Health care fixed, Democrats now take on slavery

We are all familiar with the concept of parallel universes, each of us having doppelgängers on other Earth-like planets. Imagine a place that was faced with the problem of slavery, as was the United States in the nineteenth century, but that rather than Abraham Lincoln and the pre-corporate Republicans, Barack Obama and the Democrats of 2010 confronted that problem.

Washington (AP) President Obama, with House and Senate Majority Leaders Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid at his side, today signed legislation that he called “a landmark end to slavery in the United States.” The president posed for photographs with other congressional leaders, who had earlier been photographed triumphantly walking down the steps of the Capitol Building.

The legislation was long and hard-fought, and is scheduled to go into effect in four years. Those states that want to immediately free slaves are prohibited from doing so for seven years. President Obama called slave owners “perhaps our most misunderstood citizens, patriotic and proud of their heritage. Not one of them likes slavery – not one. Each is bound by market conditions to own them. This bill at last sets them free.”

The bill creates a new class of citizen, the “unpaid employee,” and mandates that all Americans employ such citizens by 2014. The classification was hard-fought. Abolitionists faced entrenched opposition, some even being arrested after demanding of Senator Max Baucus (D-Mars), head of the Senate Slavery Committee, that he allow the negro freedom system to be considered with other options.

“Negro freedom is off the table,” said Baucus.

With Republicans threatening to filibuster if certain marginal Democrats got their wish that Negroes simply be set free, President Obama stayed out of the fight. His mother was a slave and was beaten to death by her owner, a deed he often mentioned during the presidential campaign. The candidate Obama said in campaign addresses that he favored freedom in general for Negroes, but changed course after election, saying that he had never embraced the idea of total emancipation. “I never said the words ‘Negro freedom’ during the campaign”, he said.

Both Democratic and Republican legislators enjoyed financial support from the slave-owning industry, and Obama met with slave owners repeatedly throughout the debate. Many in the Democratic Party favored the “free state option,” where Negroes who managed to make their way to non-slavery states would be allowed to stay there as free citizens. Under a compromise brokered by Sen Baucus, those slaves would be allowed to stay in free states, but only if employed as unpaid citizens. States harboring unpaid citizens would be required to pay plantations for lost labor.

But Obama apparently struck an agreement in secret meetings months ago that such an option was not “politically feasible,” and dropped the demand in exchange for a plantation industry promise not to run a “Jermain and Shashawn” – type ad campaign against the legislation. (The legendary ads are credited with having stopped abolitionist legisation in the early 1990’s.*) As before, those states that harbor fugitive slaves will be required to return them to their plantations, but under their new “unpaid citizen” status.

Democrats throughout the country are celebrating the landmark victory. Political blogs have widely praised the legislation as a sense of achievement settles in. Many wanted to see Negroes set free, but in the end realized that it would create competition in the job market. “It’s not really in the best interest of Negroes to be thrown into the competitive job market”, said Markos Moulitsas, proprietor of the widely read Daily Kos blog. He said that Representative Dennis Kucinich, who fought hard for freedom for Negroes until yielding to pressure at the end, “needs a primary opponent.” Presidential adviser Rahm Emmanuel, himself a slave owner, called abolitionist senators and representatives “retarded” and “niggers in whiteface.”

Others hailed the legislation as landmark, and claimed that whatever defects contained in the bill could be “fixed later.” Dissenters, who claim that that the legislation actually strengthens slave owners, were cautioned to “not let the perfect interfere with the good.” Slave-owning Democratic Senator Evan Bayh of Illinois reminded Democrats in an email circulated to state central committees that “80 per cent is better than nothing.”

As querulous Democrats slowly began to assimilate and internalize the legislation, there was a sense of relief that the fight was finally over, and that they could move on to solving other problems. Said John Firehammer, a real person who is a Democratic spokesman in Montana, “at last we can move on. Slavery is fixed. Now we need to concern ourselves with child labor.”

_______
*Slave owners did in fact run television ads against the legislation in the waning days of the congressional battle, but the ads were seen as weak an ineffective, even driving some anti-slavery citizens to support the bill.

