 |
 Latest |
 Greatest |
 Lobby |
 Journals |
 Search |
 Options |
 Help |
 Login |
| Home » Discuss » Journals » Time for change » Read entry |  |
 Advertise on more than 70 progressive blogs! |
Time for change's Journal
“Although the earth is awash with water, the world is facing a global water crisis. Global freshwater supplies are dwindling fast. Climate change, rapid urbanization, environmental degradation, the growth of industries that either pollute water sources or consume vast water volumes… climate change and our very modern lifestyle are contributing to an increase in demand that outstrips supply. For instance, Lake Chad has shrunk to 20% of its size in 1962… It is expected that inter-state violent conflict in the future will be waged to secure water supplies.” – from a review of the book “World Water Crisis – A Challenge to Social Justice”
There are currently about 1.1 billion people in the world without access to safe drinking water, plus an additional 1.5 billion people without access to adequate water sanitation. Consequently, estimates of annual deaths due to water-related diseases range from 2.2 million to over 5 million – mostly children. The problem threatens to get a lot worse, due to world-wide population growth, increasing use of water for agricultural and industrial purposes, and global warming. Increasing use of water for agriculture is depleting freshwater from underground aquifers faster than it can be replenished. Increasing industrial use of water is polluting surface water supplies, thereby making them unsafe for human consumption. Some aspects of the problem create a vicious cycle. One of the most important, if not the most important means of controlling population growth is the education of women. Yet, in water scarce regions of the world women spend so much time gathering and hauling water that they have no time left over for education. Although the world contains enough safe drinking water today to supply all the people of the world, grossly unequal distribution means that much of the world lacks access to it. This map shows that while more than 90% of the population of the United States, Canada, Australia and Western Europe has access to adequate water sanitation, less than 50% of the population in Sub-Saharan Africa and Southeast Asia has such access:  Geographically, water use varies in the same general proportion. This chart shows that, while the average use of water by the inhabitants of the United States and Europe is many times the United Nations recommended basic minimum, the average use in Africa is well below the basic minimum:  WATER PRIVATIZATION The fundamentals of water privatization The shortage of water, like a shortage of any commodity, presents opportunities for profits, which are enabled by lack of government regulation, which allow for the driving up of costs. Marion Ronan, an Associate Professor of Contemporary Theology, explains the basic fundamentals of water privatization, and the role that certain kinds of governments play in this process: Increasingly, services previously provided by communities or non-profit organizations – education, health care, corrections, and now energy and water services – are being taken over by private corporations and sold as commodities… The goal of this system is to privatize all aspects of “The Commons,” the physical, social, cultural and genetic resources that have long been considered the shared property of the human race…. Central to this assault is the attempted privatization of public institutions and enterprises that have traditionally provided water and sanitation to communities…. Needless to say, corporations enter into “public- private partnerships” in order to maximize profits, though they are often rationalized as more efficient than public utilities. The privatization of water almost invariably results in an increase in water rates for consumers. Yet water privatization increases steadily, in large part because governments lack the capital to maintain deteriorating water infrastructures, especially in the developing world. Ironically, though corporations enter into privatization schemes to earn profits, such schemes are almost always partially funded by governments and private lenders like the World Bank who at the same time guarantee profits to the corporation providing the services. Even in the face of unsatisfactory corporate performance, governments contracting with corporations risk being sued if they attempt to terminate a contract. We might assume that governments would therefore be cautious in entering into such contracts, and would work, instead, to decrease industrial and personal water waste and ecological degradation fundamental to water scarcity. Yet many governments seem primarily committed to corporate investments. Some call these governments “corporate states”. Facilitators of water privatization Bottled water Problems with bottled water are that it is unnecessary, expensive, very bad for the environment, and plays an important ideological role in preparing people for the privatization of water, in a manner similar to how school vouchers provide a drain on the public school system. Ronan explains: Bottled water is, according to the US Natural Resources Defense Council, between 240 and 10,000 times more expensive than tap water and often less safe. The bottles themselves cause significant harm to the environment during and after manufacture. In addition, the extraction from aquifers of water for bottling uses up limited and sometimes irreplaceable groundwater resources and damages nearby rivers and streams. Most harmful of all, however, is the role of bottled water in weakening citizens’ confidence in public water systems and thus preparing them for the privatization of those systems and massive rate increases. International lending institutions and structural adjustment programs The role of international lending institutions in keeping poor countries subservient to the needs of multinational corporations is explained as well as I’ve ever seen it explained in Naomi Klein’s book, “The Shock Doctrine – The Rise of Disaster Capitalism”. