Black Emergence

Somebody has got to tip the Blacks off on how to get their shit together - as every other subculture who came to America or who lives in America has done: 1. Buy your goods & services from other Blacks. Studies show that in most subcultures (Greek, Jewish, Chinese, etc) every dollar earned is recycled within the community an average of 6 or 7 times before it is spent outside the community. Blacks recycle the dollar just once within their own community. 2. Men need to live with and raise their kids. They need to persevere as partners to the mothers of their children. Kids need 2 adults to raise them. One can do it, but two is better 3. Blacks need to rise above the victim game. As long as somebody else is responsible for your condition (ie. Whites) the best you can hope for is the booby prize: welfare. Whites will let you live & procreate in abject poverty forever. Only you can pull yourself out. Take responsibility for your condition.
The best thing the Whites can do to relieve the Blacks of their gang violence problem is to hire the gangs to police the neighborhoods. That's how we tamed the Hooligans back in the 1800's. We pinned a badge on them and gave them a salary. Offer a gang member a regular salary; a good chance to survive; and a pension plan. You'll be amazed at how fast they sign up.

My missives to letters@mercurynews.com & FCC

My missives to letters@mercurynews.com

11/28/07

Letter to the Editor,

Re: Story 11/27/07 Page 4B

How important are the “other causes that Howie Rich is involved in”? While these dots are not connected by the article about these powerful organizations with their “drown it in a bathtub” approach to government, the briefly mentioned eminent domain proposal, California’s Prop. 90, is a perfect example of this strategy to eliminate and bankrupt State and Local governments. In this disastrous proposal that would have gone down in history as the most expensive corporate welfare pork our state has ever seen, companies could sue for lost profits to whatever extent they could claim a regulation or property seizure cost them future profits. There would be an avalanche of lawsuits slowly bleeding the citizen taxpayers for firms, especially developers.

David Moglen

Economics Professor

San Jose

For this topic I sent 2 versions:

Editor:

In the first line of George Will’s “Treatise on Obama” (Dec 30, 23A) he calls Shelby Steele “America’s foremost black intellectual.” Steele, he tells us, is of the Hoover Institution, one of the many (he doesn’t tell us) right-wing think tanks who dominate every major facet of our media and our government.

I’m sure he also has in his top ten (for this honor of “foremost black intellectual”) Alan Keyes and Ward Connerly. It sounds like for George Will to call you by such a title, you must advocate stripping back measures for equality. To be the foremost black intellectual in George Will’s view, you must stab your people in the back. If you can’t find progressive blacks who will run circles around these intellectual Uncle Toms, you’re not looking hard enough. And don’t try finding them in the mainstream media (eg TV or print news). They only elevate to visibility minorities who are willing to kick the ladder out from under them.

David Moglen, Economics Professor

San Jose

Editor:

In George Will’s “Treatise on Obama” (Dec 30, 23A) he is almost able to articulate the philosophical truism Obama presents to our society. It does have to do with absolution – whites need Obama for absolution. It’s not that he opts out of the absolution transaction Steele and George Will both agree exists, the one where whites gain it for giving blacks a slice of success. This transaction has been completed countless times and whites feel either more guilty because it can’t erase the sins of slavery, and/or they feel embittered because they never wanted to ield any such affirmative action in the first place. But Obama presents a deal that will achieve absolution for whites – if he’s elected, they can say, see, we elected a black president! All those racial issues are behind us (read: end affirmative action now). And the real irony is neither of his parents descended from slaves. So now we can feel we gave back without ever allowing into the highest office someone who’s family was directly abused by slavery. So it gives us a feel-good deal, without having to face the black candidate (like Jesse Jackson) who really is owed some equity. All that said if he gets the nomination, I really hope he wins and it will be the brightest day in America if he does win.

