than
reports today about ending subsidies on certain commodities, including
fuel. Also, Egypt has accepted a US$3.2 billion loan from the
International Monetary Fund. This loan, of course, comes with IMF
conditions to be allowed to oversee the government’s economic policy
(especially public expenditure on social programs).

One year since January 25, there appears to be no retreat from
Mubarak’s economic policy (its disadvantages can be summed up in
‘corruption’ and ‘illegal profits’), and from the privatization of
dozens of governmental institutions. The military council has not even
thought about requiring businessmen to contribute to resolving Egypt’s
financial crisis.

According to Ganzouri, their contribution should not exceed the
generosity of paying for the energy that their factories consume. It
does not seem that the Muslim Brotherhood, who will form the next
government, intends to change the direction of the country’s economic
policy. On the contrary, the Brotherhood have made promises — to both
the military and the US — to respect the laws of investment and
encourage investors.

Despite sweeping political change in Tunisia (including heads of the
state, parliament, government, and a large number of the old
opposition ministers), the economic scene there does not differ much
from that in Egypt. As soon as the Islamist government of Hamadi
Jebali came to office, it was quick to reassure the business sector
(both local and the European) by promising to respect the current
investment laws and to encourage investors. Thus, it took the same
course as that of Beji Caid el Sebsi’s government before it, which in
turn was a mere continuation of Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali’s approach.

President Moncef Marzouki will not stand in the way of the
government’s promises. On December 23, he called for a ‘social truce’,
by threatening action on the part of ‘law enforcement’ if strikes and
protests continue to disrupt production (this statement made in a
speech that he delivered before Tunisian employers).

The new Tunisian authorities have done nothing to suggest that they
plan to abandon the ‘Tunisian model’, which has been associated with
Ben Ali’s name. It is a model that is based on investment in the
coastal areas (near the commercial ports) at the expense of the
country’s interior. This model directs production towards exports
while assisting economic sectors that do not require a highly skilled
workforce, such as textiles and services (which explains the high rate
of unemployment among university graduates).

If it were not for the ongoing protests in the northwestern and
central provinces, we would have forgotten that the Tunisian
revolution, before turning into a gentle romantic ‘jasmine
revolution’, erupted in Sidi Bouzid as a result of Ben Ali’s ‘economic
miracles’.

Such a grim description of the current scene is not intended to blame
the working class for its inability to play a role in the political
developments unfolding in the region.

Revolution is not as simple as a genie that springs from a bottle to
fulfill all the people’s aspirations in the blink of an eye. The
intent of the above account is rather to serve as a reminder that the
Arab uprisings are still awaiting their social spring, and that
capitalist forces, which are terrified of the shift in class forces
locally and regionally, have adapted completely to the new Arab
situation. What is becoming abundantly clear in this new situation is
that religious party leaders have replaced part of the old ruling
elite.

The dominant forces in society have shown a considerable amount
flexibility. Just as they supported Mubarak’s and Ben Ali’s
governments in the past, today they support the government appointed
by the ‘spiritual guides’, including Mohammad Badie, Rachid
Ghannouchi, and others, as long as they keep the radical social and
political movements at bay.

For this reason, the coming period is extremely sensitive in countries
that experienced revolutions. Today, working class and poor people in
Tunis and Egypt find themselves for the first time confronting Muslim
Brotherhood governments, draped in the cloth of revolutionary
legitimacy. Yet, these governments are, to some extent, products of
the dominant classes and fully represent their interests.

It may be more difficult now for workers to fight for their rights
than when the ‘Muslim Brothers’ were among the opposition. However,
they will be spared the mirage of a ‘religious solution’ as they watch
the Islamists attempt to distract them with proclamations to uphold
their ‘identity’. They will in fact be trying to divert workers’
attention from the ‘public interest’ that Islamist claims to defend.
In reality, these are the ‘interests of the rich’ — those with or
without beards.

Yassine Temlali is an Algerian writer.

http://www.marxmail.org/msg99479.html

**by Baba Aye
Introduction

Few in Nigeria would have the feeling that 2012 is barely a month old. The
past few weeks have been filled with events of historic proportions. First,
in response to the unpopular 120% hike in petrol price, the people
spontaneously took to the streets across the country in stiff resistance
and with an 8-day general strike and mass protests, won a stunted victory.
After this, the fundamentalist sect known as Boko Haram, which has killed
no less than 935 persons in barely two years according to Human Rights
Watch carried out is most deadly attacks on state institutions killing over
200 persons in the northern city of Kano, as it freed 100 of its
incarcerated members.

