Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Do America's Rich Now Have Their Own Disaster Response System?

By Naomi Klein, The Nation. Posted November 3, 2007.


With disaster services being privatized, the rich are buying their way out of catastrophe.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

Also in Top Stories

Sleeping Around Craigslist
Anna Reed, Lily Penza, East Bay Express

Bush's Secret Army of Snoops and Snitches
Matthew Rothschild, The Progressive

Michael Pollan on What's Wrong with Environmentalism
Kate Cheney Davidson, Yale Environment 360

A Peak Oil Prophet Imagines Life in America After Wal-Mart
Michelle Nijhuis, Grist.org

Sci-Fi Heroes Take on the System
Roya Rastegar, ColorLines

Billionaires Are Gouging Your Grandparents
Brave New Films, Brave New Films

Online Activists Keep the Pressure on Obama
Ari Melber, TheNation.com

More stories by Naomi Klein

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

I used to worry that the United States was in the grip of extremists who sincerely believed that the Apocalypse was coming and that they and their friends would be airlifted to heavenly safety. I have since reconsidered. The country is indeed in the grip of extremists who are determined to act out the biblical climax -- the saving of the chosen and the burning of the masses -- but without any divine intervention. Heaven can wait. Thanks to the booming business of privatized disaster services, we're getting the Rapture right here on earth.

Just look at what is happening in Southern California. Even as wildfires devoured whole swaths of the region, some homes in the heart of the inferno were left intact, as if saved by a higher power. But it wasn't the hand of God; in several cases it was the handiwork of Firebreak Spray Systems. Firebreak is a special service offered to customers of insurance giant American International Group -- but only if they happen to live in the wealthiest ZIP codes in the country. Members of the company's Private Client Group pay an average of $19,000 to have their homes sprayed with fire retardant. During the wildfires, the "mobile units" -- racing around in red fire-trucks -- even extinguished fires for their clients.

One customer described a scene of modern-day Revelation. "Just picture it. Here you are in that raging wildfire. Smoke everywhere. Flames everywhere. Plumes of smoke coming up over the hills," he told the Los Angeles Times. "Here's a couple guys showing up in what looks like a firetruck who are experts trained in fighting wildfire and they're there specifically to protect your home."

And your home alone. "There were a few instances," one of the private firefighters told Bloomberg News, "where we were spraying and the neighbor's house went up like a candle." With public fire departments cut to the bone, gone are the days of Rapid Response, when everyone was entitled to equal protection. Now, increasingly intense natural disasters will be met with the new model: Rapture Response.

During last year's hurricane season, Florida homeowners were offered similarly high-priced salvation by HelpJet, a travel agency launched with promises to turn "a hurricane evacuation into a jet-setter vacation." For an annual fee, a company concierge takes care of everything: transport to the air terminal, luxurious travel, bookings at five-star resorts. Most of all, HelpJet is an escape hatch from the kind of government failure on display during Katrina. "No standing in lines, no hassle with crowds, just a first class experience."

HelpJet is about to get some serious competition from some much larger players. In northern Michigan, during the same week that the California fires raged, the rural community of Pellston was in the grip of an intense public debate. The village is about to become the headquarters for the first fully privatized national disaster response center. The plan is the brainchild of Sovereign Deed, a little-known start-up with links to the mercenary firm Triple Canopy. Like HelpJet, Sovereign Deed works on a "country-club type membership fee," according to the company's vice president, retired Brig. Gen. Richard Mills. In exchange for a one-time fee of $50,000 followed by annual dues of $15,000, members receive "comprehensive catastrophe response services" should their city be hit by a manmade disaster that can "cause severe threats to public health and/or well-being" (read: a terrorist attack), a disease outbreak or a natural disaster. Basic membership includes access to medicine, water and food, while those who pay for "premium tiered services" will be eligible for VIP rescue missions.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: emergency response, privatization, disaster

Naomi Klein is the author of Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
This is sick
Posted by: abbadon2007 on Nov 3, 2007 1:27 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Just sick.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: This is sick Posted by: rinthy
Brave and not-so-brave New World
Posted by: talkville on Nov 3, 2007 1:35 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bush I ushered in a wave by proclaiming the "New World Order" on othe onset of Iraq I (that long forgotten precursor).

Two words can be found in any good dictionary: "master" and "slave". It's well worth delving slowly in a depth sort of way into these two words and ponder their various meanings and synonyms in their long histories.