David Moglen, Economics Professor

San Jose

Editor:

In “Art of Fib” (Dec 30, 6A) Michael Dobbs, in the media’s usual game of false balance, includes John Edwards statement that NAFTA cost millions of jobs in his list of major candidate falsehoods. He says this, like his other examples fom the other candidates, is “demonstrably false.” Then he gives absolutely zero evidence to support this. Not one word. In other words, it is, we are to believe “demonstrably false,” just on Mr. Dobbs’ say so. Have we not lost millions of manufacturing and textile jobs? Does NAFTA really have nothing to do with it? Lumping Edwards in with the liars was just a baseless opportunity to slam an honest person. He’s at least as honest as one can possibly be and still hold on as a major candidate. Without the massive runup in military and government spending over the last seven years, employment actually has contracted since 2001. Forget about adding jobs to keep pace with population growth, the private sector has shed more jobs than it added. I suppose Dobbs thinks this too is totally unrelated to NAFTA and other disastrous “free-trade” agreements.

David Moglen, Economics Professor

San Jose

My letter to the FCC in 2006:

I am a constituent. I am an Economics Professor. I influence people to vote and I vote myself. There are some public trusts that our sacred to our democracy, where it is the reponsibility of you and every uncorrupt official to DRAW A LINE.

I implore you as a citizen of this nation, this democracy, to overturn FCC's recent giveaway/travesty regarding the cross-ownership rule.

When will we ever see diverse ownership and independent voices take a place in our media when this vital unrepresented unseen majority of Americans are struggling and hav now lost thanks to the FCC their last little hred of the media pie.

Most of us cannot get any exposure, and hence MOST important ISSUES cannot get any media. This why a volume called Project Censored has to come out EVERY YEAR to just skim the surface o fthe huge, all important stories that our media will not tell us - like Hallinurton providing Iran with Nuclear material.

Let's please right this ship in the name of democracy, independent voices, in

dependent media, and the 1st Ammendment.

We do not have a 4th pillar of government because corporate journalism is coopted by the Republicans and a siamese twin with their corporate interest.

So in the words of my fellow progressives, the American majority, those who are physically sick with pundits on the media, starved to see the views of any reasonable person except for the one hour a day that Olbermann is on:

We write to you today to ask you to act swiftly to overturn the FCC's Dec. 18 vote to relax media ownership rules.

We have spoken out against media consolidation in every way we know how: attending hearings, writing letters, submitting comments. However, on Dec. 18, the FCC ignored this widespread public opposition -- just like it did in 2003. The FCC has turned its back on its mission and its mandate. Their decision to let Big Media get even bigger will erode localism, diminish minority ownership, and decrease competition.

Please take action now to overturn the FCC's reckless action.

My letter to the FCC in 2004:

I am one of the few people nationally who enjoys the right that has now a privilege: I can hear one radio station without having reality obscured into sound bites subjugated for entertainment to ultimately serve only narrow corporate profit and market share interests. Like countless like-minded people, I am now restricted to one radio station and zero TV stations (most people don’t get the Free Speech TV station). Sadly, this meager privilege is far more than even other Californians who simply live outside the range of the one remaining network that prioritizes the public. 70% of Americans get all their news from TV, so the argument that the Internet is a valid alternative to public interests in other media is multiply flawed. Internet companies can censor or promote sites in a number of ways; it is just another version of a few disproportionately powerful people controlling the masses.

Somehow the FCC or the Commerce Committee should “slip some legislation” past the lobbyists, instead of passing their legislation unbeknownst to the public and often with key clauses buried to the point of indecipherability by lawmakers. Can our regulators do nothing positive in recent years? Is it all repeal and rollback of laws to protect the public’s access to information? The 1996 rules that squelched local programming and helped deliver us to this point today must be assessed and revamped if not revoked. With their existence and the upcoming vote on further deregulation, it is nothing less than the sanctity of our democracy at stake. The wholeness of our system is predicated on an informed populace, and nearly all opinion on public matters is media-determined. The current extent of homogeneity of viewpoints due to consolidated ownership does unrelenting harm to our democratic rights to be heard.

Too many Americans now feel forced to get news from firms abroad so they do not have to be lied to. US media firms have a third goal lately, and it is quite evident: please the Administration and the Pentagon by being their megaphone, in addition to the idols of entertainment and profit. In so doing they can increase owner wealth by getting an almost tit-for-tat return: further deregulation. The result is that the media no longer exists as a “fourth pillar” checking up on the other democratic branches of government.