It is pertinent in reviewing this situation which *Tell* a leading liberal
weekly in the country describes as “A Revolution Postponed”, to put in
perspective the contradictions and convergence of crisis which the Nigerian
society is now embroiled in and make projections about the turbulent road
that lies ahead.

The main focus of this review is on the anti-fuel hike struggle, which is
distinct from the Boko Haram mayhem. There are however inter-linkages which
deepen with the announcement of the sect on January 24, that it would bomb
the headquarters of the Nigeria Labour Congress because organised labour
“accepted” just a partial reduction of petrol price instead of the full
reversal demanded by Nigerians.

*continues:*

http://socialistbulletin.wordpress.com/2012/01/26/the-january-awakening-in-nigeria-by-baba-aye/

In solidarity,
Baba Aye
——————————————–
Labour House, Abuja
blog:http://solidarityandstruggle.blogspot.com
skype name: iron1lion

FT article by Occupy London:

http://www.marxmail.org/msg99483.html

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/89d242b0-4687-11e1-89a8-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1kau2fIna

If you can’t get behind the firewall, then google the article title:
How Hayek helped us to find capitalism’s flawsBest,
Jamie.

Chronicle of a Revolution-in-Progress
by AMIRA HOWEIDY
1 January : Egypt wakes to news of the attack on the Two Saints Church in Alexandria on New Year’s Eve. Twenty Copts are killed as well as the church’s Muslim police guard. More than 100 are injured. No group claims responsibility.
[Read more →]

Generals Still in Charge
Tough Days Ahead in Egypt
by CARL FINAMORE
Cairo

The most populated country in the Arab world took the day off on Wednesday, January 25.

Tahrir Square was overloaded with people stretching and squeezing into every nook and cranny on adjacent streets, storefront alcoves and building doorways. Still, thousands were simply unable to ever reach the center.

But there was something equally noteworthy on this day—the total absence of the police and army. In a country where the army has far too much control in all affairs of state, on this day they could not be found.

Nonetheless, it must be said that the army’s presence was very much felt. For example, the largest center stage in the middle of the square was controlled by their key ally, the Muslim Brotherhood (MB). Continuous “God is Great” and pro-military chants were consciously intended to counter opposition slogans of the protest movement.

Beyond the center stage, however, were dozens of political groups, student and youth organizations and independent union contingents calling for a second revolution. They completely engulfed the areas along the perimeter of Tahrir.

After a series of recent bloody attacks against young protestors, along with continued repression of worker protests, a clear statement was made on January 25 that voices of the youth and workers, in particular, would not be muted.

Nonetheless, Egypt’s generals have shown themselves far more astute in dealing with raging social unrest and complex political issues than the ousted dictator.

For example, Field Marshall Mohamed Hussein Tantawi, head of the ruling Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF), announced on January 24 that nearly 2000 political prisoners being held for military trials would be released and that the repressive 30-year Emergency Decree giving the government dictatorial powers would be lifted.

These and other calculated political gestures by SCAF undoubtedly improves their public image and impresses large sections of the population that desperately want to believe things will improve now that Mubarak is gone.

But it doesn’t fool seasoned political activists because it contrasts so sharply with the brutal military and police assaults in November and December. Those assaults left several thousand young men and women injured and around 150 killed.

Plus, there has been no real improvement in the economy. The demands of workers remain largely unaddressed except for a modest increase in the minimum wage from around $53 a month to $115 a month. Newly formed independent unions were demanding at least $200 a month.

The Egyptian working class is quite large and remains the most troublesome problem for the generals. They understand the critical role workers played in ending Mubarak’s reign by conducting the largest strike wave in Egyptian history.

“Workers were in Tahrir, but as individuals,” Marian Fadel told me, “then, on February 7, 8 and 9, they began acting like a class. Strikes occurred everywhere, leading the generals to turn on Mubarak.” Marian is an attorney with a Master Degree in human rights. She is also Egypt program officer for the U.S. AFL-CIO-supported Solidarity Center.

