Home State "Natives" and American Migration

I'm from the East Coast, where curiosity about "native origin" typically involve nations rather than one of the states of the Union. However, in the American South and West, the "native" issue has a domestic focus as much as an international one. When I lived in San Francisco, I quickly grasped that "native" Californians were quite aware of their background. That sensibility, which largely ignores political ideology, was exponentially magnified by the concept of a "native" San Franciscan. It led to a definition of one's world in which exclusion was a necessary component. The perspective was similar to that I experienced in Italy, where one was socially defined in similar ways, and with linguistic dialects adding a layer of uniquely local identity.

This "native" phenomenon, and the unease about the most recent great domestic migration, extends beyond California. The LA Times recently picked up a story that originally appeared in the Las Vegas Sun about "native" Nevadans. According to the report, only 24% of Nevada residents could claim the state as its birthplace. The next two least "native" states, Florida and Arizona, could claim less than two out of every five inhabitants as born and raised within their respective boundaries. The issue seems to be a live one in Colorado as well: when my wife and I last visited there, we saw some license plates informally denoting the presumed owner's "native" status.

When I've talked with "natives" of a Western state, the conversation invariably becomes poignant. The influx of new residents, with the crowds and attendant development, modifies the character of an area. Typically, it changes from an easy rural charm to something visually homogenized. The sense is one of loss, rarely of gain. I know some LA "natives" and I enjoy learning about the drive-ins, remote escapes, and original homes now lost to the very doubtful benefits of "progress." Yet, even with the Angelenos' open conversation, I feel as if I've entered a private club for which I've been given a day pass.

I can't fully share their sentiment, even about where I reside now. In moments of doubt, I identify with New York, as I've lived much of my life in within the orbit of Manhattan. Yet, I'm not a native New Yorker. It's as if I've become fluent in a second language whose subtle nuances and behavioral expectations occasionally elude me. Despite that feeling, the New York area is my adopted home. Even though I don't fit into the "native" column on the Census Bureau findings, it's still mine. And that will more than do for now.

US Settles Another Anthrax Attack Lawsuit

The US Government, after years of legal fighting, finally agreed to settle a lawsuit by the family of the first person killed in the 2001 anthrax attacks in the United States.

According to The New York Times, the settlement requires the Feds to pay the family of tabloid photo editor Robert Stevens $2.3 million. (Another and better version of the story appears in online editions of The Washington Post.)

It has never been established why Stevens or the American Media Inc., the tabloid firm in question, were a murderer's targets. There remains considerable doubt that Bruce Ivins was the perpetrator, as the government has alleged. Meanwhile, the shadow of American Media Inc.'s publishing activities as connected to this case's fatal motive remains bafflingly unaddressed. The firm's tabloids were scourge of many high-profile celebrities, politicians, and (if you can take these stories seriously) creatures from outer space. If you've seen the National Enquirer, Star, or Men's Fitness, you've visited American Media's lurid world, one that could easily provoke one or more of its victims to seek revenge for real or imagined slights.

The government mismanaged, by accident or design, its probe into the anthrax attacks. However, the Feds had not counted on a very determined Stevens family. Their willingness to pursue justice kept the government case on its heels. Eventually, the court proceedings revealed dreadful security at the nation's top biological warfare facility. The case became a real thorn in the government's side, especially as it focused on programs national security officials understandably preferred kept in the Information Society's most remote, darkest corners.

The anthrax attacks remain a disturbing, unfinished episode from the fateful year of 2001. It is likely we will never know the story's complete truth. We are aware of a few facts. Will the real culprits ever be identified?

"Big Six" US Banks Netted Billions Via Secret Federal Reserve Loans

Maybe Not.

Have you ever wanted to get a loan at a below-market interest rate? Well, not so long ago, one highly publicized way was to get a VIP mortgage from Countrywide Financial. Dozens of Fannie Mae officials did exactly that. However, that's small potatoes compared to the secret, below-market interest rate loans the Federal Reserve dished out to major US banks.

The Fed fought Bloomberg News in court -- and fought hard -- to keep the information about these loans from public access. Thankfully, Bloomberg won and has published a story about who got what. It's a very unsavory tale, in which banking titans and the Fed lied to the public and stonewalled Congress. The usual Wall Street suspects are at the top of this corporate welfare list. The stakes were enormous, but so were the rewards: $13 billion net profit for the banks that were treated to the Fed's dole.