When setting the experiences of Katrina and the California Wildfires side by side, the dis-connect seems barely graspable by reason and over-whelming to the affects. Some (most) have mere rights; others (few) have both rights and privileges. Life is cheap (Katrina); Property is priceless (California).

There, in a nut-shell, is the Neo-Liberal creed of Milton Friedman, Alan Greenspan and the literally millions of people who follow 'the leaders' of the Neo-Conservative politicos.

"... and to promote the general welfare" -- I don't recall quite where I read these words, but probably as with most of the books and documents I've read over the years, it's out of print.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

X pat with GREAT RELIEF
Posted by: davy on Nov 3, 2007 3:45 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Whew, thank God I got outta there. What ever has America become. So many wonderful people conned by so few, for what? Would you rather take a road trip in a new Porche by yourself or with two pals in an old beater? When will those who realize kindness and friendship are worth soooo much more that STUFF. I wish you a great wake up America. Glad I'm not there.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Glad you aren't here too! Posted by: boydranchitos
» Kawaisou Posted by: skoog5600
» RE: X pat with GREAT RELIEF Posted by: Chloe2005
» Why would the Xpat tell you? Posted by: skoog5600
» Another X-pat who is relieved Posted by: skoog5600
» Run, Forrest, Run! Posted by: ssegallmd
» RE: un, Forrest, Run! Posted by: ssegallmd
How much do you want to bet...
Posted by: Frankstank on Nov 3, 2007 4:00 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Klein has insurance on her home. And her health. And travel insurance. And probably multiple bank accounts for all her cash and investments. Are we to believe a successful author wouldn't protect her wealth?

So why does she find it surprising some people with very expensive homes would rather save them in a fire, than watch them burn and then spend two years fighting with the insurance company to get their money so they could rebuild?

When there was catastrophic flooding in Canada back in the 90s, the Canadian government just let the rivers sweep houses away. I guess we could call that the 'Klein disaster response model mark 1'.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Ad Hominem! Posted by: talkville
» RE: Ad Hominem! Posted by: Frankstank
» RE: Ad Hominem! Posted by: SatanicJamboree
» RE: Ad Hominem! Posted by: Frankstank
» RE: Ad Hominem! Posted by: talkville
» ooooh how the biz works! Posted by: Coleman
» RE: Ad Hominem! Posted by: rocketman
» Hominem hominem hominem! Posted by: ssegallmd
» You are missing the point... Posted by: StPeteRican
» RE: You are missing the point... Posted by: Frankstank
I guess I'm missing something
Posted by: rwday@cox.net on Nov 3, 2007 4:19 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So rich people use their wealth to protect and preserve their property? Is this a surprise?

I live in a hurricane zone - I'm not rich by American standards, but you can bet that if we had an evacuation, I'd make full use of whatever resources I had to protect myself and my property. That's just common sense. What do you expect, Naomi, the rich to pretend all that money doesn't exist and let their homes burn if they have an alternative just because it fits with your concepts of fairness?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What about the Constitution?
Posted by: Urstrly on Nov 3, 2007 6:20 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I recall a couple of phrases from our Constitution which we would be wise to hold up: provide for the common good and promote the general welfare. While corporatization and individualism run amok, we should not fool ourselves that we can continue the democratic republic that we say we revere if the wealthy increasingly retreat (from disasters created in large part by their wealth) into safe havens. The rage of those "left behind" is going to be realpolitik consequence of abandoning our social compact, so we're really choosing between civil society and personal greed.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Demonstrates How America's Tax System Operates
Posted by: sofla100 on Nov 3, 2007 7:28 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As the rich continue to pay a lower percentage of their taxes than the poor and middle class in America, the result has been a decimation of public services. So, the rich have started to hire their own fire services, emergency services, and security services. Soon, we may see entirely privatized police services. Even the military is becoming privatized. The rich don't mind, for them, it's cheaper than if good and decent services had to be distributed to everyone. Better to have their dividends and capital gains taxed less. This then is the American model for the future. Along with it, comes an increasingly large gap between America's rich and poor. They live in increasingly separated worlds.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Bringing the shock doctrine home? Welcome to the "ownership society."
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Nov 3, 2007 8:33 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Naomi Klein's book is a must read for anyone who wants to understand the real agenda of the corporate and political honchos in the U.S.

I like talking to conservatives who hate socialism, and pointing out to them that we have socialized emergency services - police and fire and emergency medical responses. This always brings a look of startlement to their faces.

Why do we have such services? It's pretty simple: if your neighbor's house is on fire, and the fire services won't put it out because they haven't been paid, than it's likely that you house will catch fire too, even if you did pay.

