Chris Hedges Speech – April 15, 2011 – BOA Protest

“Liberal or Conservative, it makes no difference now. Barack Obama serves corporate interests as assiduously as George W. Bush. And to place our faith in any party or established institution as a mechanism of reform is to be entranced by the celluloid shadows on the wall of Plato’s cave.”

~ Chris Hedges

As I mentioned here, New York City’s Union Square was my destination yesterday for a Bank of America/plutocracy protest. In all honesty, I expected a much bigger turnout than the 250ish people who showed up, especially since Chris Hedges was slated to make an appearance, but those of us who made it were fierce and on point.

And since Hedges can say it better than I could on my best day, I’ll just pass him the mic…

Oh, and you really need to see this guy dance to the jazzy rage of Junkyard Empire’s version of Get Up, Stand Up.

Dancing goodness begins at 0:41.

Greenwald: Obama’s “bad negotiating” is actually shrewd negotiating

I’m too busy to write at the moment, so I’m just going to highlite Glenn Greenwald’s latest piece in which he does a great job of shattering the “incompetence theorist” myth that continues to propose that poor Obama keeps on “failing” to enact progressive policies, while being “forced” to enact corporatist friendly ones.

It’s a point that I made here last week, and it’s really nice to see that Glenn and I are on the same wavelength, because he’s awesome.

Obama’s “bad negotiating” is actually shrewd negotiating

Wednesday, Apr 13, 2011 09:14 ET

By Glenn Greenwald

In December, President Obama signed legislation to extend hundreds of billions of dollars in Bush tax cuts, benefiting the wealthiest Americans. Last week, Obama agreed to billions of dollars in cuts that will impose the greatest burden on the poorest Americans. And now, virtually everyone in Washington believes, the President is about to embark on a path that will ultimately lead to some type of reductions in Social Security, Medicare and/or Medicaid benefits under the banner of “reform.” Tax cuts for the rich — budget cuts for the poor — “reform” of the Democratic Party’s signature safety net programs — a continuation of Bush/Cheney Terrorism policies and a new Middle East war launched without Congressional approval. That’s quite a legacy combination for a Democratic President.

All of that has led to a spate of negotiation advice from the liberal punditocracy advising the President how he can better defend progressive policy aims — as though the Obama White House deeply wishes for different results but just can’t figure out how to achieve them. Jon Chait, Josh Marshall, and Matt Yglesias all insist that the President is “losing” on these battles because of bad negotiating strategy, and will continue to lose unless it improves. Ezra Klein says “it makes absolutely no sense” that Democrats didn’t just raise the debt ceiling in December, when they had the majority and could have done it with no budget cuts. Once it became clear that the White House was not following their recommended action of demanding a “clean” vote on raising the debt ceiling — thus ensuring there will be another, probably larger round of budget cuts — Yglesias lamented that the White House had “flunked bargaining 101.” Their assumption is that Obama loathes these outcomes but is the victim of his own weak negotiating strategy.

I don’t understand that assumption at all. Does anyone believe that Obama and his army of veteran Washington advisers are incapable of discovering these tactics on their own or devising better strategies for trying to avoid these outcomes if that’s what they really wanted to do? What evidence is there that Obama has some inner, intense desire for more progressive outcomes? These are the results they’re getting because these are the results they want — for reasons that make perfectly rational political sense.

Conventional D.C. wisdom — that which Obama vowed to subvert but has done as much as any President to bolster — has held for decades that Democratic Presidents succeed politically by being as “centrist” or even as conservative as possible. That attracts independents, diffuses GOP enthusiasm, casts the President as a triangulating conciliator, and generates raves from the DC press corps — all while keeping more than enough Democrats and progressives in line through a combination of anti-GOP fear-mongering and partisan loyalty.

