<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Dirty Hippies &#187; Public Interest</title>
	<atom:link href="http://dirtyhippies.org/category/public-interest/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://dirtyhippies.org</link>
	<description>Democracy. Unwashed.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 24 Apr 2023 06:02:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.5</generator>
		<item>
		<title>A Radical Idea for Radical Times</title>
		<link>http://dirtyhippies.org/2012/08/02/a-radical-idea-for-radical-times/</link>
		<comments>http://dirtyhippies.org/2012/08/02/a-radical-idea-for-radical-times/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 02 Aug 2012 02:18:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tom Sullivan</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Infrastructure]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patriotism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Public Interest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Social Security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tea Party]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[United States]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dirtyhippies.org/?p=2207</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>“Mail is like oxygen. It’s there and you count on it, and you don’t get worried about it until it disappears. There is going to be concern by a lot of people if this goes away. The national concern is going to be enormous.” &#8212; <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/16/going-postal-what-would-a_n_1677892.html?view=print&#38;comm_ref=false">Tonda Rush</a>, president of the National Newspaper Association, commenting [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>“Mail is like oxygen. It’s there and you count on it, and you don’t get worried about it until it disappears. There is going to be concern by a lot of people if this goes away. The national concern is going to be enormous.” &#8212; <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/16/going-postal-what-would-a_n_1677892.html?view=print&amp;comm_ref=false">Tonda Rush</a>, president of the National Newspaper Association, commenting on the unraveling of the United States Postal Service</p></blockquote>
<p>So here&#8217;s a radical idea for radical times: <i><strong>Nationalize the United States Post Office.</strong></i></p>
<p>Just writing the words makes my eyes spin around in my head. The Ryan-esque <a href="http://www.humanevents.com/2009/05/06/paul-ryan-on-the-budget-the-nationalization-of-our-economy/">view</a> that it would un-American to un-privatize an operation like the United States Post Office is such a retromingent exercise in inverse reasoning that I regret not being clever enough to come up with a corporate flak-friendly name for it. Like right-sizing or blamestorming or activating synergies of scale.  </p>
<p>Yet in the up-is-down, Bizarro World that is Washington, D.C., privatizing the United States Postal Service &#8212; Benjamin Franklin&#8217;s United States Post Office &#8212; makes Bizarro sense. Drape its coffin in a flag and watch right-thinking patriots salute as FedEx hauls it over to Arlington for burial. </p>
<p>There isn&#8217;t anything more core to what America&#8217;s founders thought government of, by and for the people is for than delivering the mail, except maybe raising an army. Both are authorized in the same article in the <a href="http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html">U.S. Constitution</a>. (The tea party loves them some Article 1, Section 8.) Like the military, the United States Post Office is a public service as well as a public trust. And Republicans such as Congressman Darrel Issa (R-CA) want to privatized it because it doesn&#8217;t make a <i>profit</i>&nbsp;? When did the U.S. Army ever turn a profit? This is how conservatives honor the founders&#8217; vision? By dressing up like them and dismantling the country they shed blood to build? </p>
<p>Of course, Republicans (mostly) in Congress are hard at work on privatizing not just the United States Post Office, but the military, too, by diverting work traditionally done by GIs to for-profit, private contractors that can charge a tidy markup to cost-conscious American taxpayers. With hundreds of billions of public dollars on the table, the con is simple. More middle-man profit equals <i><strong>Freedom</strong></i>&nbsp;. No middle man profit equals <i><strong>Tyranny</strong></i>&nbsp;. It&#8217;s almost as if they want to dismantle the country&#8217;s core infrastructure, to strip America bare &#8212; like locusts &#8212; of every financial resource before moving on&#8230;. </p>
<p>Speaking of tyranny, here&#8217;s Howie Klein at (<a href="http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2012/07/can-you-be-wall-street-baron-and-still.html">Down With Tyranny</a>): </p>
<blockquote><blockquote>There&#8217;s a lot of money to be made in privatizing the post office &#8212; not for us, of course, but Wall Street drools at the prospect. And, of course, Republicans and their Blue Dog allies are doing everything in their power to undermine and sabotage the post office for exactly that reason. </p></blockquote>
</blockquote>
<p>At the <i>Huffington Post</i>&nbsp;, Dave Jamieson <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/16/going-postal-what-would-a_n_1677892.html?view=print&amp;comm_ref=false">examines</a> what a post-post office America would look like. Take tiny Syria, Virginia, for example, where for over a hundred years the post office has resided in a walk-in closet-sized office inside Syria Mercantile Company, the village general store. Villagers faced with the closure of this resource may have to drive as far as 20 miles over back-country roads to mail a package or buy stamps. </p>