It's like epidemics of disease - if you only treat the people with health insurance, the disease can spread quickly among those without insurance.

Now, with the economic agenda of the Freidmanites in place, all that is being disposed with. They're trying to go back to some kind of feudal model, similar to what exists in Saudi Arabia. All services are to be privatized and only those who can afford to pay will get anything - and the middle class will be driven out of existence.

The political class in the U.S. has become incredibly smug, from local city councils to states to Congress. They know that the press is owned by the same people who put them in office, and they know that they no longer have to answer to the public (rigged voting systems, anyone?). More and more judges are outright tools of corporate and political interests, and are more than willing to ignore the law when it conflicts with the desires of their benefactors.

If things continue in this manner, it is a virtual certainty that there will eventually, in a decade or so, be a two-level society in the U.S. - the extremely poor and the extremely wealthy, and nothing in between. This, of course, will result armed insurrections, kidnappings for ransom, and all kinds of extreme violence - as is the case in Colombia today. It really must be stopped now.

How to do that? Rather than protesting in the streets, which does almost nothing, the economic and legal issues must be put foremost. Stripping assets from the wealthiest section of the U.S. is a necessity. We need to raid the offshore tax havens and the conglomerated banking sector, in other words. Sending corrupt politicians and government offials to prison is also a necessity. This won't happen via street protests - it will require focused legal and political efforts.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» 5 (or 6) Step Solution Posted by: matti
missed point...
Posted by: moonerone on Nov 3, 2007 9:40 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The author and most of the comments I've read have missed the point entirely. Who would want to watch their property go up if flames? Or blown away in a storm? Or anything else for that matter. No people, it's not the money itself that is to blame, it's how they get the money that is the point. Most rich people got that way by using their brains and hard work, not ripping people off. Yes, there are some really bad examples out there but if you are blindly doing their bidding, like buying their useless products and services, your to blame for getting them rich in the first place. In other words your priorities are way out of order. That's the great American mistake; you get what you pay for in more ways than one.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Self-Fulfiling Prophecies
Posted by: Pico Pico on Nov 3, 2007 10:21 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There’s a big difference in my approach to my modest good fortune and the approach of the privatizers. I have insurance AND I support public services and universal healthcare and business regulation. Why?
Most of us were taught sacred scripture of one kind or another, all of which insist on the individual’s responsibility to the poor and the oppressed. (That’s what’s being denigrated now as “socialism” and “stealing from the rich.”) But the benefit of easing poverty and fighting injustice was never only in one direction. (That’s why we’ll always have the poor.) As we make the world safer, cleaner, fairer, healthier, more just for the least of us, we make it so for all. The act of giving and of working for the good of others is the single greatest fulfilling and civilizing act there is. THAT is the point. THAT is what the GOP is shredding.
It’s not about richness, per se. The rich once felt some philanthropic responsibility, but I note there is no George W. Bush Foundation. No, it’s about the kind of world we want to inhabit. The GOP/Neo-Con/fundamentalist worldview is Hobbesian: Dog eat dog. Get all you can and screw the rest.
The alternative is spelled out in the great sacred scriptures of all humanity AND in our founding documents – the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, and the Constitution, which came from an era called The Enlightenment, for good reason.
I look on in stunned amazement at what’s happening to American democracy—often called the greatest experiment in social organization. Do these people really think they are wiser than these?
The thing is, these worldviews are self-fulfilling prophecies. That’s the point.
Which one would a smart person choose?
We are at the decision point. If we don’t stop this NOW, we will be serfs and the planet will be stripped, scorched, and poisoned. So I’m not just watching. I’m trying to educate and motivate. Don’t be diverted into hating immigrants or the swiftboating of Democrats, and don’t be paralyzed by fear. This is your future. Make it.
Klein’s work is essential. Without it, we have no idea what’s going down.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

So what else is new?
Posted by: wildbill on Nov 3, 2007 11:17 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The rich have always been able to get things the rest of us can't - that's why they fly in private jets instead of standing in security lines at airports, it's why they pay less in taxes, live longer, have fancier cars, bigger houses, prettier wives, etc., etc.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: So what else is new? Posted by: willymack
It's the privatization, stupid!
Posted by: madaha on Nov 3, 2007 11:25 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't think Klein's point is to say that rich people shouldn't protect their belongings. The problem is that the govmt programs are disintegrating, and private firms are replacing them. Therefore, there is no safety net, and only the rich ARE ABLE to be protected, because they must pay out of pocket, and they are the only ones who can. The government must stay in place, and protect everyone equally, because private firms sure as hell won't - they go to the highest bidder.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This is about mixed economies with a baseline of public services
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Nov 3, 2007 11:39 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The issue here is not "privatization vs. socialization."