Isn’t that exactly the winning combination that will maximize the President’s re-election chances? Just consider the polling data on last week’s budget cuts, which most liberal commentators scorned. Americans support the “compromise” by a margin of 58-38%; that support includes a majority of independents, substantial GOP factions, and 2/3 of Democrats. Why would Democrats overwhelmingly support domestic budget cuts that burden the poor? Because, as Yglesias correctly observed, “just about anything Barack Obama does will be met with approval by most Democrats.” In other words, once Obama lends his support to a policy — no matter how much of a departure it is from ostensible Democratic beliefs — then most self-identified Democrats will support it because Obama supports it, because it then becomes the “Democratic policy,” by definition. Adopting “centrist” or even right-wing policies will always produce the same combination — approval of independents, dilution of GOP anger, media raves, and continued Democratic voter loyalty — that is ideal for the President’s re-election prospects.

That tactic in the context of economic policy has the added benefit of keeping corporate and banking money on Obama’s side (where it overwhelmingly was in 2008), or at least preventing a massive influx to GOP coffers. And just look at the team of economic advisers surrounding Obama from the start: does anyone think that Bill Daley, Tim Geithner and his army of Rubin acolytes and former Goldman Sachs executives are sitting around in rooms desperately trying to prevent budget cuts and entitlement “reforms”?

Why would Obama possibly want to do anything different? Why would he possibly want a major political war over the debt ceiling where he looks like a divisive figure and looks to be opposing budget cuts? Why would he possibly want to draw a line in the sand defending Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security from any “reforms”? There would be only two reasons to do any of that: (1) fear that he would lose too much of his base if he compromised with the GOP in these areas, or (2) a genuine conviction that such compromises are morally or economically intolerable. Since he so plainly lacks both — a fear of losing the base or genuine convictions about this or anything else — there’s simply nothing to drive him to fight for those outcomes.

Like most first-term Presidents after two years, Obama is preoccupied with his re-election, and perceives — not unreasonably — that that goal is best accomplished by adopting GOP policies. The only factor that could subvert that political calculation — fear that he could go too far and cause Democratic voters not to support him — is a fear that he simply does not have: probably for good reason. In fact, not only does Obama not fear alienating progressive supporters, the White House seems to view that alienation as a positive, as it only serves to bolster Obama’s above-it-all, centrist credentials. Here’s what CNN’s White House Correspondent Ed Henry and Gloria Borger said last night about the upcoming fight over entitlements and the debt ceiling:

Henry: I was talking to a senior Democrat who advises the White House, outside the White House today who was saying look, every time this president sits down with Speaker Boehner, to Gloria’s point about negotiating skills, the president seems to give up another 5 billion dollars, 10 billion dollars, 20 billions dollars. It’ s like the spending cuts keep going up. If you think about where the congressional Democrats started a couple of months ago they were talking about no spending cuts on the table. It keeps going up.

But this president has a much different reality than congressional Democrats.

Borger (sagely): Right.

Henry: He’s going for re-election, him going to the middle and having liberal Democrats mad at him is not a bad thing.

Borger: Exactly.

That’s why I experience such cognitive dissonance when I read all of these laments from liberal pundits that Obama isn’t pursuing the right negotiating tactics, that he’s not being as shrewd as he should be. He’s pursuing exactly the right negotiating tactics and is being extremely shrewd — he just doesn’t want the same results that these liberal pundits want and which they like to imagine the President wants, too. He’s not trying to prevent budget cuts or entitlement reforms; he wants exactly those things because of how politically beneficial they are to him — to say nothing of whether he agrees with them on the merits.

When I first began blogging five years ago, I used to write posts like that all the time. I’d lament that Democrats weren’t more effectively opposing Bush/Cheney National Security State policies or defending civil liberties. I’d attribute those failures to poor strategizing or a lack of political courage and write post after post urging them to adopt better tactics to enable better outcomes or be more politically “strong.” But then I realized that they weren’t poor tacticians getting stuck with results they hated. They simply weren’t interested in generating the same outcomes as the ones I wanted.

