The End of Privatization

An article in last month's Governing magazine describes various states' discovery that, in fact, the privatization of government services does not necessarily result in cost savings, and they are no longer making privatization decisions based on "ideology", but fiscal realities. Imagine. North Carolina, Nevada and Michigan have come around to the fact that government is not the enemy, as some folks would have it. Dopey Grover Norquist, who never saw an answer too simple to believe, wants to shrink government "so small it can be drowned in a bathtub." Here's Bill Moyers on the remark:

As a citizen I don't like the consequences of this crusade, but you have to respect the conservatives for their successful strategy in gaining control of the national agenda. Their stated and open aim is to change how America is governed - to strip from government all its functions except those that reward their rich and privileged benefactors. They are quite candid about it, even acknowledging their mean spirit in accomplishing it. Their leading strategist in Washington - the same Grover Norquist – has famously said he wants to shrink the government down to the size that it could be drowned in a bathtub. More recently, in commenting on the fiscal crisis in the states and its affect on schools and poor people, Norquist said, "I hope one of them" – one of the states – "goes bankrupt." So much for compassionate conservatism. But at least Norquist says what he means and means what he says. The White House pursues the same homicidal dream without saying so. Instead of shrinking down the government, they're filling the bathtub with so much debt that it floods the house, water-logs the economy, and washes away services for decades that have lifted millions of Americans out of destitution and into the middle-class. And what happens once the public's property has been flooded? Privatize it. Sell it at a discounted rate to the corporations.

(Read the rest here)

This is the New Patriotism, where holding the government in contempt and suspicion is the Good, and the idea of a government "of the people, by the people and for the people" is just idealistic and naive and girly.

Ronald Reagan's poisonous remark that "government is the problem", is the simple answer that comes with a handy scapegoat built right in. Government is the solution, however, when it comes to shifting wealth from the many to the few, shielding multinationals from responsibility, or surveilling the populace. These days, a remark like that made to or by the wrong person could earn you a visit from the FBI.

Beating poverty, once again.

Plus ce change...

It was a lovely summer day when I was in grad school. I was in the park when I was approached by another student, who I recognized as being in the same program. She had a clipboard and was gathering signatures "to end hunger". It was called the Hunger Project, and, she said, if they get enough signatures, they can end hunger by the year 2000 - which in those days was still a long way off. I respectfully declined to sign, and in a friendly way, I expressed my doubts about her approach. I admit I needled her a little and she walked away pretty irked. Year 2000 has come and gone now, and I understand hunger is still with us. So too, in a way, is the Project. You'll be glad to know they're doing good work, I read on their website, even though one of the founders was that dingbat Werner Erhard, founder of est.

...plus ce la meme chose.

Forward to the other night when I saw an ad on TV about "ending poverty". It was clips from every famous person you've ever seen: P. Diddy (known around our house as "P.Diddly Ding-dong Doofus - stolen joke), Brad Pitt, Bono, Pat Robertson, George Clooney, etc., etc. And I mean et cetera. Watch the video. They don't want your money, just your voice.
Now, I don't think we're going to beat AIDS , starvation and extreme poverty an economic redistribution which would preclude most, if not all, our current financial institutions and behavior. Oh, yeah, and a medical breakthrough. So signing a petition, or signing a declaration seems pretty feeble, then and now.
(However, I salute Bono his continuing work, and Tom Hanks, and the other stars. But not Pat Robertson, and I'm not so sure about P Diddy, who apparently has a thing about clowns, but does help feed the needy.)
But I won't sign the petition or buy a bracelet.

death of a pope

I'd start off with a tepid but heartfelt expression of regret on the loss of the pope. Next would be a "two-cheers" statement for his accomplishments along the lines of bringing attention to the world's significant problems, followed by a tart remark about the courage required to take a position against poverty or war. Then, to keep the reader off balance, a reiteration of the value of the good deeds he inspired - the millions of tiny good deeds done each day by one person to another person, hoping to live a righteous life following the pope's example. I'd offer some history and suggest that the pope's experiences under a totalitarian regime profoundly, and unhelpfully, affected his outlook. I might float the idea that his was a good mind twisted and deformed by Communism, kind of like Ayn Rand, so I can engage in a little pop psychology and look literate in the same sentence.
After a reminder that there are other, less flattering, views of His Holiness, I'd refresh the reader's memory regarding sending Mother Teresa to Panama to reassure Panamanians about General Noreiga. I'd also remind them of the pope's conservative stand on contraception and abortion and wonder aloud how many women's lives it cost. I'd mention his successes excluding women from the heirarchy of the Church before moving on to what I consider his most pernicious legacy, of sanctifying more individuals that all of his predecessors combined. I'd explain that this global seeding of raw superstitous belief among the least educated and most credulous will do egregous harm in the long run. I'd also point out that his Church obliterates and perverts indiginous cultures worldwide, and although these efforts by the Church predate John Paul II, some responsibility must be assigned to him.
At this point, I probably have to get into questions of good intentions and bad consequences and wind up making some remarks about consequences having more impact, especially if they're lethal, so that's where I get off criticizing the pope, who was only trying to do what he thought was right. I would put in something about how consequences matter and existentialism, and reinforce my case against the pope while I sound literate again.
I would note the calls for "reform" from within the Church and express doubts that any real reform could take place while such a belief system was in place, and I'd close with a pithy aphorism about how religious beliefs can never be dissuaded, they must always be abandoned voluntarily.