No TV networks broadcast the hearing on proposed rules changes that took place on the 26^th of April in San Francisco, meaning most Americans are in the dark about the further monoculturization that looms. These hearings were at first thought by the FCC to be unnecessary, and the commission saw fit to rush through this elitist deregulation with no public comment or awareness. We still don’t have the level of awareness due to the monopoly of big media in bed with military and government, but somehow social action groups were heard, in Virginia, where lobbyists are nearby. Contrast that hearing with the one in San Francisco, where countless eloquent members of society gathered for six hours. Not one favored deregulation, and not one representative of its proponents attended or said a word of logic in its support. Also, as the FCC knows well, due to affiliation agreements, networks shamelessly determine local broadcasting, including brazenly compelling entertainment to be shown over important political functions like high-level candidate debates. Many intelligent activists have technically sound alternatives devised. If the FCC and Commerce Committee could give these leaders a tiny fraction of the time allotted to corporate sponsors, true progress could be made.

In closing I respectfully voice my outrage as an American citizen at having no substantive media source that is not continually checked by narrow ideology and profiteering. There are legitimate ways to open the airwaves to the public. The FCC and all federal regulators need to wean themselves off corporate ties and rediscover the interests of the public they are meant to support. The banning of songs by Sarah Jones and Eminem in the same year shows both a disregard for the first amendment and an uneven hand, where the vile Eminem can quickly be heard due to big media approval while the moral, upright Ms. Jones faced an unjustifiable uphill battle to have her song heard. Even now, Clear Channel has mandated the banning of songs by Springsteen, the Beatles, and many others. Speech is a microcosmic arena of rights infringement that must be alleviated for all others to have air.

Chairman Michael K. Powell: mpowell@fcc.gov
Commissioner Kathleen Q. Abernathy: kabernat@fcc.gov
Commissioner Michael J. Copps: mcopps@fcc.gov
Commissioner Kevin J. Martin: kjmweb@fcc.gov
Commissioner Jonathan S. Adelstein: jadelste@fcc.gov

Federal Communications Commission
445 12th Street, SW
Washington, DC 20554

McCain

241 Russell Senate Ofc. Bldg.
United States Senate
Washington D.C., Washington DC 20510

Boxer

112 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510

My Letter to CNN

12/16/07

Dear CNN,

I’m watching Blog Buzz at the moment (Sunday, 12/16/07), or should I say suffering through it. As usual in CNN’s relentless attempts to become Fox News lite, you have brought on a telegenic Republican to toe off against an unpalatable Democrat. This is exactly like Fox putting Prom King Hannity against walking skeleton Colmes, whom no progressives on the face of the earth would choose as their spokesperson. For the sake of our Democracy, if you gave me two weeks I could find dozens of attractive, eloquent representatives of the progressive viewpoint.

Every time I watch CNN the last few months, it is either worthless marshmallow fluff – entertainment news, or it is rancid pro-GOP talking points propaganda. Why have you taken a cue from the NewYork Times playbook and decided to report lies if they benefit the right rather than truth if it benefits the left? Why don’t you just hire Judith Regan and Judith Miller and turn your whole programming into an infomercial?

CNN used to be my main source of cable news. Now I only watch it to keep tabs on how bad it’s gotten, and I HAVE SWITCHED TO MSNBC. At least they have Olbermann, the only trustworthy person on TV, and Matthews and Abrams are jolted by his ratings into becoming his part-time imitators. On your station Cooper has epitomized the swing from willing progressive to purely Newstainment/ Right-Wing flack, Dobbs would never say anything good about any Democrat (nor check his facts when you look at the economic benefits from illegals, like the stacks of billions they pay into social security using false SS #’s, and the inflation containment they provide our economy), Blitzer is putrid as evidenced by his exchange with Michael Moore, where even the ostensibly reputable Dr. Gupta was proven to be a liar with this false balance. Look at the tapes, look at the facts, Michael Moore is so much more right on the facts then any of your personalities.

We should hear in every report on health that in France the doctor come to your door. Forget wait times in emergency rooms. THE DOCTOR IN FRANCE WILL COME TO YOUR DOOR. Why have we never heard that reported? I am so sick of the relentless right-wing propaganda. Stop trying to curry favor with the FCC or whatever is your motivation for ignoring progressives. I want to see the progressive viewpoint represented!