Since those heady days, Fadel continued, “the independent trade unions have been obstructed at every step when they try to organize. Organizers are transferred to different locations, fired and even arrested and tortured.”

In addition, she explained, “the law enacted in 1976 permitting only one union in a workplace and only one union federation in the country is still on the books. It obviously favors Mubarak’s corrupt Egyptian Trade Union Federation (ETUF), which is trying to regroup with support from the military and the Muslim Brotherhood.”

The ETUF supported Mubarak and, in fact, the former ETUF president is now in jail for helping lead the grotesque camel rider attacks against young people in Tahrir Square last year.

“The Economy is Killing People”

Nonetheless, after one year of protest and even with so many reforms left unaddressed, there is no doubt large sections of the population are feeling exhausted and want all the strife to end.

“The economy is killing people,” Fadel observed.

“Many people are tired of Tahrir, tired of the protests and tired of the battles with the military. They mistakenly believe that everything will improve and get back to normal if protestors just stop asking for so much.”

I noticed this division last year on my first trip to Cairo. Almost immediately after Mubarak was deposed, the army and large sections of the middle and upper classes were calling for a return to work. This is the drum beat continuously echoed by the media and the military with their allies in the Muslim Brotherhood.

But, slowing of the protests did not nor could not happen immediately after the battles that toppled Mubarak. There was too much enthusiasm and too many outstanding social and economic issues left unresolved. The people had tasted victory and they wanted more.

But, now, after one year of political maneuvers crafted by the military, conducting elections, establishing a parliament and promising the installation of a newly elected president on July 1, an exhausted population is confused, especially those influenced by the 70 per cent Islamist majority in parliament.

Of course, there are still dissident voices. Nadea, for example, is a 48-year old translator holding a sign in Tahrir demanding the military leave the government. She was with a group of friends who recently formed Woman for Change.

“We all fought for a civil society and what we got is a military government and an Islamist parliament. Neither of them are civil,” she told me as she threw up her hands.

Amid the absolutely critical political debate in Egypt today, there is also, according to many political activists I interviewed, some despair and demoralization. This is particularly true among the impoverished vendors in the informal sector who often earn only $2 a day and suffer dearly from the 30 per cent drop in tourism.

Walking the streets of Cairo, you see vivid examples of their wretched poverty. Children are everywhere working as vendors helping their family earn an income. Of course, this means they are not in school.

The United Nations records 40 per cent illiteracy rate and a 40 per cent poverty rate in Egypt.

It is somewhat different for the organized working class. In fact, over the last several years, even under Mubarak, the AFL-CIO recorded some 1900 mostly illegal strikes occurring from 2004 to 2008. These actions earned some important concessions from the government.

“Strikes continue today,” according to 23-year old Nadeem Mansour, executive director of the prestigious labor and human rights’ organization, the Egyptian Center for Economic and Social Rights (ECESR). “But the new independent unions put most of their energy, now, into strengthening their local chapters still in their infancy.”

Another 23-year old I met in Tahrir, Hussein, proudly announced himself a revolutionary. He offered this analysis: “The working class has a better sense of their own collective power and does not feel the same exhaustion and demoralization of their far more isolated brothers and sisters in the informal sectors of the economy.”

“And, of course, the other revolutionary factor in Egypt, is the youth, who must continually ally with the demands of the working class,” he told me.

I heard this often. According to the World Bank, there is 90 per cent unemployment among those under 30 years of age, now comprising 60 per cent of the population. Under these conditions, the youth have set an example of committed activism under the most violent of circumstances.

“I lost an eye on November 19 when I was hit by a rubber bullet,” 30-year old Malek Moustafa told me. He is media director for one of the most prominent human rights organizations in Egypt, the Hisham Mubarak Law Center.

“It was the first day of the month-long protests opposing military rule and demanding real democratic and economic reforms. Nearly 150 were killed by the military and police assault on Mohamed Mamoud street right off Tahrir and in front of the Ministry of Interior.”

“It was like bloody Beirut, total mayhem with the army and police dragging bodies into trucks probably to be dumped in the desert. And, it seemed they were firing purposely at the eyes,” a veteran AP photographer I befriended in Cairo told me in a separate interview.

“Among the several thousand wounded,” Malek said, “are another 35 who lost one eye like me, seven who lost both eyes and many others with critical and permanent injuries.”