It's understandable that the Fed wanted to prop up these bankrupt institutions. It is unacceptable that information about the use of tax money -- generations of tax money, given the scale of the bailouts -- be kept from the American people. What are these institutions afraid of? Their high-handed approach only contributes to suspicions that both the federal bureaucracy and major financial players are profoundly corrupt.

Meanwhile, to the reporters who fought the Fed and won -- thank you.

The Movie "J.Edgar" Tackles American Political Taboos

J. Edgar Hoover (Photo from fbi.gov)

Whatever the merits of Clint Eastwood's new film J. Edgar, it does deserve attention for tackling American political taboos. His subject -- FBI director J. Edgar Hoover -- could intimidate the nation's toughest insiders. Nothing could be said about Hoover during his lifetime, except praise (often defined by the head Fed). Criticism was harshly dealt with.

Even after the FBI director passed away, few ventured into the dangerous waters of Hoover studies. The FBI had files on just about anyone who could get the public's attention. Clearly, those files included dossiers on Hollywood power brokers and high-profile actors. How that information could be used to induce silence or "cooperation" was something Hoover mastered. Even the Cold War Russians were impressed.

During the Bush-Cheney years, Americans discovered just how extensive our National Security State's "information gathering" has been. Its corrupt use gravely jeopardized all civil liberties. (To this day, the American political conservative movement, with its supposed "love" of the Constitution, has never looked itself in the mirror about its complicity with the Bush-Cheney administration's odious domestic eavesdropping and surveillance campaign and likely blackmail efforts.)

Eastwood is now old enough where a vengeful national security apparatus can't really hurt him. He's free to publicly depict J. Edgar Hoover's sexual dramas, his family life, his dishonest mythmaking, and his occasionally delusional final years. In essence, Eastwood's movie frees Hollywood from the shackles of the Hoover taboos. Whether producers now rush to make movies without the FBI's intimidating shadow modifying its scripts is not so important. In a way, J. Edgar minimizes the power of the "personal and confidential" files the FBI was fond to maintain. That is a significant achievement.

J. Edgar makes other points that won't make today's audiences so comfortable. Notably, Eastwood doesn't spare a 1930s public (and Hollywood) for embracing gangsters and thug psychology. While the point is an historical one, its echoes of our own contemporary society are pertinent. As we discovered during the Bush-Cheney years, liberty is something to be cherished and protected. That's a sentiment J. Edgar Hoover would have understood.

PS. A considerable number of former and current FBI personnel have objected to the movie's depiction of Hoover. A fair, objective article presenting this perspective appears in The Washington Post.

Thinking About Black Friday On The Saturday After

When Black Friday's horror was limited to the screen.

My wife and I went to visit friends on Thanksgiving Day. We got home sometime after midnight. Our drive back to casa nostra took us past a large shopping mall parking lot. We were startled to see the lot filled with cars. At first, we thought we were mistaken about the time, and we thought it was really six in the morning. Then we realized it was the dreaded Black Friday. It was the first time we had witnessed the infamous shopping event's Midnight Madness.

Now, I can understand why someone would wait hours for a World Series seat, or a tough ticket to a musical act. I just don't grasp why anyone has to camp out to purchase a popular gadget. The hysteria underpinning American holiday shopping has become genuinely troubling. Has one ever witnessed a time when people have gone so far off the deep end to maintain a "normal" environment?

The poster is from the 1940 film Black Friday, starring Boris Karloff and Bela Lugosi. The movie's screenwriter, Curt Siodmak, was a Polish Jew who fled Germany during the Nazi era. Before the rise of National Socialism, Siodmak invested money in the 1930 silent movie Menschen am Sonntag (People on Sunday), a pivotal documentary about four ordinary Berliners that Criterion Collection recently re-released. The movie's co-directors were brother Robert Siodmak and Edgar G. Ulmer; the scriptwriter was Billy Wilder and the photographer was Fred Zinnemann, who later directed High Noon.

Sotheby's To Auction Raymond Chandler's Personal Collection of His Own Books and Papers

Raymond Chandler

The New York Times reports that Sotheby's will host an auction of Raymond Chandler books and personal documents. Available items include important works, notably Chandler's screenplay for The Blue Dahlia, and autographed books. If I had the money, I would bid on a copy of The Big Sleep, inscribed by Chandler to himself, with the mordant comment "For me without my compliments."