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank – both very much under the control of the United States – loan money to impoverished nations that are desperate for it, imposing conditions on those nations which work to keep the great majority of its inhabitants impoverished indefinitely. The process is something akin to loan sharking or indentured servitude. Since the governing elites of those nations usually profit from the deal, they have some motivation to play along with it. The underpinning for the whole system is right wing economic ideology of the type first put forth by Milton Friedman. The country where Friedman’s economic theories were first put into practice was Chile, in 1973, following the CIA sponsored coup, which ousted Salvador Allende and replaced him with the brutal dictator, Augusto Pinochet. Friedman’s disciples, who are known as “The Chicago Boys”, after the University of Chicago where they learned their economic theories, had been working hand in glove with Pinochet for some time before the actual coup took place. So they were plenty ready to put their theories into place as soon as Pinochet came to power. Klein describes how that worked out: In 1974, inflation reached 375 %. The cost of basics such as bread went through the roof. At the same time, Chileans were being thrown out of work because Pinochet’s experiment with “free trade” was flooding the country with cheap imports… Unemployment hit record levels and hunger became rampant… Chicago boys argued that the problem didn’t lie with their theory but with the fact that it wasn’t being applied with sufficient strictness. So Friedman flew to Chile to visit Pinochet himself, and he advocated even harsher measures. Eventually he convinced Pinochet to fully institute his “reforms”: Friedman advised Pinochet to impose a rapid-fire transformation of the economy – tax cuts, free trade, privatized services, cuts to social spending and deregulation… It was the most extreme capitalist make-over ever attempted anywhere, and it became known as a “Chicago School” revolution… Friedman predicted that the speed, suddenness and scope of the economic shifts would provoke psychological reactions in the public that “facilitate the adjustment”. He coined a phrase for this painful tactic: economic “shock treatment.” This caused even more severe distress for the Chilean people. But eventually, 15 years after he came to power, the economy “stabilized”. International trade agreements Marion Ronan explains that international trade agreements, by making governments to a large extent subservient to global corporations, contribute greatly to the privatization of water and sanitation. She explains: Regional trade agreements like the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) seriously undercut the power of governments to restrict the importation and exportation of water, no matter how harmful that trade may be to humans or the environment. Bilateral trade agreements… also seriously endanger the democratic rights of citizens to control water and other parts of the Commons in their own country. An egregious example of water privatization wreaking havoc on a community Antonia Juhasz, in her book, “The Bush Agenda – Invading the World One Economy at a Time”, describes an especially egregious example of how a corporate state, allied with a ruthless corporation, and with aid from an international lending institutions, can wreak havoc on a community: Cochabamba is the 3rd largest city in Bolivia… In late 1999, the World Bank required that Bolivia privatize Cochabamba’s water in return for reduction of its debts. Bechtel – one of the top ten water privatization companies in the world – won the contract. Immediately after Bechtel took over the Cochabamba water system, and before any of the promised investments in infrastructure were made to improve or expand services, the company raised the price of water… by 100%... Many were simply forced to do without running water… The same law that privatized the water system also privatized any collected water, including rainwater collected in barrels… The majority of the people voted for the cancellation of the contract with Bechtel. When this demand was met with silence from government officials, the citizens went on a citywide strike… the Bolivian government defended Bechtel’s right to privatize by sending armed military troops into the streets to disperse the crowds. At least one 17-year-old boy was shot and killed and hundreds more were injured… SOLUTIONS Marion Ronan notes that “The potential exhaustion of the world water supply in the coming decades can be reversed only by coordinated action on the part of governments and communities…” Probably the most basic step towards that goal is to obtain world-wide consensus that water should be considered a basic human right. As Rudolf Amenga says: Water must be recognized as a public good and a human right, not as a commodity to be traded for financial gain in the open market. Political action against globalization Since the international trade agreements and lending institutions associated with today’s version of globalization is a major part of the problem, attacking that