The new stone age

It was a visit to a bygone era. We ran across one of those stoner stores in Santa Fe. It was loaded with hemp and post cards and bumper stickers, but, I am sorry to say, no lava lamps. Among the treasures I found were a post card of a grandma with over-sized glasses as grandmas tend to wear, a delightful smile, and a sticker affixed to her blouse that says “Fuck your war.”

Another is a bumper sticker with words by Abbie Hoffman:

You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists.

That’s a well-known quote. We supposedly have free speech here. Alexander Solzhenitsyn had to come to the U.S. to speak freely … about the Soviet Union. If he had unkind words to say about the U.S., he would have died in obscurity. In the post below, Paul Craig Roberts whined about how he ceased to matter when he became critical of the wrong people.

In this country fame is reserved for actors, athletes and apparatchiks. Dissidents need not apply.

Except … for the curious case of the Tea Baggers. This movement has gained considerable momentum and enjoyed wide publicity on cable news casts and in newspapers. Why does our media not ignore this movement as it does all other dissidents?

I can think of a couple of reasons: One, it is not a spontaneous movement. It is the product of a public relations campaign. This is high-level professional manipulation. (To what end? Violence? To give the appearance of rebellion that covertly achieves other purposes? I don’t know. As with everything else in life, my wisdom will come after the fact.)

Second, the content of the protests, at least what I can make of the gobbledygook, is anti-democratic. Tea Baggers don’t like universal health care or taxation of any sort. They are opposed to “socialism” in much the same way that creationists are opposed to “science.” It is something they don’t understand, but know somehow threatens them.

Tea Baggers are not just dead intellectually, their brains are gone. Watch the manipulators. Why does the phenomenon exist? Why are they not cast out and left to rot away, as our real dissidents are? Why have they been elevated to special status?

One can only guess, and I don’t even have a good guess handy.

Be isolated, be ignored, be attacked, be in doubt, be frightened, but do not be silenced. (Bertrand Russell)

Tea Baggers, heed Russell’s words, be not silenced, but for God’s sake, be not fucking stupid.

BBC Stories

A couple of things we heard on BBC as we traveled this week:

First, Russian billionaire and former KGB agent Alexander Lebedev and his son and Evgeny have purchased The Independent, a UK newspaper, for one pound sterling. Lebedev’s job as a KGB agent was to read British newspapers. He has pledged to “in-depth investigative reporting and campaigns which promote transparency and seek to fight international corruption.” His reputation as owner of Russian newspapers and the the London Evening Star is quite good, according to BBC.

Secondly, the British have announced that they will no longer use, produce or store cluster bombs. Said British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, “Cluster munitions cause immense suffering to civilians caught in conflict zones and leave a deadly post-conflict legacy for future generations. I am hugely proud that with this bill receiving Royal Assent, Britain is leading the world in banning the use of these munitions and moving to end the harm they cause.”

I was curious to see what kind of coverage this announcement would receive in the U.S., as our country is among just a few left in the world still using the bombs (Russia, China, Pakistan and Israel are among the others). The bombs are designed to release thousands of bomblets that tear people to shreds. If that were not enough, many of the bomblets are left unexploded and are attractive nuisances for children, who are drawn to their bright yellow colors. Wherever the U.S. and Israel have gone, there are stories for years to come of children losing arms, limbs and sight, if not being killed, by the residue bomblets from these nasty devices.

There is virtually no coverage in the U.S. that I could find. CNN International has it, as does Moon-owned UPI. That’s about it.

Too much tail wagging

In the wake of health care defeat, a couple of movies come to mind. I can’t do any linking so I hope the reader may have seen both.

One is The Sting, from way back. I would urge Democrats to see that movie if only to learn about false agents. People can be very smart – so smart in fact that they can hire other people to pose as things they are not. The various roles played by Obama, Lieberman, Baucus, Nelson, and at the end, Michael Bennet, ought to be examined.