I want it be made palatable. This is not hard. In poll after poll, on every progressive issue, we have the majority of Americans. As a microcosm, while you continue to describe those against the Iraq War as the fringe anti-war left liberal wing of the Democratic Party, this supposedly minority fringe anti-war group is the MAJORITY OF THE COUNTRY. 60-80% of people want us out of Iraq depending how pollsters ask the question.

So please consider attempting to fulfill your duty to the American people, give a little balance to your GOP talking points programming, find a way to get rid of Dobbs and that absurd little ant Blitzer, or at least balance them out. If you are lacking for ideas how to make progressive people and views palatable, contact me and I will line it up for you even with no resources. It is so easy to find loads of model good looking people who will intellectually crush their conservative counterparts. (Have you ever heard of Matt Gonzalez in California - or for that matter, John Edwards and Barak Obama?) That is, if you are willing to allow a fair fight on an even playing field. And as you can tell from my tone, I have zero confidence that you will improve. I will continue to watch for it when I have time.

I can’t believe the most credible news source in the mainstream media has become this prostituted, to the point the MSNBC, the station that fired Phil Donahue and hired Alan Keyes, is more credible. Please limit the fluff and get a little balance on air.

Truthful Media Starved Citizen of our Dictatorship,

David Moglen

Assoc. Professor of Economics at Foothill, Ohlone, and Evergreen Valley Colleges

Letter to Newsbusters

This was my recent letter to newsbusters.org, which is a media watchgroup aimed at lambasting alleged liberal media bias:

Your whole site is based on a false premise. We are absolutely overrun with a one-sided right wing corporate mainstream media (MSM).

You cannot find a progressive voice 99% of the time on TV or anywhere else, save for some pockets of public radio. AM radio is just about 100% right-wing lunatic. How many Air Americas are there? Answer: ONE. The only chance to hear honest analysis in the MSM is the 1st 1/2 hour of Olbermann's program. Other than that, even CNN has completely crossed over to your dark side. If you can't see that, that the media has a severe pervasive right-wing bias from top to bottom, you are not fit to operate a motor vehicle. It’s no surprise corporations are blindly pro-corporate and promilitary-industrial complex since most of the media is owned by a few companies, and a really a few Rupert Murdoch type personalities. Have you ever heard of media consolidation?

Listen to Counterspin. Listen to Democracy Now. Do it religiously. Turn off the FOX news BS, turn off Rush Oxycontin Dopehead Limbaugh. Don't listen to anything from the right-wing think tanks that dominate our media and our government. Maybe then you will be open to progressive voices, which represent the desires of the majority of Americans on every important issue, health care, war, economy, etc. in poll after poll. Stop endorsing (and encouraging the endorsement of) politicians who only work to enrich the top 1% by looting the US treasury and VASTLY EXPANDING THE SIZE of government - look at the runaway spending under this GOP administration. If it wasn't for George Bush BLOATING THE GOVT we would have lost jobs in this economy since 2001.

A Radical Proposal

Why are we always told that to give health care to people will raise taxes yet to spend hundreds of billions every year for Iraq can be done along with (regressive) tax cuts?

A note on abbreviations:

h= health

hc = health care

hcp= health care providers: docs, hospitals, nurses, pharma industry

ins= Insurance

sq= Status Quo

mkt pwr= market power

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1681119,00.html

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/12855294/national_affairs_the_2_trillion_dollar_war/print

has: “that includes the government's past and future spending for the war itself ($725 billion), health care and disability benefits for veterans ($127 billion), and hidden increases in defense spending ($160 billion).”

Other analyses of the Stiglitz study clarify that hundreds of billions in costs are being incurred by destroyed physical capital like humvees and other vehicles, including helicopters that are downed. It is clear that none of the budgeting we hear about takes into account one penny of the value of destroyed trucks, machinery, and weapons we will have to pay to replace.

Take $125B/yr as total War in Iraq costs. It can easily be more, and this says nothing of expenditure in Afghanistanl; note this entire analysis assumes the US involvement in Afghanistan goes on at the same level of engagement as it is today.

Health care costs 7-8K per person in US.

Use more conservative #'s to say it wouldn't solve the health care crisis to get out of Iraq & redirect the $, Say we say 10K per person, and only $100B /yr. that's 10 m people covered.

