Welcome to the Horror Coma

I didn't know there was anything beyond scandal fatigue, until I tried to pick up writing again. As John Dickerson said when he opened the Slate's Political Gabfest podcast a few weeks ago, "There's so much to cover... and we're sick of it all already." Amen, brother.

I've got a couple things on the stove (my writing stove, that is, where the heat source is righteous outrage), so I'm going to give you not one, but TWO posts to be thankful for today! First, privitization, then below this post you'll find one on Hillary Clinton.


Enjoy your turkey and your tryptophan comas!

Privitization & The NeoCon Economy: Maybe it's because Democrats can't hatch intricate plots to redesign the government (the last meeting disintegrated when the nice lady who brought brownies was brought to tears justifying them as cruelty-free AND not anti-feminist), but there really is a nefarious and wide-ranging plan on the right to create an economy based on fear and war (see Naomi Klein's Disaster Capitalism) that is executed primarily through privatization, that is, handing over implementation to private companies.

I have lots of problems with this, but I just want to take a step back here and say, this isn't just about Katrina (New Orleans public schools remaining= 4) or the Wars (Blackwater). In the film No End In Sight, we learned that the NeoConMen intended to use Iraq as a laboratory for these economic ideas. "We can't get the American people to see what a great idea this is and let us do it here," they apparently thought, "so let's topple another country and do it there!" The New York Times said in describing the film, "The knowledge and expertise of military, diplomatic and technical professionals was overridden by the ideological certainty of political loyalists. Republican Party operatives, including recent college graduates with little or no relevant experience, were put in charge of delicate and complicated administrative areas. Those who did not demonstrate lock-step fidelity to the White House line were ignored or pushed aside." OK, that sounds like the typical crap we hear from the GOP, just like the stories of the justice department. But what the film makes clear is that this was done specifically to implement necon ideals-- because (to paraphrase, I should have written down the quote) the older, experienced policy makers would have known better, would know that these trickle-down, "free market", privatizing ideas would not work, and so the spots were filled with fresh-faced, brainwashed, inexperienced kids who wouldn't know better and would do what their Leaders told them to. So if you want to see what the NeoEConomy would look like, look at Iraq. Isn't it swell?

Oh, there's lots more on this subject-- look at how housing monies in the Gulf Coast are being funneled to the ports for the good of the casinos-- and I will continue to stay on this topic in the weeks and months to come.

Let me just stop here and give you my philosophy.

We as a nation, as one people, make decisions through our elected representatives as to what will receive our allocations of time, money and resources. For example, recently in Texas we allocated millions of dollars for cancer research. We as a state, through voting, decided that we want to research cancer more and help cancer patients. Our allocation is for the public good. We Texans need cancer research, we're putting money to that for the people.

Cancer is an easy one because it's obviously "good". But when I talk about what America does for the public good, I mean we make moral decisions, decisions on what we feel is important. We have X number of dollars, and we decide to spend more on cancer than heart disease. This is a moral choice, a choice that reflects one's morality, or priorities.

Making a decision "for the public good" does NOT always mean the measure is in fact good-- it could be a mistake, or not the best way to go about things, or perhaps if the morality of the leaders is skewed, they might allocate resources to line their own pockets rather than on cancer. But as I am using the terms, even that is a moral choice because the act of allocating resources in our name is making moral choices for the public good, even if those choices are poor or even diabolical. With me so far?

If you allocate money and other resources for the public good, then as it goes through the government processes and all down the line we're working for the good of the people. But then at the end of the line, where the rubber meets the road, where the work or service is actually happening, if you privatize the implementation of this thing, you have suddenly and at the last minute handed over the process to a corporation who works solely for the good of the corporation, not the people. While all along we were working toward the common good, in the end we serve the good of a private corporation.

Consequently, that privatization in essence robs America of its morality.

I want to wrap up but I have to say this first: conservatives have said for years that the private sector is leaner, more agile, more able, than cumbersome and sometimes corrupt government agencies and bureaucracies. Well, if that is so, then let us LEARN from those companies, and do better. We have oversight of the agencies. If a corporation happens to be corrupt or inept, we can't do anything about it. We can't say, fire that boss and let's do better. But if it's our own government, if it's us, we can correct problems with both corruption and lumbering bureaucracy. And again, we retain the moral high ground.

Update: Here is a list of the Senior officials of the Iraq Coalition Provisional Authority. These are the senior, in-charge folks, so their resumes don't look as anemic as what is described in No End In Sight. However, you do see their NeoCon is showing.


Chew over that, next up, Hillary Clinton.