Remember when the Senate parliamentarian said that the insurance rates oversight panel had to be ditched? Turns out that all that needed to be done was for the President of the Senate, Joe Biden, to overule the parliamentarian. Funny it didn’t happen.

But the thing I remember most about The Sting was that, in the end, the “mark” could not know he had been stung. Otherwise he might seek revenge.

Democrats do not realize they have been stung, and so will repeat this pattern again. So it is important now for them to feel victory. They really have to believe they did something meaningful.

The other movie is less popular, kind of a “dog whistle” movie where you either realized that it was not far from reality, as I did, or just thought if was goofy entertainment. It was called Wag the Dog. There the lesson of The Sting was even more emphatic. Dustin Hoffman’s character was so impressed with himself and the work he had done in selling a phony war in Albania that he was going to talk in public about it even though he had been warned not to. They had to kill him.

The sting has to stick. If Democrats question authority or realize they were led like sheep to a predetermined destination, they might rebel.

Fat chance, I suppose. But next year, when the tax cuts are on the table, and party leadership starts the whole song and dance all over again, wouldn’t be nice to think that they actually learned from defeat?

The deal was made months ago

Miles Mogulescu reports at Huffington Post today that Obama made a deal months ago with the health insurance cartel that there would be no public option in the health care bill.

Actually, it’s something that Mogulescu reported last August and that ran once in the New York Times and nowhere else. Ed Schultz picked it up on his TV show, which really ought to stifle these complaints around that Schultz is “managed opposition.” There is enough of that around, but Schultz is not part of it.

Just two thoughts: One, this exposes the lie that there has been any kind of “process” to the packaging and selling of this bill. It’s been theatrics from the start, all done for our benefit. That’s why Joe Lieberman is and will continue to be head of the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee. He was merely an actor playing his part.

Secondly, Colorado Senator Michael Bennet made great show of collecting signatures on a letter demanding a public option in the bill. It was a Kabuki dance. Bennet has a primary opponent and is running scared. Bennet is not red and black, and is no friend of Jack. (Red touch yellow kill a fellow – I know a poisonous snake when I see one.)

Bennet, a recipient of Wall Street and health insurance money and a Rahm Emanuel appointee, knows what is up.

h/t: Lb

Power … raw naked power

It’s an incredible show of corporate power over our elected representatives. Shock and awe, defeat so thorough that all we can do cry for a while, and then start over. The worst provisions of this bill do not kick in until 2014.

A year ago 77 members of the House of Representatives pledged that they would not support a health care reform bill that did not contain a public option. (I said 87 somewhere else on this blog – numbers ain’t my strong point.)

Nancy Pelosi laughed out loud when she heard this, and now we know why. Since that time, 75 caved. Two were left standing: Eric Massa, and Dennis Kucinich.

Make of that what you will.

Perfecto!

From Brad Blog writer Earnest A. Canning:

Today, as I mulled over the legislative obscenity that Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT) and a former vice president of WellPoint spent months preparing — an insurance carrier wish-list that contains no public option, no means for controlling costs or abuse; a measure that does not merely protect but expands the already obscene wealth of the few by mandating that every citizen purchase insurance, with massive subsidies flowing into carrier coffers —

The amazing thing about this process has not been the cynicism of Baucus and the Democrats and the health insurance companies, but rather the willing gullibility of Democrats. The words above were written when Baucus introduced the bill. After a year of wrangling, what we have is exactly what was proposed in the first place!

There’s been no process. There’s been herding. It would be nice if a Democrat or two would rebel, but all we get are talking points so dripping with stupidity that a Tea Bagger would cringe to read them.

This is perfect – I mean perfect. Not good – don’t settle for good. The health insurance companies got everything they wanted. Perfection.

Fredo, you broke my heart …

It is discouraging – after writing yesterday about how Dennis Kucinich was the lone wolf, one of the few who could stand up to power, he folded. He’s on board the Obama train now. Prepare now for some cowboy foreplay-“Brace yerself honey.” They are ramming this bill through.