process is necessarily a big part of the solution. Ronan describes previously successful efforts in that realm: The international anti-globalization movement is a major nexus of political action against privatization, including the privatization of water services, forced on poor nations by the international lending and trade organizations. Beginning with the Seattle WTO meeting in 1999… protests by large numbers of anti-globalization activists have succeeded in attracting media attention and at the very least making those meetings difficult… The “Water War” in Cochabamba, Bolivia, is perhaps the best known instance of such resistance. After the Bolivian government, under pressure from the World Bank, leased Cochabamba’s water system to Bechtel in 1999, the people of Cochabamba rose up, under the leadership of…. a coalition of peasants, environmental groups, teachers, and blue- and white- collar workers. After four months of struggle, including attacks on protestors by police and military, the coalition forced the Bolivian government to void the Bechtel contract… Replacing corporatism (i.e. fascism) with democracy Corporatist states and the multi-national corporations that seek to privatize the world’s resources go hand in hand to a very large extent. And it must be recognized that the use of an electoral process to elect a nation’s representatives is no guarantee against a corporatist state. Whenever wealth inequality and the influence of money in the electoral process are great, the dynamics are set up to favor the creation of a corporatist state. Such is what we see in the United States of America today, where levels of income and wealth inequality have reached levels not seen since the Gilded Age. This has led to and been reinforced by a situation where large tax cuts for the wealthy have received priority over providing for the basic needs of our citizens. An example of this is what happened recently in Atlanta, Georgia. When US water activists pressured the city to cancel the largest private water contract in the country, that was thought to represent a victory. However, less than two years later, the city began to shut off the water and sanitation services for one quarter of its customers – those who had fallen behind in their payments. The underlying problem was severe rate increases, necessitated by a lack of public funding, which in turn was largely the result of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, which led to cuts in federal funding for state and local infrastructure. Education Some nations, the United States being probably the biggest and most important example, have been for so long inundated with “free-market” propaganda that the ideological climate makes anti-privatization efforts difficult. Yet even in the United States, most citizens are in favor of national universal health insurance. That is a remarkable fact, given the long-standing ferocious propaganda of our nation’s conservative elite to equate any efforts against privatization of vital resources or services with the “slippery slope towards totalitarian Communism”. The phenomenon of water privatization may present an important potential for meaningful education of the American and other publics. If the American people consider adequate health care to be an inalienable right, then certainly they would feel the same way about water, which is more necessary to health than is health care. People need to understand that when vital natural resources become privatized the stage is set for pricing those resources out of the range that many or most people can afford. It is also worth while to point out that on a world-wide basis, the world’s water crisis falls disproportionately on women and girls because they are usually the ones who end up having to spend so much time on gathering and hauling water. Marion Ronan suggests: Materials on water-related gender disparities are available on the World Wide Web… In educational work in developed countries, it can be effective to begin a session on water shortage by having participants carry a bucket of water some distance… This helps them to imagine a life of water-hauling. Ronan goes on to explain how places of religious worship can be an excellent setting for educating people about the dangers of water privatization and the need for community and government control over and support for water supplies. She gives an example from her own teaching experience: I have found the commitment to justice for the poor in the Hebrew and Christian scriptures a solid foundation from which to address this crucial issue. I often begin my classes with the passage in Matthew 25 in which the gathered multitudes say… “Lord, when was it that we saw you thirsty and gave you something to drink?” And Jesus replies, “Truly, I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me”. CONCLUSION I’ll end this post with a quote from Maude Barlow, one of the world’s foremost water-rights activists: Water crises pose the greatest threat of our time to the planet and to our survival. Together with impending climate change from fossil fuel emissions, the water crises impose some life-or-death decisions on us all. Unless we collectively change our behavior, we are heading toward a world of deepening conflict and potential wars over the dwindling supplies of freshwater – between nations, between rich and poor, between the public and the private interest, between rural and urban populations, and between the competing needs of the natural world and industrialized humans. |
U.S. Democracy in Crisis