It wasn’t that they eagerly wished to defeat these Bush policies but just couldn’t figure out how to do it. The opposite was true: they were content to acquiesce to those policies, if not outright supportive of them, because they perceived no political advantage in doing anything else. Many of them supported those policies on the merits while many others were perfectly content with their continuation. So I stopped trying to give them tactical advice on how to achieve outcomes they didn’t really want to achieve, and stopped attributing their failures to oppose these policies to bad strategizing or political cowardice. Instead, I simply accepted that these were the outcomes they most wanted, that Democratic Party officials on the whole — obviously with some exceptions — weren’t working toward the outcomes I had originally assumed (and which they often claimed). Once you accept that reality, events in Washington make far more sense.

That Obama’s agenda includes an affirmative desire for serious budget cuts and entitlement “reforms” has been glaringly obvious from the start; it’s not some unintended, recent by-product of Tea Party ascendancy. Since before Obama was even inaugurated, Digby has been repeatedly warning of his support for a so-called “Grand Bargain” that would include cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. And Jane Hamsher and Ezra Klein had a fairly acrimonious exchange very early on in the Obama presidency over the former’s observation that Obama officials were expressly advocating cuts in Social Security while Klein insisted that this would never happen (yesterday, Klein reported that Obama would be supportive of Bowles-Simpson, which proposes deep cuts to Social Security, and boasted of his anticipation weeks ago that this would happen). Before Obama’s inauguration, I wrote that the most baffling thing to me about the enthusiasm of his hardest-core supporters was the belief that he was pioneering a “new form of politics” when, it seemed obvious, it was just a re-branded re-tread of Clintonian triangulation and the same “centrist”, scorn-the-base playbook Democratic politicians had used for decades.

What amazes me most is the brazen claims of presidential impotence necessary to excuse all of this. Atrios has written for weeks about the “can’t do” spirit that has overtaken the country generally, but that mindset pervades how the President’s supporters depict both him and the powers of his office: no bad outcomes are ever his fault because he’s just powerless in the face of circumstance. That claim is being made now by pointing to a GOP Congress, but the same claim was made when there was a Democratic Congress as well: recall the disagreements I had with his most loyal supporters in 2009 and 2010 over their claims that he was basically powerless even to influence his own party’s policy-making in Congress.

Such excuse-making stands in very sharp contrast to what we heard in 2008 and what we will hear again in 2012: that the only thing that matters is that Obama win the Presidency because of how powerful and influential an office it is, how disaster will befall us all if this vast power falls into Republican hands. It also contradicts the central promise of the Obama candidacy: that he would change, rather than bolster, the standard power dynamic in Washington. And it is especially inconsistent with Obama’s claimed desire to be a “transformational” President in much the way that Ronald Reagan was (but, Obama said to such controversy, Bill Clinton was not). Gaudy claims of Fundamental Change and Transformation and Yes, We Can! have given way to an endless parade of excuse-making that he’s powerless, weak and there’s nothing he can do.

Obama’s most loyal supporters often mock the notion that a President’s greatest power is his “bully pulpit,” but there’s no question that this is true. Reagan was able to transform how Americans perceived numerous political issues because he relentlessly argued for his ideological and especially economic world-view: a rising tide lifts all boats, government is not the solution but is the problem, etc. — a whole slew of platitudes and slogans that convinced Americans that conservative economic policy was optimal despite how much it undermined their own economic interests. Reagan was “transformational” because he changed conventional wisdom and those premises continue to pervade our political discourse.

When has Obama ever done any of that? When does he offer stirring, impassioned defenses of the Democrats’ vision on anything, or attempt to transform (rather than dutifully follow) how Americans think about anything? It’s not that he lacks the ability to do that. Americans responded to him as an inspirational figure and his skills of oratory are as effective as any politician in our lifetime. It’s that he evinces no interest in it. He doesn’t try because those aren’t his goals. It’s not that he or the office of the Presidency are powerless to engender other outcomes; it’s that he doesn’t use the power he has to achieve them because, quite obviously, achieving them is not his priority or even desire.