The Chandler treasures come from the collection of Jean Vounder-Davis, the author's fiancee and secretary. The oddball item in the group is Chandler's copy of a work by Albert Camus, given to him by Blanche Knopf. Sotheby's estimate on this piece is between $1,000 and $1,500.

The auction is not limited to Chandler's works. There are some wonderful first editions from modern authors, and autographed letters from painters such as Claude Monet and John Constable. For more information about the December 13th auction, the Sotheby's site is the place to go.

Jack Kerouac's "Lost" First Novel Now Published

Cover of Australian Edition of Kerouac's "Lost Novel"

The Sea Is My Brother: The Lost Novel, a work by a very young Jack Kerouac, has been published by Penguin. The BBC reported in today's online editions about the book's release. Meanwhile, the book's US launch might be the quietest for a popular deceased writer that I can remember. The publicity for the novel has been -- so far -- a much bigger deal in other English-speaking countries, such as the United Kingdom and Australia.

Typically, first novels are something writers have to get through. Kerouac, whose works rely on a refreshing, insouciant spirit and uncomplicated prose, is unlikely to be an exception to the "first novel syndrome." Significantly, The Sea Is My Brother did not find a publisher during Kerouac's life. As is well known, Beat Generation writers were in the literary wilderness for years, while other "important" novelists found publishing homes. It's generally thought their finest work has already been published. Will The Sea Is My Brother: The Lost Novel be an exception, a newly found jewel in the Beats' literary crown? We'll see.

Would You Buy an Electric Car?

Tesla Roadster

Today's Washington Post included a piece discussing why consumers appear reluctant to embrace the electric car. The writer takes a stab at an answer to this conundrum. He suggests the vehicles' perceived driving range has deterred the public from purchasing electric cars. Price is also an issue, with the entry level starting around $40,000; the Feds offer a $7,500 tax credit to electric car purchasers to help manage the sticker payments. The Post piece only mentions the Chevy Volt and the Nissan Leaf as the available electric cars. The story does not mention Tesla Motors' snazzy Roadster Sport, which commands a base price of over $100,000.

I think most people don't have any idea electric cars exist. The vehicles still seem like something out of The Jetsons, and the concept of plugging a car into an electrical outlet just comes across as farfetched. Now, in the interests of reasonably full disclosure, I should say we own a hybrid vehicle. We like the idea of it, and the vehicle's performance satisfies us. (We're not very demanding in that department.) Of course, we have not experienced to date any significant problems with the vehicle. In that sense, our jury is still out.

Nonetheless, the electric car continues to fascinate me. It's not because I'm so committed to eco-friendly products; I'm attracted to the new gadget for its own sake. Also, the hybrid has helped me become accustomed to an electric motor's virtues. Down deep, though, I want an electric car because it's cool.

CalPERS and Other Large Players Settle Suit Against Countrywide and Bank of America

Angelo Mozilo

Remember Countrywide Financial? If you suffered through the prospect or reality of a foreclosed home, the words are chilling ones. Since the collapse of the corrupt housing market in 2008, Countrywide (now called Countrywide Mortgage) and its current owner, Bank of America, have tried to get out from key lawsuits against them.

They appear to have succeeded recently against a well-funded, determined adversary. The LA Times reported today that CalPERS, the Golden State's powerful pension arm, along with other large institutional investors, quietly settled their litigation against Countrywide and BofA. The confidential nature of the settlement means the public has no idea how much the defendants ponied up to satisfy CalPERS and the other litigants. BofA's 4th quarter SEC filing might offer a hint; then again, maybe not.

What is clear is that Countrywide's former chief executive and the face of the foreclosure scandal, Angelo Mozilo, walks free to this day. Meanwhile, those who are financially chained or ruined by the foreclosure disaster do not.

Meanwhile, The New York Times published an interesting look at the interplay of a federal bank regulator and IndyMac, one of the financial firms that formed the housing debacle's Ground Zero. The excellent story was co-authored by Gretchen Morgenson. She is of the few mainstream reporters willing to take on complex financial topics and the combined muscle of Major League Finance and the Feds.