Time for change  The Democratic Underground was born on one of the worst days in U.S history – The day that the worst President in U.S. history took office. Now, here we are 8 years later, and we’ve managed to remove that cancer from our nation and replace it with something much better. Notwithstanding my many ambivalent feelings towards President Obama, I have no doubt that he will be infinitely better for our country than his predecessor. Yet despite that, our country has been terribly scarred from the events of the past eight years, and it continues to suffer from all of the root problems that brought us the worst President in our history in 2000 and 2004. Therefore, it is worth taking a look at the root problems that brought us to this sorry state of affairs. MAJOR IMPEDIMENTS TO DEMOCRACY IN THE UNITED STATES One thing that we must keep in mind when considering our current problems is that they are not new. They were greatly exacerbated by eight years of Bush administration misrule, but they did not start with George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. Money in politics All but the most naïve of the American citizenry know that the wealthy and powerful in our country routinely influence our local and national elections through huge campaign contributions. And they also know that they are generally well rewarded for their “contributions”. And they also know that bribery is presumably against the law in our country. Yet, on the rare occasion that our politicians are actually accused of bribery, our news media makes a great big deal over it, as if bribery is actually a rare event in American politics. The end result is that a great many of our politicians do everything they can to make their wealthiest constituents happy with them, at the expense of everyone else. They do that with the knowledge that the voters they lose in doing so will be more than compensated for by the disinformation that will be paid for by their wealthiest constituents. I discuss this situation in more detail here, here, and here. There are a few dots to connect here, but any reasonable assessment of American politics tells us that bribery is routinely used to buy and sell elections in our country. So routine is it that it is actually built into our system and legalized. But that fact is never overtly spoken of. To do so would imply that our system of government is as much or more an aristocracy than it is a democracy. Bill Moyers, in his book “Moyers on Democracy”, explains the situation bluntly: We have lost the ability to call the most basic transaction by its right name. If a baseball player stepping up to home plate were to lean over and hand the umpire a wad of bills before he called the pitch, we’d call that a bribe. But when a real estate developer buys his way into the White House and gets a favorable government ruling that wouldn’t be available to you or me, what do we call that? A “campaign contribution”. Let’s call it what it is: a bribe. The legality of contributing money to political candidates, with the implicit (though not explicit) understanding that that money will buy political favoritism, has been defended by both our courts and our Congress by sanctimoniously pointing to the free speech provisions in the First Amendment to our Constitution and claiming that money is speech. But the absurdity of that contention should be obvious to anyone with some primary school education. Speech is of value from a political standpoint (or any other standpoint) only when it is heard. But if one billionaire has one thousand times as much opportunity to speak through a medium which reaches millions than several thousand other people added together, the speech of that one billionaire will drown out the speech of most other people, thereby interfering with their right to free speech. Election fraud Electronic vote switching with DRE (direct-recording electronic) machines poses a great danger to the integrity of our election system – by virtue of its ability to switch a voter’s vote without being noticed by the voter. In other words, someone tries to vote for John Kerry, and the machine registers a vote for George Bush instead. What makes matters worse is that many or most of these machines don’t even produce a piece of paper with the vote on it, which can then later be used for a recount. So, if fraud is suspected there is no recourse. And worse yet is the fact that most of these machines use proprietary (secret) code to determine who the voter voted for. We know for a fact that vote-switching occurred in the 2004 election. One study, based on voter reports to the national Electronic Incident Reporting System (EIRS), showed that vote switching incidents favored Bush over Kerry by a ratio of 12 to 1 nationally. A similar study showed that these vote switching incidents that favored Bush were 9 times as common in the heavily contested “swing states” than in non-swing states. To make the point that the EIRS reports represent only a small fraction of actual Election Day problems, an investigation by the Washington Post identified about 25 electronic voting machines in Youngstown, Mahoning County, Ohio, that were said to have been switching votes all day long. Yet only eight incidents of this nature from Mahoning County (all in favor of Bush) were reported to EIRS that day. Clint Curtis, a computer programmer working in Florida prior to the 2004 election, testified before the Democratic staff of the House Judiciary Committee that he was requested in 2000 by his boss (at the request of a high level Republican operative, Tom Feeney) to “develop a prototype of a voting program that could alter the vote tabulation in an election and be undetectable”. Curtis’ testimony was followed by the death