Whether in economic policy, national security, civil liberties, or the permanent consortium of corporate power that runs Washington, Obama, above all else, is content to be (one could even say eager to be) guardian of the status quo. And the forces of the status quo want tax cuts for the rich, serious cuts in government spending that don’t benefit them (social programs and progressive regulatory schemes), and entitlement “reform” — so that’s what Obama will do. He won’t advocate, and will actually oppose, steps as extreme as the ones Paul Ryan is proposing: that’s how he will retain his “centrist” political identity and keep the fear levels high among his voting base. He’ll pay lip service to some Democratic economic dogma and defend some financially inconsequential culture war positions: that’s how he will signal to the base that he’s still on their side. But the direction will be the same as the GOP desires and, most importantly, how the most powerful economic factions demand: not because he can’t figure out how to change that dynamic, but because that’s what benefits him and thus what he wants.

Ironically, Obama is turning out to be “transformational” in his own way — by taking what was once the defining GOP approach to numerous policy areas and converting them into Democratic ones, and thus ensconcing them in the invulnerable protective shield of “bipartisan consensus.” As Digby put it: “Reagan was a hard-core ideologue who didn’t just tweak some processes but radically changed the prevailing conventional wisdom. Unfortunately, Obama is actually extending the Reagan consensus, even as he pursues his own agenda of creating a Grand Bargain that will bring peace among the dueling parties (a dubious goal in itself.)” That has been one of the most consequential outcomes of the first two years of his presidency in terms of Terrorism and civil liberties, and is now being consecrated in the realm of economic policy as well.

I’m sorry, but Obama is a corporatist tool

“Sorry, I’m feeling a little superior tonight. Seven schools in seven states, and the only thing different is my locker combination.”

~ J.D. – Heathers

Heathers is a movie about tribalism, group think, conformity, and the ways in which people’s thoughts and actions are constricted by the groups they belong to, or aspire to belong to. On the surface, it’s about the ridiculousness of high school, but it’s really about the ridiculousness of EVERYTHING. But more to the point, it’s about how astonishingly difficult it is to be an aware, awake individual existing in the echo chamber of nonsense we think of as reality. And just as it often happens in real life, the character in Heathers who sees things as they truly are is ultimately destroyed by his failure to vigorously shake the zombies from their slumber.

Why on earth am I talking about a Christian Slater film from 1988? Well, I bring it up now because, as my prolonged absence from writing this blog would suggest, I’ve been feeling more and more alienated from the other 99% of the population who seem to be as happy as pigs in shit as long as they have their Nikes, Big Macs, and $5.25 café au laits.

Even though I haven’t been blogging, however, I have been a posting machine on Facebook, where I’m able to interact in a quicker and dirtier fashion than I can here. It’s funny, because I’m seen as a “radical leftist” by my right-leaning acquaintances, and as a closet Republican by a lot of my “liberal” friends who can’t be bothered to look past the fact that I’m criticizing their hero, President Peace Prize, and let’s face it, if you criticize a Democrat then you MUST be a Republican, because there are NO OTHER OPTIONS. Only left and right. Blue and red. You remember what happened when Ralph Nader ran for President as a third-party candidate, don’t you? He ruined EVERYTHING!!!!!! The problem wasn’t all of the other rubes who voted for Bush and Gore, and it certainly wasn’t the crooked Supreme Court. Nope, the problem was the third-party, so I guess we can never try THAT again.

</sarcasm>

Anyway, I’ve decided that the first step towards real change is a realization that change is actually required. With this in mind, I’ve decided to start small and impact my immediate community by using my Facebook page to convince my friends that Barack Obama is a corporatist tool of the military empire. You’d think that this would be a relatively simple task, since most of my friends are well-educated, creative, smart self-proclaimed liberals, and Obama’s allegiance to the new Amerikan fascism is so self-evident at this point that even the Neocon in Chief, Bill Kristol, is finding it increasingly difficult to hide his admiration.