The large, enthusiastic youth presence in Tahrir this January 25, following the bloody days of the last few months, certainly shows their passion and determination is undeterred. Of course, the revolutionary youth know the activist minority must ultimately win over the more conservative majority who yearn for stability, and for that challenge, they tell me, they are prepared.

The feeling at Tahrir was one of determination, a recognition that the struggle for revolutionary change will take longer. “We are not just fighting an individual now, we are fighting an entrenched military institution and its corrupt allies,” said Fadel. “We are ready for the difficulties ahead.”

Carl Finamore is delegate to the San Francisco Labor Council, AFL-CIO. He is in Cairo for eight days. He can be reached at local1781@yahoo.com and his writings at carlfinamore.wordpress.com

Published on Friday, January 27, 2012 by Rolling Stone
by Matt Taibbi
There is a lot to digest in a recent series of events on the Prosecuting Wall Street front – the two biggest being Barack Obama’s decision to make New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman the co-chair of a committee to investigate mortgage and securitization fraud, and the numerous rumors and leaks about an impending close to the foreclosure settlement saga.
President Barack Obama delivers his State of the Union speech. (Bill O’Leary/The Washington Post via Getty Images)
There is already a great debate afoot about the meaning of these two news stories, which surely are related in some form or another. Some observers worry that Schneiderman, who over the summer was building a rep as the Eliot Ness of the Wall Street fraud era, has sold out and is abandoning his hard-line stance on foreclosure in return for a splashy federal posting.

Others looked at his appointment in conjunction with other recent developments – like the news that Tim Geithner won’t be kept on and Obama’s comments about a millionaire’s tax – and concluded that Barack Obama had finally gotten religion and decided to go after our corruption problem in earnest.

At the very least, Obama’s recent acts were interpreted as a public move toward economic populism: if the president was looking to associate himself with that word, he did a good job, since there were literally hundreds of headlines about Obama’s “populism” the day after his State of the Union speech.

I think it’s impossible to know what any of this means yet. There is a lot to sort out and a lot that will bear watching in the near future. Just to recap, here’s what’s at stake right now:

The impending, much-discussed foreclosure settlement is the Obama administration’s great bailout initiative. If it goes through with the kind of tiny numbers being discussed ($25 billion from the banks if California is in the deal, $19 billion if California AG Kamala Harris stays out), then what we’re talking about is a bailout on par with TARP.

The potential liability each of the banks faces from foreclosure litigation is vastly greater than $25 billion, and uncertainty surrounding that litigation is holding the stock prices of all of the major companies (in particular struggling ones like Bank of America) down.

A settlement would release those firms from that potential liability and likely bring massive surges in stock-market investment. It would therefore have a profound strengthening effect on the Too-Big-To-Fail banks. If the Obama administration wanted to be 100% real on the Wall Street crime front, it would suspend this deal pending the investigation by the new mortgage committee. But if the deal does indeed go through, we’ll know that the banks still have major influence with our populist president.

Some people have been confused about Schneiderman’s new role. The new Unit on Mortgage Origination and Securitization Abuses will not be investigating the same abuses covered in the foreclosure settlement. When the public thinks about corruption in the housing markets on the part of the big banks, what it mostly thinks of is robosigning and the other mass-perjury issues, which is the stuff targeted in the foreclosure settlement.

But in fact those problems were a tawdry little sideshow to the more serious crimes of the housing crisis. Schneiderman himself outlined the difference after the announcement of the new unit’s creation:

Schneiderman said Wednesday his dual roles — raising concerns about a multi-state settlement with the major banks and investigating the mortgage problem — wouldn’t be at odds.

“These are abuses in the foreclosure process. Our working group is focusing on the conduct related to the pooling and the creation of mortgage-backed securities and issues relating to the conduct that created the crash, not the abuses that happened after the crash.”

My first thought, when I heard about this deal, was that Schneiderman was deciding to compromise on robosigning and other post-securitization abuses, in exchange for a mandate to go after the much bigger crimes, which took place in the origination/securitization stages.

The securitization offenses were massive criminal conspiracies, identically undertaken by all of the big banks, to defraud investors in mortgage-backed securities. If you’re looking for an appropriate target for a massive federal investigation, one that would get right to the heart of the corruption of the crisis era… well, they picked the right target here.