of Raymond Lemme, who while investigating Curtis’ allegations was found dead in a Georgia hotel room, just a couple weeks after telling Curtis that he had traced the corruption “all the way to the top”, Another type of election fraud is the illegal purging of registered voters from the voter rolls. Like vote switching, the increasing computerization of voter registration is no doubt making it much easier to perpetrate this type of fraud on a mass basis. This article describes a great deal of evidence that voter registration fraud played a major role in the 2004 presidential election, and in fact was probably the deciding factor in Ohio, which gave George Bush his electoral victory. Similarly, although the 2000 presidential election was stolen by a variety of means, voter registration fraud was quantitatively the most important method used. In 2000, the Florida Governor’s office used a computer program to purge tens of thousands of mostly black and Democratic voters. There are many other means of election fraud that have been used in our country to destabilize our democracy. I discuss this issue in more detail, along with means for preventing election fraud, in this post. Our corporate news media If cash donated to their political campaigns is not enough to carry them through to victory, and if election fraud doesn’t happen to play a significant role, the corporate news media serves as another valuable tool for those seeking to sabotage our democracy. This problem overlaps with the role of money in politics, since those who own and control the corporate media are uniformly wealthy, and since it was their money that led to the acts that enabled our corporate media to become what it is today – Ronald Reagan’s veto of Democratic legislation to enforce the Fairness Doctrine in 1987, and the Telecommunications Act of 1996. This legislation allowed the monopoly consolidation of our news media to the point where today it is controlled by a very small number of extremely wealthy individuals. Several excellent books have been written about the extent to which wealthy corporate interests control our news media today. I would highly recommend “Lapdogs – How the Press rolled Over for Bush”, by Eric Boehlert, “What Liberal Media – The Truth About BIAS and the News”, by Eric Alterman, and “Into the Buzzsaw – The Myth of a Free Press”, edited by Kristina Borjesson. And I have ranted about pseudo-journalists such as Tim Russert, who have made a largely successful, but hypocritical effort to appear unbiased to their viewers. The bottom line, as Bill Moyers points out, is that the protection offered us by our First Amendment is based on the assumption of a separation of our government and a free press, which is supposed to protect us from government abuses. Moyers wrote this during the Bush administration: What would happen, however, if the contending giants of big government and big publishing and broadcasting ever joined hands, ever saw eye to eye in putting the public's need for news second to free-market economics? That's exactly what's happening now under the ideological banner of "deregulation". Giant media conglomerates that our founders could not possibly have envisioned are finding common cause with an imperial state in a betrothal certain to produce not the sons and daughters of liberty but the very kind of bastards that issued from the old arranged marriage of church and state. Consider the situation. Never has there been an administration so disciplined in secrecy, so precisely in lockstep in keeping information from the people at large and -- in defiance of the Constitution -- from their representatives in Congress. Never has the powerful media oligopoly ... been so unabashed in reaching like Caesar for still more wealth and power. Never have hand and glove fitted together so comfortably to manipulate free political debate, sow contempt for the idea of government itself, and trivialize the peoples' need to know. Secrecy in government Democracy suffers terribly when a nation’s citizens are uninformed – especially when they are uninformed with respect to the actions and motivations of their own government. If we don’t know what our government is doing, then how can we be expected to vote them out when they do something that we would consider deeply immoral had we known about it? Consider war for example. If Americans understood the real motivations for its nation’s wars, they would probably be much more likely to strenuously object to those wars. That would make war much less politically feasible, and our country would therefore be led into war much less frequently than it has been in the past. That is why I so hate the “national security” excuse for withholding information from us, the American people – which has become so routine that it is willingly or passively accepted by the good majority of Americans. I very much doubt that the “national security” excuse for withholding information from the American people has anything to do with national security more than 5% of the time. Rather, the reason for withholding such information from us is almost always something totally different. It is to blind us to the real reasons for war or other nefarious acts, so that we will accept them and willingly support or even risk our lives in their cause. Rampant U.S. nationalism and the GAME Two months ago I wrote a DU post that I titled “The GAME”, which I began by discussing “Unmentionable things in U.S. politics” – including such things as the stealing of a U.S. presidential election, calling American military or covert actions immoral rather than merely “misguided”, and imputing bad intentions