“Of course, since his (Obama’s) sound policies are more like the policies people like me have been advocating for quite a while, I’m happy to support them, you know. He’s a born-again neocon.”

~ Bill Kristol

There you have it, folks.

Game over.

Obama is not a socialist.

Obama is not a progressive.

Obama is not a liberal.

Obama is not a good guy.

In fact, based on the Nuremberg principles, Obama is a war criminal.

Seriously.

It’s as plain as the noses that used to be on the faces of any number of children who have been murdered or maimed by his flying robot brigades in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Good guys don’t bomb civilians by remote control while continuing a completely unnecessary nine-year war (NINE FREAKING YEARS!), and they certainly don’t joke about it.

Now THAT’s some funny stuff right there.

Isn’t Obama a pisser?

He reminds me of this other really funny guy.

Oh, I’m sorry. Bush is a Republican and Obama is a Democrat. It’s ok to criticize one but not the other. I keep forgetting that I’m in bizarro world. Besides, only one of them has received the Henry Kissinger Nobel Peace Prize, and they don’t hand that out to just anybody.

Back to reality.

This is your President.

This is your Nobel Peace laureate.

This is your hope and your change.

You need to snap yourselves out of fantasy land and see this monster for who and what he is; a murderous tool of the corporotocracy.

But let’s go back to the Heathers analogy for a minute, because if you’ve seen the movie, then you know that J.D. was unsuccessful in his quest to pull back the curtain. In fact, he ended up destroying himself instead. I’m finding myself at a cross-roads because I really don’t know what to do any more. You can’t lead a movement when people don’t want to be moved. Especially when so much of their self-esteem is invested in the belief that they’re actually supporting the good guy. This often leads to great logical contortions in order to save face instead of admitting that they’ve been deceived by a carnival huckster with a multi-million dollar P.R. team. I had an exchange on Facebook the other day in response to my posting of the Bill Kristol clip, and I think it sums up what I’m trying to convey here.

After viewing the clip, my liberal friend said this:

“Compromise is the way of a newbie with not enough political clout to get things done in Washington, unfortunately.”

To which I replied:

“Sigh. Yes, that IS unfortunate for all of the dead, maimed, imprisoned, and tortured during the Peace Laureate’s reign. At some point though, I’m certain that the “other” side will get around to compromising so that we can craftily rub our hands together, twist our moustaches and gloat about how the Republicans have adopted, and even stepped up our hoped-for progressive policies.”

My friend’s response:

“Unfortunately was not a word I used to talk about the non-political consequences. But it is worth noting that these political decisions have very real outcomes.”

I’d like to point out that my friend DID acknowledge that there are negative consequences to Obama’s political decisions, which is much more than I usually get in these situations, but there’s certainly no outrage being expressed, and based on experience, I would bet lots of money that if we were talking about a Republican, ANY Republican, my friend wouldn’t be speaking of compromise and wouldn’t be describing the dead and maimed children as unfortunate outcomes. There would be anger and blame.

The rest of my friend’s response:

“Where do you leverage for change of these policies that have real outcomes? Surely not just by mentioning them on fb?”

On the surface, that seems like a valid criticism, but it’s really not. When 50% of the population thinks we should be murdering more Muslims, and the other 49% is walking around worshiping a cult of personality and believing, with all of their heart, that up is down, then you really can’t leverage for something as simple as a change of policies. Before you do anything else, you must convince a great number of people that a change of policies is needed in the first place, and with Obama’s public relations team continuing to successfully brand him to his loyal followers as hope and change personified, regardless of his actual policies, that is proving to be a monumentally difficult task. But again, this is exactly what I’m trying to do with my Facebook campaign, one friend at a time, so here’s how I responded:

“I leverage for change by making people aware that change is needed, and I do this by cataloging, day after day after day, that the change we’ve been sold is actually not change at all, and this is very important in a world where people pay much more attention to branding and advertising campaigns than they do to the performance of the actual product.