Take health care. There should be a minimal level of basic healthcare services available to all, paid for by taxes. This has positive effects like avoiding disease epidemics and should of course be focused on preventative health care - meaning programs to eliminate obesity and bad diet, for example.

However, if you happen to have made a lot of money in business that year, there should be no reason you can't hire your own private doctor and nurse to follow you around 24-7, if that's what you want to do.

Likewise, there should be minimal fire and police services available to all, but that doesn't mean that you can't go out and buy your own private fire truck, and hire a couple of personal bodyguards, if that's what you want to do.

That's not socialism, it's not capitalism - it's a realistic mixed economy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

There is no historical baseline... but what next?
Posted by: war_on_tara on Nov 3, 2007 2:31 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm appalled by this story too, except I'm concerned that some here are romanticizing a non-existent "good old days" of disaster relief.

Was there a halcyon (so to speak) era when public disaster relief ran smoothly & efficiently? I don't think the 1927 Mississippi River floods, for instance, would qualify, or the Dust Bowl years in the '30s, or the hurricane of '38 in New England. Are we talking about the '60s, a time of relatively quiet hurricane activity compared to the Katrina era? Or the '89 earthquake? There are always complaints about the governmental response to disaster.

I agree with someone who posted above that the Constitution's "promote the general welfare" clause should include disaster relief. But in reality, you know, before the 20th century it didn't happen; almost all disaster relief back then was handled by private charities. Let's keep some perspective.

Anyone here have ideas about how to respond to these new private services? Outlaw them? (get real - & the Supremes would never allow it). Have the government services compete with them? (not possible). Require contributions to the general welfare, as with a utility - or at least, as with a utility pre-Reagan? Maybe the most practical approach.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

How to deal with privatization?
Posted by: Pico Pico on Nov 3, 2007 6:55 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Do your homework.
It's not about "romanticizing a past" that never existed. It's about the promise of a future never achieved but articulated in our Constitution and Bill of Rights. It's about the dogged determination of the Right to defeat national healthcare because if it succeeds, it, and the New Deal history, would show how effective government can be when properly conceived and deployed.
I'm sure that we will have the future we want most.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» + "the New Deal history" Posted by: war_on_tara
Privatisation Of Fire Services.
Posted by: itchyvet on Nov 4, 2007 3:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I know it's not a laughing matter, but seriously folks, reading this article and the responces really had me in stitches.
Are Americans so far gone, that they are prepared to place their health and welfare into some strangers hands in exchange for money ? WOW !
We all know of insurance companies doing their damndest, to cop out of paying up the dues to their clients, what's to say, similar will not happen with this idea down the track ?
LOL, what are they gonna do when their homes are burnin and the Insurance company sez,"sorry folks, the boss split with the loot". If it wasn't so bloody tragic, it'd be really funny.
Let's face people, the only ones responsabile for your wlefare/survival and well being, are YOURSELVES, not some fly by night insurance company that for all you know, may never stand behind their policies. A bit late to find out when your homes burnin to the ground.
I've heard the saying, "always a sucker", how true.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Privatisation Of Fire Services. Posted by: VannaLaRoche
» Troll Posted by: ssegallmd
» RE: Troll Posted by: Coleman
Good when
Posted by: argyle on Nov 4, 2007 4:47 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
we nationalize those companies during a disaster they will add significantly to our resources. They will of course be paid fair market value for their services, same as fire and police, and of course they will go where WE tell them to, or we will simply take their equipment, at fair market value.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Good when Posted by: richholland
» ! - that's a pretty good idea Posted by: war_on_tara
What is Klein's practical solution?
Posted by: lamar on Nov 4, 2007 6:11 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The subtext running through this article, the one Klein refuses to touch, is that public services are insufficient to protect us in cases of emergency. I'm wondering how much taxes would need to be raised in order to fund $19,000 per house services and how those taxes would affect the poor on a day to day basis. Even if we tax the rich more, that would barely cover things like healthcare and social security if it even would do that.