If they were to do a real clean sweep on securitization, the federal prisons would end up literally teeming with senior executives from the biggest banks. A lot of very big names would end up playing ping-pong and cards in Otisville and Englewood.

The question is, how real of an investigation will we get? The fact that Schneiderman’s co-chairs are Lanny Breuer and Robert Khuzami make me extremely skeptical. I’m actually not sure that both men, in an ideal world, wouldn’t be targets of their own committee’s investigation.

Before joining the SEC, Khuzami was senior counsel of the fixed-income desk at Deutsche Bank, which was creating exactly the sort of dicey CDOs that this investigation ought to be targeting.

Breuer, meanwhile, worked for the hotshot defense firm Covington and Burling, which among other things provided legal help that led to the creation of the electronic mortgage registry system MERS.

The MERS issues are probably more the province of the foreclosure settlement, but the banks’ joint efforts to evade the paper registry system are certainly an element of the larger effort to defraud MBS investors that will be covered by this committee. In fact, I’m not sure that mortgage securitization and the proliferation of CDOs and CDS could have taken place on anywhere near the scale that it did without MERS.

So having those two guys attached to Schneiderman’s hip makes me wonder what is going on here. Khuzami’s presence is especially odd. The theoretical reason we need a committee like this in the first place is because the federal agency that is supposed to be doing this work – the SEC – has stubbornly refused to do so.

If as SEC enforcement chief Bob Khuzami has not investigated the vast corruption involved with the creation of mortgage backed securities (it’s called “securitization” – it should be policed by the SECURITIES and exchange commission), then why would he start now? Even leaving out his potential culpability from his Deutsche days, Khuzami has been part of the problem, if anything.

I would feel better about a committee that not only didn’t have a White House flack and a failed/compromised SEC enforcement chief sitting on it, but had nobody with any ties to Wall Street at all. The argument for them would be that we need someone with expertise on the committee, but I’m not buying it. I’d rather see Schneiderman hole up in an abandoned warehouse with ten vice detectives from someplace like Detroit or Miami. And Charles Martin Smith, if they can get him.
Charles Martin Smith in ‘The Untouchables.’ (Paramount Pictures/courtesy Everett Collection)
Seriously: despite what people think, the crimes we’re dealing with are not terribly complicated, and any veteran investigator would grasp the basic concept – taking worthless crap and selling it as high-end merchandise – within ten minutes. The most important element contributing to the success of a committee like this is a locked room full of clean hands. And Breuer and Khuzami are not a good start.

But it’s too early to say what is going on. Everything that I’ve heard about Schneiderman in the last year leads me to believe that he’s the genuine article. I haven’t heard a single thing suggesting otherwise. But there are certainly a lot of curious elements here. For one thing, as Yves Smith points out, Schneiderman really isn’t getting much extra authority by taking this post. As New York AG he could already have taken this investigation anywhere he wanted:

It’s clear what the Administration is getting from getting Schneiderman aligned with them. It is much less clear why Schneiderman is signing up. He can investigate and prosecute NOW. He has subpoena powers, staff, and the Martin Act. He doesn’t need to join a Federal committee to get permission to do his job. And this is true for ALL the others agencies represented on this committee. They have investigative and enforcement powers they have chosen not to use. So we are supposed to believe that a group, ex Schneiderman, that has been remarkably complacent, will suddenly get religion on the mortgage front because they are all in a room and Schneiderman is a co-chair?

One thing we do know: Obama’s decision to tap Schneiderman publicly, and dump Geithner, and whisper about a millionaire’s tax, signals a shift in its public attitude toward the Wall Street corruption issue. The administration is clearly listening to the Occupy movement. Whether it’s now acting on their complaints, or just trying to look like it’s doing something, is another question. It’s way too early to tell. But it’s certainly very interesting.

© 2012 Rolling Stone
As Rolling Stone’s chief political reporter, Matt Taibbi’s predecessors include the likes of journalistic giants Hunter S. Thompson and P.J. O’Rourke. Taibbi’s 2004 campaign journal Spanking the Donkey cemented his status as an incisive, irreverent, zero-bullshit reporter. His books include Griftopia: A Story of Bankers, Politicians, and the Most Audacious Power Grab in American History, The Great Derangement: A Terrifying True Story of War, Politics, and Religion, Smells Like Dead Elephants: Dispatches from a Rotting Empire.

more Matt Taibbi