In other words, if we keep walking around believing, beyond logic and reason, that Obama and the Democrats are compromising as opposed to simply serving the interests that have put them into power, then we’ve lost before we’ve even begun. I’ve said this before, but the absolute brilliance of the Obama presidency is the way he’s applied the good housekeeping seal of approval to all of the wet dream policies of the neocons and the banking elite. Half of the population wrongly LOVES those policies, and now the other half are afraid to criticize them, or at best, claim that they’re simply compromise.

It’s not compromise. Obama and the Democrats do the things that they do for the same reasons the Republicans do them; because they’re serving the corporate interests that finance them. It sucks. I hate that we’ve been hoodwinked and manipulated based on our innate and socially engineered desires to support a team and to believe that somebody is looking out for us. It makes me feel awful most of my waking hours, but that’s the reality, and until we all come to terms with it, we’re going to be stuck in this feedback loop of corporo-military fucked-upness.”

(Incidentally, it’s been three days and my friend still has responded…)

The last sentence of my response is the key. It’s like that old alcoholic’s anonymous slogan:

Admitting that you have a problem is the first step towards recovery.

Obviously, the Republicans, with very few exceptions (Ron Paul comes to mind), are empire-loving corporatists. But even though most liberals desperately cling to the notion that the Democrats have the people’s best interests at heart, they really don’t. With very few exceptions (Kucinich, Sanders and a few more) the Democrats are also empire-loving corporatists, and this is especially true of Obama. This isn’t even debatable, it’s totally demonstrable. All one needs to do is to drop the emotional attachment to a party that sold its constituency out decades ago and objectively look at the record, which has been thoroughly documented by a few brave souls named Greenwald, Hedges, Floyd, Pilger, and Silber. A good rule of thumb when examining a policy is to ask yourself how you’d feel about it if it were the brainchild of a Republican.

If Bush was evil for bombing children, then so is Obama.

If Bush was evil for wire tapping your phone, then so is Obama.

If Bush was evil for facilitating the largest wealth transfer to the rich in human history, then so is Obama.

If Bush was evil for having a military budget larger than all other countries combined, then so is Obama.

If Bush was evil for renditions, torture, and locking people away in gulags without trial, then so is Obama.

If Bush was evil for deep water drilling and ignoring safety regulations, then so is Obama.

It goes on and on and on.

If you have the stomach for a laundry list of Obama’s complicity with the corporate-military-banking complex, then I highly recommend the Fuck Obama thread at Rigorous Intuition. R.I. is a blog and a message board, but more importantly, it’s also my salvation. It’s my safe room, where logic, common sense, and thoughtful analysis win the day. Here’s how I recently described it:

RI is a grass-roots think tank for people who are fed up with bullshit and lies. People who are looking for the thoughtful analysis of their peers, as opposed to the predictive programming disguised as news that spouts from the corporate media. And yes, I DID say peers, but not in an elitist sort of way. I’m only saying that you can’t get thoughtful analysis about the officially declared state of national emergency that’s been ongoing in the U.S. since 9/14/2001, Obama’s extrajudicial assassination program, and cluster bombs in Yemen from people who won’t look up from shopping or college basketball long enough to make themselves aware of those realities. At R.I. we’re trying, as best we can, to fit the puzzle pieces together in a way that explains the madness that surrounds us, because if you don’t understand the hows and whys of what’s being done to you, then you can never hope to do anything about it.

Listen, I know that it’s scary to admit to yourself that you’ve got nowhere to turn. I understand that. It’s also completely demoralizing to admit that you’ve been fooled, even more so when it’s the supposed good guys who have done the fooling. I get that too, but please swallow your pride, and take the first step towards acknowledging that we need real hope and real change, and that, as frightening as it is to admit, it’s not going to come from the current system, or from any of the corporate vampires currently posing as our leaders.