That's not yet including any gov mkt power to reduce costs. (a single buyer or major buyer in a market will effect a reduction in price to the extent their sellers - the producers - do not also have comparable market concentration aka monopoly power)

Military spending is minimum 5-600 Bn, so trimming it 30-40% would (combined with 0 spending in Iraq) cover health care for the other 35m currently uninsured.

Note there was no change in taxes here.

Trimming this % Non-Iraq Military Spending would even have to be cut are conjunctive policies of (1) govt using its mkt power to get lower prices in nearly every type of health care and (2) There is a buyer (govt) and a seller (direct providers: hospitals, docs, nurses, pharma companies) so there is no need for a middleman (the health insurance company). So all money spent (by policy holders in s.q.) that becomes their profits, advertising, and labor costs would be saved by the buyer. Payouts by the Insurance co's that had gone to docs, hospitals, pharma, would not be part of the savings since those payments would still have to be paid.

Taking (1) and (2) together, there are several reasons the 7-8k/ person currently paid for health care would be reduced. Say it becomes 5k.

($100B from Iraq + $200B from military)/ $5k = number covered --->60m...covering the 45m uncovered + $ to improve conditions for underinsured and shore up catastrophic coverage, or even natural disaster protection eg Katrina.

To this point we've got the uninsured covered w. no change in taxes. Nothing has changed for the 255 M who already had coverage.

THE PAYROLL TAX

Now what if we give those 255M people the option of not spending the (avg) 7k for insurance and instead paying (avg) 5k for the govt program (In taxes, net of medicare payroll taxes already being paid). This would most likely be accomplished for each person opting into the new program by having their payroll taxes, which currently total 13% of their pay and go toward SS, unemp, disability insurance, and medicare insurance, would increase several percentage points. If we wanted to ease the burden on lower and middle classes, the cap on payroll tax by income would be raised and preferably removed entirely. This idea in brief:

Currently payroll tax of 13% is collected only up to 90K of income.

Person A makes $9k per year $9k*13%= $1,170

Person B makes. $ 90k per year $ 90k*.13=$11,700

Person C makes $900k per year $900k*.13= $117,000

Wow, $117,000, thats a lot of revenue from person C. Too bad under s.q. the Gov't never sees a dime of 90% of it since the payroll tax is currently not collected for income earned above 90k. That means under the current system Person B pays $11,700 in payroll tax and Person C pays the exact same $11,700 in payroll tax, just as they would if they made 900 Million per year. $11,700.

It's not hard to see how this reform (removing the cap on taxable income for payroll tax collection) could go a long way towards easing the burden on Person A and Person B if Person C now actually does have to pay the full 13%: $117,000

Now with single payer a $5k cost rather than (conservatively) a $7k / person cost. We have 300 m people . 45m we just paid for.

255m left. Multpily each by the $2k saved, you get$ 500 B . This will either be a saving in total spending or if the full $7k/ person is collected by the govt, it's More than enough to build the army back up, after mkt forces adjust down the price of health care due to (1) and (2). If they only want to let people keep $200B of this savings, they more than make up for the cut in military spending, so that can be restored. If they didn't let any savings flow back to the people, even Iraq cd also be maintained. Lets say they let people keep the savings. Instead of an avg $7k paid to insurers, much of which goes to the hc providers, they pay $5k to govt. So taxes have gone up but they save overall$ 2K on avg.

Private, no change from S.Q. option open to however many millions of Americans like their hc:

To make it palatable the first announcement to the public could be if you like your private insurance, keep it. While the government is totally bypassing the middleman, let anyone who wants to pay the toll of the insurance every month to have a company dedicated to keeping the hcp from delivering hc to a patient continue to do so. This interim phase would of course mean not a total immediate die off of the health insurance industry but a slow contractionary period of indeterminate length at the start of which it will have had its customer base drop by at least 2/3.

Relative to the hundreds of billions discussed here, a small amount will have to be set aside (similar to what's called trade adjustment assistance) in funds to get the hc insurance employees back into the workforce, even giving them free training, certificate programs, and education choices. Keep in mind while the near-total dissolution of the h. insurance industry is likely eventually in this scenario, there are other types of insurance jobs these workers could pursue, including car ins, home - fire, earthquake, etc. ins, renters ins, life ins. Not only that, some could be given preference to join what will have to be a somewhat larger beurocracy and become govt employees coordinating delivery of health to patients. This could be quite liberating for them to be in a job where anything doctors say a patient needs is done as opposed to their previous position that earned more profits for their employer to the extent procedures and medications were denied to patients.