<p>The absurdity is the insistence by Congress that the United States Post Office operate as a profitable business or go &#8220;bankrupt.&#8221; As if a constitutionally authorized agency can? As if the Constitution or common sense requires it? Certainly the United States Post Office faces competition in major markets, and from the Internet, but what has that to </p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://dirtyhippies.org/2012/08/02/a-radical-idea-for-radical-times/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>175 Chickens in 1 Minute?!</title>
		<link>http://dirtyhippies.org/2012/04/11/175-chickens-in-1-minute/</link>
		<comments>http://dirtyhippies.org/2012/04/11/175-chickens-in-1-minute/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Apr 2012 16:07:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>James Boyce</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Activism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Business]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Deregulation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Food and Drink]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Government]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Industry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Public Health]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Public Interest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[United States]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[agriculture]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[chicken]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[chicken industry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[food]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[food inspection]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[petitions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pink slime]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[poultry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[usda]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dirtyhippies.org/?p=2120</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The USDA has decided in its infinite wisdom, despite pink slime and a few other debacles of the food industry, to test a program allowing chicken companies to check their own livestock and decide whether or not the chickens are safe to eat. The USDA claims this will save them tens of millions of dollars. Well, USDA, I can save you even more. If you're going to let the chicken companies inspect their own chickens, just trash the whole program.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You&#8217;d think the USDA would see the flaw of logic in letting the people who make the food <i>inspect</i> the food and decide if it is actually safe to eat.</p>
<p>The USDA has decided in its infinite wisdom, despite pink slime and a few other debacles of the food industry, to test a program <a href="http://handpickednation.com/watch/let-them-eat-chicken/">allowing chicken companies to check their own livestock</a> and decide whether or not the chickens are safe to eat.</p>
<p>The USDA claims this will save them tens of millions of dollars.</p>
<p>Well, USDA, I can save you even more. If you&#8217;re going to let the chicken companies inspect their own chickens, just trash the whole program, because I guarantee you they will decide &#8220;ALL of our chickens are safe!&#8221;</p>
<p>At some point, you would hope someone at the USDA (and I looked it up, there are over 100,000 employees there) would have raised their hand and pointed out the glaringly obvious: &#8220;Uh, since these guys are selling us chicken/beef/fish/whatever, don&#8217;t you think they are going to say that <em>everything</em> they&#8217;re selling is safe?&#8221;</p>
<p>Ideally, another person (we&#8217;re up to 2 out of 100,000 &#8211; a push perhaps, but I woke up optimistic this morning) would have seconded the first person&#8217;s statement and then, just maybe, we could have our food actually inspected before we eat it.</p>
<p>Which, I will point out to the USDA and its 100,000 employees, is generally considered to be their core job.</p>
<p>And it gets worse.<span id="more-2120"></span></p>
<p>Right now, the USDA inspectors (who are independent, don&#8217;t work for the chicken companies, and aren&#8217;t driven by chicken company profits for holiday bonuses) inspect 35 chickens a minute for lovely things like bile, feces and random spare parts that got through processing.</p>
<p>That&#8217;s a chicken every two seconds.</p>
<p>Should you so desire, take two seconds to inspect the next chicken you see at the store. It&#8217;s really not a lot of time, but with some practice you could get pretty good at it &#8211; which is a nice thought because you are essentially performing the task that stands between me eating a relatively clean chicken or a feces- and bile-covered chicken. (There is a difference, Mr. USDA, trust me on this one.)</p>
<p>Well, under this new program, the chicken companies will rubber stamp &#8211; er, I mean inspect 175 chickens a minute. 175! That&#8217;s just under three chickens a second.</p>
<p>Are you thinking, &#8220;Wait a minute, 175 chickens a minute? That&#8217;s <em>impossible!&#8221;</em> Well congratulations &#8211; you are now ahead of 100,000 USDA employees in the class on food safety.</p>
<p>I have a little test for you and the USDA: if you can even count to 175 in sixty seconds, I might reconsider my opposition.</p>
<p>If you can&#8217;t, you need to <a href="http://www.change.org/petitions/united-states-department-of-agriculture-usda-please-don-t-let-the-foxes-guard-the-hen-house" target="_hplink">sign this petition</a>, share it with the world, put it up on Facebook.</p>
<p>Even better, if you know anyone at the USDA, send it to them and ask them to see what they can do for you, for me, and for everyone who prefers their chickens to be properly inspected, let alone inspected at all.</p>
<p><em>This post originally appeared at <a href="http://www.handpickednation.com">HandPicked Nation</a>.</em></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://dirtyhippies.org/2012/04/11/175-chickens-in-1-minute/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The basic fallacy of &#8220;privatization&#8221;</title>
		<link>http://dirtyhippies.org/2011/03/02/the-basic-fallacy-of-%e2%80%9cprivatization%e2%80%9d/</link>