It won’t be easy. The reality that we’ve allowed the vampires to create is an awful place where we’ve been Balkanized by race, color, gender, sexuality, political party, and every other contrived “difference” under the sun, and conformity among these groups is as strictly enforced as it is amongst the preppies, the jocks, and the nerds in high school. You might end up a pariah to many of your “liberal” friends who prefer the comfort of the upside-down version of reality that allows them to put their fingers in their ears and pretend that they’re not complicit in the militarized corporate takeover because they vote for Democrats and still believe the public relations branding. Hopefully though, you’ll also be able to convince some people to join us, and then they’ll convince some people, and so on.

It has to start small and spread by word of mouth.  We’re NOT going to take over the U.S. at the 2012 elections, and our abandonment of the Democratic party in search of real progressives who aren’t bought and paid for will most likely lead to the election of more Republicans in the short-term, but we mustn’t allow this to deter us in our long-term quest to unseat the coporotocracy and give voice once again to the majority of people in the U.S. who really haven’t been represented in a very long time.

Remember, Nader wasn’t the problem, he was the solution, and there will be others if we can break down the walls of the false reality and convince enough people that real change can only come from outside of the current system. Keep pushing, and I’ll be here pushing with you.

Psywar: We are the dog that they wag

Psywar is a brand new documentary film that I believe is a potential game-changer, in that it is presented in such a way as to be palatable to someone who is new to, and even resistant to the idea that there has been a coordinated effort to herd the citizenry of the U.S. into needless wars that only benefit a tiny fraction of the population, otherwise known as “the elite.”

“If it is your desire to understand how we are manipulated into believing the things we do — watch this film. Every American should see it…for the sake of our future.”

~Timothy Gatto, fmr Chairman, Liberal Party of America

Trailer:

Please watch the entire film here:

Obama kicks progressives directly in the nuts – AGAIN

Gosh, this is just soooo shocking…

Obama Hires Fmr. Wellpoint Exec to Implement Health Care Law

by: David Sirota

Wed Jul 14, 2010 at 19:31

From the Department of You Just Can’t Make This Stuff Up, check out this little-noticed report from the Billings Gazette today:

Liz Fowler, a key staffer for U.S. Sen. Max Baucus who helped draft the federal health reform bill enacted in March, is joining the Obama administration to help implement the new law…Fowler headed up a team of 20-some Senate Finance Committee staffers who helped draft the bill in the Senate. She was Baucus’ top health care aide from 2001-2005 and left that job in 2006 to become an executive at WellPoint, the nation’s largest private insurer. She was vice president of public policy at WellPoint, helping develop public-policy positions for the company. In 2008, she rejoined Baucus to work on health reform legislation.

For some good background on Fowler and the insidious role she played in killing the public option, watch Bill Moyers’ recent segment here.

Clearly, this is a telling indictment of the health care law itself, strongly suggesting that it was constructed by the Obama administration – as some progressives argued – as a massive taxpayer-financed giveaway to private insurers like Wellpoint. And let’s be honest: In investment terms, Fowler has been a jackpot for the health industry. The industry maximized her public policy experience for their own uses when they plucked her out of the Senate. Then, having lined her pockets, they deposited her first into a key Senate committee to write the new health care law that they will operate under, and now into the administration that will implement said law. Any bets on how much Fowler will make when Wellpoint (or another health insurer) inevitably rehires her in a few years?

This story is also a telling indictment of the Washington media. You’ll notice that the Obama administration’s move was reported by the Billings Gazette, but (save for a blog entry on the Hill’s website, one context-free line at the bottom of the Washington Post’s gossip column, and a blurb in Congressional Quarterly’s HealthBeat newsletter) was almost completely ignored by national Washington-based publications. That’s not because D.C. reporters didn’t know it was happening – more likely, it is because the political press corps in the nation’s capital no longer sees this kind of revolving door corruption as even mildly problematic, much less newsworthy. That’s how pervasive corruption is these days – ubiquitous to the point of invisible in the eyes of most of the so-called watchdogs.

The world is a college of corporations, inexorably determined by the immutable bylaws of business

The movie Network was released in 1976, which, amazingly enough, was 34 years ago at this point.  It is a great film, with great performances, but it’s important because it laid the corporate elite’s cards on the table for all of us to see.