Note that (1) above is automatic; single buyer (monopsony) from many sellers has the mkt pwr to effect a lower price just as a single seller (monopoly) to many buyers has mkt pwr to raise price.
But (2) would require a conscious policy to go around the middleman.

QUESTION:

So my question for you is, can you advocate such a plan or argue against it?

In terms of arguing against it of course there are opportunity costs, since this started with a cut, at least a temporary drawdown in military spending. Remember though, to whatever extent (1) and (2) reduce costs, and those reductions are not simply returned to the taxpayer, that money could be used to build the military right back up. In practice since it takes so long to overhaul the military up or down, by the time the year is over and the money has been restored, the drawdown would have only partially begun. Perhaps on the expectation that the tax revenue will be rolling in this year, funds could be moved around to have no drawdown whatsoever. But we also said spend much less money in Iraq to do this. Since Iraq is going to have direct costs of about $150B/yr and we used as a # from that source only $100B/yr, we'd have to maintain any activities there on just the remaining $50B/yr. If we can do our business there on less that $50B that money could be used domestically as well. So are there consequences from any of this policy as described? What are they?

Finally, is it radical? Relative to what the power elite (media and politicians) have ordained as mainstream U.S. politics, it is certainly borderline radical at the least. However, since every developed country in the world besides the U.S, does see hc as a human right rather than a privilege and does have a national hc system it would from a global perspective make the US s.q. radical if systems like Sweden, Britain, etc. are the standard for the entire Western Industrialized world.

Comment From L. Moglen, Attorney

Comment, the anti-illegal-immigration folk (including me) will see this as further impetus to draw Latinos north. Since many of them do not report income, they will have free run of our health care system at yours & my expense. They have already overwhelmed the emergency care units. They are poised to take down the free care for all system by shear multitude.

D. Moglen's response:

The Immigration issue, while I'd lk to take the time here to argue a system of legalizing hard workers and therefore makng sure they pay Both the Payroll And Income Tax, to be brief if they have a false SS number reported the govt is withholding payroll tax. Whether they get all or only a part of it back will vary by person, certainly in the SS portion of the payroll tax excess billions pour in every year from people with false SS #s and these people most likely will never receive SS payments. So whether illegal immigrants are paying the 17% or 13 % or whatever the payroll tax is at the time is again an issue of IRS Enforcement strength and priorities.

In other words, if they work and if we’re watching employers closely enough to make sure wages are reported, payroll tax withheld each month and sent to the US Treasury, those folks will through this tax or through savings outlined in the plan pay for their own care. Non-working folks who get emergency care will be a burden, but keep in perspective the total percentage of illegal (let alone legal + illegal) immigrants who are both not working and illegal. People come here to work. It is a very small percentage who come here seeking only emergency medical care.

IIlegal immigrant criminals raise the question of deportation, and how can it be immediate. Injuries incurred on US soil in these incidents will be a small cost in the scheme of the money being discussed here, especially if deportation occurs expediently. Expediting deportation for undocumented criminals should be a priority.

Top 20 Economic and/or Political Documentaries

Top 20 Economic and/or Political Documentaries
As selected by David Moglen

1. Who Killed the Electric Car?
2. The Corporation
3. Life and Debt
4. The Fall of Fujimori
5. Sicko
6. No End in Sight
7. A Crude Awakening: The Oil Crash
8. Howard Zinn: You Can't Be Neutral on a Moving Train
9. Plan Colombia: Cashing in on the Drug War Failure
10. The Take
11. Bush's Brain
12. Iraq for Sale
13. When the Levees Broke
14. Going Upriver
15. Farenheit 9/11
16. Roger& Me
17. Bowling for Columbine

Have yet to see these but believe they will be good:

18. Maxed Out
19. Maufacturing Consent
20. The Revolution will not be Televised
21. The Big One
22. In Debt We Trust
23. WMD: Weapons of Mass Deception