		<comments>http://dirtyhippies.org/2011/03/02/the-basic-fallacy-of-%e2%80%9cprivatization%e2%80%9d/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Mar 2011 14:45:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Adam Lambert</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Capitalism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Corporatism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Corruption]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cronyism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Greed]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Public Interest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[capitalism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[corporatism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[corporatization]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[corruption]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cronyism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fallacy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[greed]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[privatization]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[public interest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[taxpayers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[theft]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dirtyhippies.org/?p=121</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>I put &#8220;privatization&#8221; in quotes because it is really corporatization, and quite frankly is a much better term for the further theft of taxpayer dollars for the well connected corporate class. <p>The arguments that the right and the pro-corporate/&#8221;free market&#8221; crowd make are in direct conflict with the entire rationale for privatization corporatization of public [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I put &#8220;privatization&#8221; in quotes because it is really <b>corporatization</b>, and quite frankly is a much better term for the further theft of taxpayer dollars for the well connected corporate class.
<p>The arguments that the right and the pro-corporate/&#8221;free market&#8221; crowd make are in direct conflict with the entire rationale for <s>privatization</s> corporatization of public services – regardless of whether it is the school system, toll collecting, motor vehicle inspection (all of which have been done/proposed in New Jersey), or taking it a step further, the fire department.  It goes something like this:
<p>Corporations are supposed to maximize profits and their responsibilities lie with their shareholders and increasing shareholder value.  So, cutting corners (BP, anyone), using cheaper materials (as we have seen in building houses as compared to decades ago, or even in household goods that break down after a few years) or reducing quality control in order to make more cheaper or do more with less.  Even if this isn’t all willful and there are just fewer people doing the job, there is inherent quality control issues from less people doing more.  All in the name of maximizing profit and being accountable to shareholder value.
<p>Contrast this with the basic premise of public service – to serve the public.  There is an underlying goal of making sure that the public receives the services that it needs as opposed to the services that a private company wants to deliver based on cost and interpretation of the contract, regardless of needs.
<p>Now, let’s take the argument for corporatization of services – it goes something like this:
<p>The public (schools, garbage removal, government) is full of waste and bloat and there are too many layers and too much money being spent to provide services.  Therefore, it must be put out to bid, so private companies can compete for these services – usually based on the lowest cost bid (if there is a competitive bidding process – which of course, would at least ensure that an overbudget sweetheart no-bid contract wouldn’t be abused, but that is another issue altogether).  So let’s just assume that there is a competitive bidding process for the purpose of this argument.  In theory, public employees would be fired, department costs reduced and the cost of “government” would decrease – assuming that the cost of corporatization is even lower than the cost of keeping the services publicly run.
<p>Remembering the old adage, “you can only have two of the following three things: (1) quality, (2) timeliness and (3) inexpensive”,  the arguments of corporatization and the “corporate priority manifesto” will ultimately lead  one of two things – neither of which is good:
<ul>
<li>A lowball bid will get the job, and in the interest of maximizing corporate profits, a subpar effort would generally be undertaken, as “precious corporate resources” wouldn’t want to be wasted on an effort that doesn’t generate as much profit as other initiatives; or </li>
<li>Bloat, waste, inefficiencies, mismanagement and overruns will increase the cost of the corporatization, or even worse, lead to a stalemate and potential disruption of services as a new agreement is negotiated. </li>
</ul>
<p>The two ideals can’t mutually coexist.  Either a corporation is interested in maximizing its’ profits and shareholder value, or the pro-corporatist argument is a fallacy.  And if the interest is in maximizing profits, then doing the work that is in the public interest would only work if that also serves to (1) reduce the overall cost and (2) happens to also meet the goal of maximizing corporate profits and value, in which case it really isn’t serving the public good.
<p>Corporate profits and public service are at odds with each other at the very core as the primary driving force behind these goals.  And that’s where the argument for corporatization of public services falls on its face.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://dirtyhippies.org/2011/03/02/the-basic-fallacy-of-%e2%80%9cprivatization%e2%80%9d/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>9</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