Those cards make it absolutely clear that they don’t care about you.  They don’t care about America, or England, or New York, or London, or Afghanistan, or anything at all, really, except for the consolidation of power and wealth.  If a coup is required in an oil-producing country, it will happen.  If the invasion of a strategically located Central American country is deemed necessary, it will take place.  If an excuse is needed for the launching of a full scale war in a South Eastern Asian country, then a phony attack will be staged in order to rally the support of the masses.  If the destruction of America’s working class and productive capacity is required, then so mote it be.  And all of this occurs for the benefit of a small group of international elites, who continue to increase their profits and consolidate their power even now, as the world’s middle class is squarely in their cross-hairs.

And if it seems to you that among all of the recent calamity, that the rich and powerful just keep getting more rich and more powerful, don’t worry, you’re not crazy.  THEY ARE getting more rich and more powerful, and it’s all happening at your expense.  This is the plan, and this has been the plan for quite a while now.  As I said above, you don’t matter.  Countries don’t matter.  Profits matter, and tightening the control grid matters.  This is why the “domestic terrorism” meme has exploded recently.  Dissent must be demonized.  After all, they can’t rely on apathy forever, and sooner or later, a good number of people are going to figure out that “accidents” like the wealth-redistributing financial collapse aren’t accidents at all, and the masses are going to want their pound of flesh.  This is actually beginning to happen now, but apparently it’s a far worse crime to be pissed off at the murderous assholes who are ruining the world than it is to be a murderous asshole who is ruining the world.  At least that’s the message we’re being fed on a daily basis.

So anyway, the movie Network was a great piece of art, but it was also the most honest portrayal of our world that Hollywood has ever produced.

Here’s the most telling scene, complete with the script to read along with.

Arthur Jensen: You have meddled with the primal forces of nature, Mr. Beale, and I won’t have it!! Is that clear?! You think you’ve merely stopped a business deal. That is not the case. The Arabs have taken billions of dollars out of this country, and now they must put it back! It is ebb and flow, tidal gravity! It is ecological balance!

You are an old man who thinks in terms of nations and peoples. There are no nations. There are no peoples. There are no Russians. There are no Arabs. There are no third worlds. There is no West. There is only one holistic system of systems, one vast and immane, interwoven, interacting, multivariate, multinational dominion of dollars. Petro-dollars, electro-dollars, multi-dollars, reichsmarks, rins, rubles, pounds, and shekels.

It is the international system of currency which determines the totality of life on this planet. That is the natural order of things today. That is the atomic and subatomic and galactic structure of things today! And YOU have meddled with the primal forces of nature, and YOU WILL ATONE!

Am I getting through to you, Mr. Beale?

You get up on your little twenty-one inch screen and howl about America and democracy. There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and ITT and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, Union Carbide, and Exxon. Those are the nations of the world today.

What do you think the Russians talk about in their councils of state — Karl Marx? They get out their linear programming charts, statistical decision theories, minimax solutions, and compute the price-cost probabilities of their transactions and investments, just like we do.

We no longer live in a world of nations and ideologies, Mr. Beale. The world is a college of corporations, inexorably determined by the immutable bylaws of business. The world is a business, Mr. Beale. It has been since man crawled out of the slime. And our children will live, Mr. Beale, to see that perfect world in which there’s no war or famine, oppression or brutality — one vast and ecumenical holding company, for whom all men will work to serve a common profit, in which all men will hold a share of stock, all necessities provided, all anxieties tranquilized, all boredom amused.

And I have chosen you, Mr. Beale, to preach this evangel.

Howard Beale: Why me?

Arthur Jensen: Because you’re on television, dummy. Sixty million people watch you every night of the week, Monday through Friday.

Indeed.

Incidentally, the Howard Beale character is assassinated at the end of the movie.  Go figure, right?  Mom always said don’t meddle with the primal forces of nature.