Given the government's inability to protect us, I'm wondering why we would blame people who contract out to protect themselves.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Rangel's Tax Bill is A Start, Also: Look to Europe
Posted by: sofla100 on Nov 4, 2007 7:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Rangel's tax bill is a start to closing the loopholes that let the rich and wealthy corporations get off with so little in taxes. His bill increases taxes on those with over $200,000 in annual income. It alone would generate billions more per year. Next, you have increasing the capital gains tax and corporate taxes. US corporations and the wealthy elite have hundreds of billions socked away in tax havens in other countries, and that is another place to go after.

If taxes were fair, we can look to how the European system works. They have socialized medical care and adequate disaster relief services. Closing tax loopholes and making the rich pay a fair share generates billions, but with the levers of power controlled by these people, will it ever happen?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

this is how empires fall.....
Posted by: eosrk on Nov 4, 2007 9:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
....and it will happen again.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Whole Future or No Future - our last chance to decide
Posted by: Constitutionalist75 on Nov 4, 2007 11:50 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When any liberal democratic regime imposes heavy taxes on the rich to compensate for low wages paid to the poor, the rich are understandably furious since their whole purpose is to escape poverty and enjoy all the pleasures their "good life" can provide. So, they use every dirty trick to keep their wealth and power for which they are infamous down through the Ages. But why bother to fight that never-ending class war that only waffles between various forms of socialism and fascism from century to century and decade to decade?

Instead, abandon the whole filthy system by organizing to establish a network of eco-tech villages that build their own shelter, grow their own food, make their own clothing, home-school their own children, farm for family and community, freely trade with each other for mutual benefit, while surrounding themselves with miles of healthy wilderness. Add to this the freedom of each woman to decide if and when to birth children, and the human race will then return to its natural balance with the Earth's ability to support us.

But those who are addicted to the hierarchy of wealth and privilege over poverty and servitude, absolutely hate the very idea of basic human equality! The wealthy want slaves and servants so they can feel superior and aloof from the struggle to live on this harsh planet where all life must devour life to live. They reject the cooperative solution in favor of their super egos that imagine approval from God, yet also hope for a scientific breakthrough to give them eternal life here and now.

This struggle has been going on ever since the first city states were established at the dawn of recorded history, and it rages today as never before - to such an extent that the Earth itself hangs on the edge of total destruction - a time when the rich and powerful have siezed political power in the persons of George Bush and Dick Cheney who, in their madness, would rather destroy the entire planet in World War Three, than allow a return to peace and balance - and Bush in particular uses the advice of an Armageddonite preacher who quotes from the insane "Book of Revelations" to justify that Third World War which would inevitably involve nuclear weapons and cause extinction around the World.

So, can anyone stop these demonic hypocrites and save life on Earth which, according to their own religion, is God's creation? --- If Saving the Earth

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

two-tiered system for dealing with disaster?
Posted by: hurricane hugo on Nov 4, 2007 12:01 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This shit ain't even news - when was it ever anything else? Rich people get the lifeboats, poor go down with the ship.

plur

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Justice system is this way
Posted by: drblack on Nov 4, 2007 1:44 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The American Justice system is this way and always has been.
I drove a junker car around just to test this.
If you look poor you are treated much more harshly than if you look rich.
In the areas of Philadelphia where drug dealers are everywhere If i walked around dressed well the cops wouldn't look at me.
If I dressed in jeans and an old coat They would steal my money( cops stealing money !) swear at me , search me etc and I was simply white and walking in these areas.
It is sad that capitalism is not just our economic system ,but our system of government and America's key value.
Money is important but it is a means to an end not an end to itself.
I suggest that these private emergency systems should have a 25% surcharge that goes to public emergency services.
The mega rich, who waste more money in a day then most of the world earns in a year, make me angry and sick.

When so many people don't have the basics it is truly evil for people to waste so much on frivilous and uneeded stuff.
It is one of the reasons that i cannot belittle enough the people who worship celebrities by watching shows like TMZ and by following the every word and deed of wastes of space like Oprah Winfrey.
Then they praise these rich celebrities for their tax wrire offs.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

LA Times piece was better... kinda
Posted by: DaBear on Nov 4, 2007 4:38 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I was more than stunned when the LA "Republikaaner" Times reported on this story and quoted Naomi Klein. Her quotes were better then and in the piece she even said that she didn't blame rich people or AIG for doing this. The Times shockingly followed her logic and posited why shouldn't every insurance company, hell, why shouldn't every home be getting that kind of protection, period? Indeed.