This is a huge victory for Obama and the DLC Dems – they are rubbing our faces in it, teabagging us, letting us know that there is no place for progressives in their party. They will take a huge drubbing at the polls this fall because millions of us just won’t have the energy to vote for people so unprincipled. I suspect that matters less to them than the mere fact that they defeat any nascent progressive movement in this land.

This gives lie to the Democratic fall-back that the votes just aren’t there for true health care reform. The votes are there, and the means to get those votes has always been there. However, Obama and the Democratic Party leadership have never wanted reform. The bill they are passing, a corporate-written bill ushered through in a scripted process, has always been what they were after. And they are persuasive and powerful. No doubt Kucinich was reminded that he can be challenged in the primaries, that big money will go after him, that he would receive no support from the party. Maybe he’s been wiretapped, maybe he’s got a skeleton. There were probably some positive enticements too. Obama can be persuasive. Yet never once – never once! – has he used those powers in favor of true reform.

It’s disgraceful, discouraging. Kucinich was a man of honor in defeat. Now he’s just another mealy-mouthed Democrat. So his defeat at the polls, as with all the others, would be of no consequence.

As they say, a man who places faith in politicians is doomed to disappointment. Damned if I didn’t have faith in him.

The good news is this: Obama appointee and Wall Street/health insurance-funded Senator Michael Bennet was defeated in the caucuses last night here in Colorado by Andrew Romanoff, who appears to be somewhat progressive. In an obnoxious and heavy-handed move last month, Obama elected to interfere in a local primary in support of Bennet. The results last night are a slap to Obama, and a message to Bennet that if he wants to win, he had better hide his funding sources.

All in all, not a good day. Power wins a big one, loses a small one. No doubt Bennet’s people right now are crafting ads about how he’s a man of the people, and Kucinich is putting together a press conference to somehow salvage his manhood.
————————–
PS: I suggest that anyone who calls or emails Kucinich to complain include the words “I know it was you, Fredo. You broke my heart.

Riding the Power Train

Some time ago, maybe a year ago, a group 80+ of House “progressives” took a stand on behalf of the American public regarding health care. They said that they would not support any bill that did not contain a public option. Nancy Pelosi laughed out loud at the time – she (supposedly a progressive herself) knew that it was an expression of weakness, that they would be destroyed. The power they were up against was simply too much for them.

The Health Care “Reform” debate has been an impressive demonstration of power. Every one of those progressives caved but one: Dennis Kucinich still stands tall, but alone. Here is something really, really interesting – Marcus Molitas of Daily Kos says that Kucinich – Kucinich!!! is one who is now in need of a primary opponent.*

It is a good time again to examine, if only with a surface glance or two, the nature of power. The fact that 86 “progressives” folded their tents is not just a victory for the insurance companies and the White House – it is a not even just a staggering victory. It is shock and awe.

So let’s examine it further. How does one man get another man to become his servant?

In employment, it’s the paycheck. But the power goes deeper than that – the employee might be burdened by mortgages, kids, student loans and the inability to get health insurance somewhere else. Further, few employees are of such caliber that there is any meaningful competition for their services, so that a mere job-jump is not an option. Even if the employee gets so fed up that he makes that jump, he will face a period of unemployment, and with that will come inability to pay bills, loss of credit standing, debt, loss of social standing. (And, his résumé will be tainted if he is perceived as rebellious.)

So for most people, the power of the boss over the employee is complete and total.

Transfer this relationship to that of the office holder and the (generic) “lobbyist.” The lobbyist needs leverage. Where does he find it?

Money is part of it, and is a two-edged sword. Money given to an office holder is useful – he can use it to buy TV ads and get reelected. TV is the only pathway to the voter, who is generally not paying attention. But it is more than that, as the office holder must assume that any money he does not take will go to an opponent. So the power of money is magnified by the ability of the lobbyist to leverage it by offering it to an opponent too.

If it were only money, we would not be in such trouble, because the “lobbyist” has a weakness. He is up against other lobbyists, and while there is seldom significant differences on large objectives – wars, subsidies, tax breaks and the like, there can be competing objectives, so that the office holder can at times leverage one lobbyist against another.