rather than mere incompetence to a U.S. president. I find this to be terribly repressive, not because I personally can’t mention these things, but because our elected representatives are under tremendous pressure not to discuss them. We elect them to represent us and our nation, and except for some rare courageous exceptions such as Dennis Kucinich, Cynthia McKinney, and Robert Wexler, they refuse to even talk about some of our very most important issues. It has occurred to me that this provides the backdrop for a huge GAME that has been foisted upon us. A prerequisite of the GAME is to create an alternate reality that must be believed by a critical mass of people in order for the GAME to proceed. Why is that necessary? I believe it’s necessary because the reality is so terrible that if enough people consciously recognized it they would rise up and simply refuse to play the GAME. Although the GAME’s masters set the rules, there are two related character traits of many Americans that cause them to play along: Rampant nationalism and a propensity for denial. Rampant nationalism is the attitude that our country is inherently better than any other country – so much so that it can do no wrong. This attitude is drummed into the American people from the time that most of us learn how to talk. We are made to feel that to believe or speak otherwise demonstrates a dangerous lack of “patriotism”, which makes us deserving of being shunned – or worse. The other character trait that persuades too many Americans to play the GAME is denial. Believing terrible things about one’s country can be very painful. Accepting reality as it is, rather than as one would like it to be, can be very painful. To make this point, in a recent post titled “12 Things that Never Happened in American History”, I discuss the following official stories that we have been told (or not told): The U.S. is not an imperialist country; FDR’s New Deal was not instrumental in ending the Great Depression; the Cold War was just about fighting totalitarian Communism; JFK was assassinated by a lone gunman; bribery is infrequent in American politics; Iran-Contra was not a criminal abuse of presidential power; U.S. presidential elections cannot be stolen; Bush and Cheney did everything they could to protect us against the 9/11 attacks; the Bush administration’s crimes are not serious enough to warrant impeachment or prosecution; and, we’re barely told about our nation’s killing of more than a million Iraqi civilians, the October Surprise, or Operation Northwoods. CONSEQUENCES These impediments to democracy work together to surrender great amounts of power into the hands of a small number of elites, who use that power in the cause of increasing their wealth and power at the expense of everyone else. It is a vicious cycle that is very difficult to break. Here are some of the major tragic consequences. Rampant militarism and illegal aggression against sovereign nations We are so often told how good and pure our nation and its people are that only a minority of Americans are aware of the extent of our many illegal and immoral activities. Many or most who aren’t aware of these activities would be shocked to learn about them and quite resistant to accepting that information as the truth. In myriad instances we have overthrown or assisted in the overthrow of sovereign nations. In the good majority of these instances we have substituted a repressive right wing government for one that was much more responsive to the needs and desires of the nation’s citizenry. Sometimes genocide was used to accomplish our goals. The purpose of these activities has most often been to create a government that is friendlier to the desires of American businesses or corporations – though we always have some sort of rationalization for our actions. In “Excuses for War” I discuss many of the phony excuses that the United States government has used to lead us into war, including its Indian wars, the Mexican-American War, the Spanish-American War, and the Vietnam War. In “The Roots and Consequences of U.S. Overseas Imperialism” I note or discuss our covert and overt illegal and immoral overthrowing of the sovereign nations of Hawaii (1893), Cuba (1898), Puerto Rico (1898), the Philippines (1899-1902), Nicaragua (1910), Honduras (1911-1912), Iran (1953), Guatemala (1954), South Vietnam (1963), Chile (1973), Grenada (1983), Panama (1989), Afghanistan (2001), and Iraq (2003). In “The Meaning of U.S. Imperialism, Genocide and Militarism” I note U.S. perpetrated genocides, as described in “State of Darkness” by David Model, including our atomic bombing of Japan (1945), those perpetrated against Guatemala (1954), Vietnam (1954-73), Indonesia (1965), Cambodia (1970-75), Laos (1969-74), and East Timor (1975), and our two wars against Iraq. Other atrocities include our invasion of Cuba in 1961; U.S. Marine invasion of the Dominican Republic in 1965 to put down a rebellion against their repressive right wing government; U.S. military support of Haitian tyrant and mass murderer, Francois Duvalier; and numerous brutal interventions in several Latin American and African nations. Massive Income and wealth inequality Inequality of wealth in the United States is truly astounding – and it is increasing at a fast rate. In the United States in 2001, 1% of the population controlled 38% of the wealth, whereas the bottom 40% owned just 1%. That means that, on average, individuals in the top 1% owned about 1,500 times more wealth than individuals in the bottom 40%. The rising level of income inequality in our country recently exceeded the point where it stood just prior to the stock market crash