But the article's title here is problematic... the real question isn't "Is it..." But "WHY" is it becoming two-tiered. Even market fundies have to admit, when faced with a stop-loss program why isn't every insurer phos-checking homes in the face of wildfires? The truth is really ugly. Kinda like the truth behind the real answer to why we have a two-tiered disaster response system in the US (to ask if we have one is kinda silly.... everyone with a couple of firing brain cells left knows we always have had one world for the bourgeoise and one for the proles).

The truth in the answer to why we're even having these kinds of disasters to begin with is really damned ugly.... and in 'Merkuh, 'Merkaans don't deal with ugly.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Government Taxes Should Support the Common Good
Posted by: laurel.jensen on Nov 5, 2007 7:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
At issue here is NOT whether the rich should be able to buy more protection than others. They always have had the resources to do so - and they always will.

The point Naomi Klein is making is that the rich, who control our tax dollars, have been supporting privitization of government functions to the point where there is no protection for the public.

I for one, am deeply troubled and more than a little angry, that I am required to pay for corporate contracts and subsidies with little or no benefit to me. Blackwater is able to go "full spectrum" and offer disaster services for a high fee because of their profitable contracts in Iraq, paid for by our tax dollars. This is precisely what Eisenhower warned against post-WWII.

The 'military-industrial complex' is at full throttle today and it's controling our economic lives. It is literally stealing my hard earned income and leaving me ever more vulnerable to the lifes risks. Insurance (and government), was designed to stabilize society by sharing the risk, thus making it possible for individuals to survive catastrophe. Increasingly, that assurance is only afforded to those with the ability to pay. The rest of us are expendable.

I'm tired of paying for the entitlements of the rich - and it's getting worse. A simple example: you and I pay for health insurance, one way or the other. Can I go for preventive by-pass surgery on my insurance? No. How many preventive by-pass surgeries have the management class in the US undergone? Plenty. Who paid for them? You and me. We share the burden of mitigating the risks faced by the wealthy while being told over and over that we have to shoulder our own troubles.

Think disaster capitalism isn't a threat? Over the last 20 years we've lost pensions, adequate insurance, oversight of lenders, bankrupcy laws that penalize individuals and support corporations, social programs gutted ... and the results are highlighted with the recent tragedies of Katrina and yes, the California wildfires.

Can you afford to pay for corporate subsidies AND lose your home, or your health, with no viable safety net? Free-market economics is about as uncivilized as it gets. The only answer is a mixed economy - the same economy most of the developed world has enjoyed for 65 years. The same economy that's being dismantled by the corporate honchos running the U.S. (and knocking hard at the doors of Europe, Canada, etc.) at present.

Common good, common good, common good.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Preventive bypass surgery??? Posted by: gellero
» RE: Preventive bypass surgery??? Posted by: laurel.jensen
CALL YOUR REPRESENTATIVE NOW!
Posted by: higginslads on Nov 6, 2007 1:07 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A sitting member of Congress is introducing a measure to impeach the vice president of the United States and the story isn't visible on Alternet. This should be the leading story on a website that bills itself as an "alternative" to the mainstream. Some alternative! More like left gatekeeper.

For those who are interested in doing something constructive about our current state of affairs, please call your representative and urge them to support Mr. Kucinich's bill. The Capitol switchboard is:

1-800-828-0498
1-800-862-5530
1-800-833-6354

Just ask the operator for your representative's office. If you don't know it, tell her/him where you live and she/he will look it up. Once transferred to your representative's office, politely tell the person who answers the phone that you urge your representative to support Kucinich's articles of impeachment against the vice president. You will probably be asked for your name and address.

I just did this. It's the first time I had ever called my representative (Rodney Frelinghuysen in NJ). It was easy and I felt better after doing it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This surprises people???
Posted by: RJF on Nov 9, 2007 2:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Is this really surprising? Since currency existed, those that have it can get preferential treatment over those that don't. I can't comment on whether it's right or not, fair or not. Perhaps people in 'third worlds' might have something to say about how everyone in western worlds lives.

If you have the means to protect yourself, your family and your possessions, isn't it human nature to do so? In America there is the right to bare arms for precisely this reason. Why is using money any different than using a gun?

Isn't currency, by its very nature, given to those that achieve what society demands? So those that have money have it because society approves of what they do. Should then, people be able to use that money how they choose?

Where there is a gain there is a loss. These people have chosen to protect themselves using the money that society approves of them to have. That means there will be a loss somewhere else, and that has to be the people with less money. And what a painful truth that is.

For those of a religious inclination, perhaps the story about casting the first stone is appropriate here.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]