So the lobbyist needs more than just money, though money is powerful and mostly legal. There are other legal ways of making the office holder behave.

One is the fact that most of our “mainstream” media is in fact owned and controlled by the elite moneyed sectors who hire the lobbyists. Office holders need access to this media to be considered credible. Bad actors like Kucinich or Bernie Sanders will never appear on a Sunday talk show. It is well-understood among office holders that a stint on Democracy Now!, the only true news show around, will not cement voter approval – and might even stigmatize them.

So lobbyists have further control over office holders by controlling, in a general sense (there is no one lever to pull, no one lever-puller), access to favorable media. Further, negative press is a weapon – if an office holder stumbles over his words and accidentally says something that is true, or gets a DUI, becomes confrontational or gets out of line, negative editorials will appear in his home district, footage might leak to YouTube – it is somewhat disheveled and disorganized, but office holders have to be careful never to say anything in affront to lobbyists for fear of bad PR.

But even that is not enough. There are yet other legal ways of controlling the office holder. There is so much money floating around this country and in DC that an office holder of low scruples can avail himself of it in many ways. He can accept lucrative employment after leaving office, as, for instance, former South Dakota senate minority leader Tom Daschle becoming a health insurance lobbyist. (Chris Dodd will be interesting to watch – even after announcing his resignation, he is still working on behalf of Wall Street lobbyists. Does lucrative employment await?)

There are also employment opportunities for family members, as with Joe’s son, Beau Biden, working for MNBA back in Delaware, and Evan Bayh’s wife drawing lucrative salaries from health insurance companies … if we had investigative journalists, it would be interesting to do some research on employment of family members in Washington.

In fact, most loyal office holders, even the lowly Conrad Burns, can turn to a career in lobbying after leaving office, and rewards will be there for the rest of their useful lives.

All of that is, unfortunately, legal. But there is yet more. During the Bush years we learned of the prevalence of the wire tap – certainly not new (nor has it been discontinued under Obama). Most members of the media had their phones tapped by NSA or other agencies. The same is most likely true of most members of Congress. If such a weapon were available, and we know it is, how could it not be used?

No matter what it is, whether tryst with a secretary or a drunken party in the Bahamas, somebody in DC knows about it, and such information will be presented to the office holder at some critical juncture.

If only it stopped there. But there is also “sheepdipping”, aka “ABSCAMming”, where an office holder can be made to look guilty or lured into a compromising situation. This happened to Gary Hart, and many years before, Wilbur Mills. John Edwards might be a victim, though he certainly merits no sympathy. Most recently, former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter, and before him, New York Governor Elliot Spitzer were “exposed.” The question that is not asked is “How many are culpable, but not exposed?”

These men were being watched – people were looking for dirt, and they found it. And even if the dirt does not turn up naturally, it can be planted. Any potential hire for an office holder can present a threat – she could be the next Donna Rice, Monica, or Linda Tripp.

So the control over our elected officials appears almost complete and total. A man has to be pure and innocent to be immune from such pressures. He has to forgo corporate money and lead a squeaky-clean life. Such a man is Bernie Sanders ….. but wait!

Sanders, Vermont’s socialist senator, seems a rogue, a man able to walk about freely and speak his mind. He’s not hobbled by the Democratic Party, and doesn’t take corporate money, so the regular levers don’t work on him. Yet, when the Senate Health “Reform” bill, written by the health insurance lobbyists, needed 60 votes to get out of the senate, he provided the 60th vote.

We had been treated to spectacles before where certain senators like Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson used their “60th vote” status to leverage massive changes in the bill, preventing a public option, for instance. Senator Sanders, the 60th vote for that bill, had incredible power to command changes favorable to ordinary citizens.

And he did not do so. He did not use his power, meaning he did not have power.

What’s up with that, Bernie? Skeletons in your closet?
—————–
*This is not hard to understand, on further reflection. Molitas made that statement while be interviewed on a cable news show. He would not have access to such forums if he held unworthy views. He has succumbed, and is probably a passenger on the ego train. He’s apparently been compromised in some fashion.