of 1929, which led to the worst depression in U.S. history. There are many who see a connection between the income inequality preceding that depression and our current situation. This graph, which plots income inequality measured as the ratio between the average income of the top 0.01% of U.S. families compared to the bottom 90%, over time, makes that point. I discuss the subject of income and wealth inequality here, here, and here. The loss of the rule of law During the Bush Presidency I often argued that he should be impeached for his many crimes. Now that he can no longer be impeached, I have argued that our Justice Department should prosecute him for those crimes, and if it fails to do so then the International Criminal Court (ICC) should step in. While Bush was still President, President Obama weighed in against impeachment, saying that impeachment should be reserved for only the most serious crimes. Now that he is President he has thus far given little or no indication that he intends to have his Justice Department prosecute George Bush or any other high level Bush administration official for their crimes. But if widespread torture, an illegal war of aggression, spying on American citizens, suspending of the right of habeas corpus, and numerous other violations of our Constitution don’t constitute serious crimes, then what does? What would people say if a prosecuting attorney failed to prosecute a rapist and murderer simply because he had high level political connections? Who would accept that? Then why when far more serious crimes are committed by a President of the United States are there so many people who seem to think that it is ok to sit passively by and make no attempt to hold the perpetrators accountable for their crimes? I’ll tell you why. It’s like I said earlier in this post. Saying that a former U.S. President might be guilty of prosecutable crimes is simply against the rules of the GAME. Given that and the failure to hold the Reagan administration accountable for its Iran-Contra crimes, George Bush and Dick Cheney connected the dots and thought that they might be able to get away with just about anything. Testing that assumption by moving ahead with prosecutions might be politically risky for the Obama administration. The Republican Party would no doubt raise holy hell if there was an attempt to prosecute high level Bush administration officials. Consequently, we live in country in which, protestations to the contrary notwithstanding, certain people are indeed above the law. That fact, taken together with all of the impediments to democracy discussed in the first part of this post, means that democracy and the rule of law in our country are in grave danger. Indeed, some believe that we narrowly averted a military coup perpetrated by the Bush administration. The American people and their leaders need to reassess what our country stands for. Is our democracy important enough to take steps to remove the role of money in politics, reform our election system, break up the corporate monopoly on our news media, require government actions to be much more transparent than they now are, and dare to look more objectively at who we are and what we do? Can we give up imperialism and warfare for the sake a world in which nations live and work together to further the cause of peace and justice? Can we make our nation one in which all of its citizens truly have the opportunity for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? And do our laws apply to all people, not just to those who lack the political influence to avoid them? If we think that these things are important we have a great deal of work to do, lest our country sinks into a tyranny from which it may never recover. Profile Information Time for change
Visitor Tools
Use the tools below to keep track of updates to this Journal.
The Usual Suspects
Greatest Threads
The ten most recommended threads posted
on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums in the
last 24 hours.  Melissa - Raped! 134 recs : By kpete Leaked documents reveal No 10 cover-up over Iraq invasion 105 recs : By teach1st Kennedy says RI bishop banned him from Communion 65 recs : By 24601 Keith Olbermann. What a smart guy regarding HCR. 56 recs : By Cleita Top 14 Health Care Reform Provisions That Take Effect Immediately on January 1, 2010 53 recs : By ClarkUSA "The turkeys are hitting the ground like sacks of wet cement!" 48 recs : By Faygo Kid "I don't want to pay for insurance for people who don't work." 47 recs : By arbusto_baboso This is why Sarah Palin is so dangerous: 42 recs : By Are_grits_groceries I am with Senator Bernie Sanders 41 recs : By SHRED Responding to Harmful Government Inaction, Protesters Stop Blasting on Coal River Mountain 38 recs : By Adenoid_Hynkel My Forums
Democratic Underground forums
and groups from my "My Forums" list.
Random Journal
 Discussion Forums
Big Forums
More Forums
Today's Featured Forums
Latest Threads
The ten most recent threads posted on
the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums. I'm sorry, son. A work of semi-fiction By WillBowden Voice of America expands its Latin American audience By Judi Lynn Voice of America expands its Latin American audience By Judi Lynn Anyone in NYC seen this station? By HEyHEY An Old Fashioned Shunning By NanceGreggs A STATE OF FAILURE: Florida 4th in nation in bank closures By AlphaCentauri "Because they wanted to talk about negative stuff, and I don't know anything bad about Michael" By Catherine Vincent Hey! Amazon's "Temporarily out of stock" of Going Rouge: The Sarah Palin Rogue Coloring & Activity B By Bozita Freep historian.... By Bigmack |
