About Us
Mission Statement
Rules of Conduct
 
Name:
Pswd:
Remember Me
Register
 

What's the Matter with Arizona?
Author: BobR    Date: 04/15/2011 12:30:52

In his 2004 book "What's the Matter With Kansas?", author Thomas Frank examines what happened to turn Kansas from a left-wing populist state to a deep red conservative one. In light of recent events, it might be time to write a sequel, with a focus on Arizona instead. By their actions, the leaders of that state might make one pause and question their sanity.

The most famous and recent example is their controversial anti-immigration law. The worst aspects of it allowed a police officer to demand a person's proof of citizenship if the officer suspected the person might be here undocumented. The potential for abuse in such a law is huge, and creates a burden of proving one's innocence. Who routinely carries their citizenship papers (ie: passport)? Answer - no one does, not even legal immigrants. This also brings racial profiling into legal status, because the unwritten aspect of this law is that a poor hispanic person will likely "look illegal" in the eyes of many. Fortunately, a federal appeals court is maintaining a stay on the law imposed by a lower court, preventing it from being implemented.

Arizona can now also be labeled "the state most likely to vote for Donald Trump", after the state Senate passed a bill that could legalize the crux of the birther movement: any candidate for president must produce their birth certificate to get on the ballot. It was specifically worded so that a "certificate of live birth" (what Obama has produced) is NOT valid. Oddly enough, other certificates - including circumcision papers - ARE acceptable. Does the U.S. want to know if their President is cut or uncut? I think not.

One of the most far-reaching stories out of Arizona, though, is mostly sliding under the radar. Back in 1998, Arizona passed a law that mandated that the state provide campaign funds to candidates to match contributions made to well-funded candidates. The idea behind the law was to level the playing field so that the rich couldn't buy elections. Obviously, the rich couldn't allow that to happen and sued saying their 1st Amendment rights (ie: their money's freedom of speech) were being violated. That case has now made it to the Supreme Court. This is important because the court has already decided in the "Citizens United" case that corporations are the same as people when it comes to campaign donations. This case will likely go the same way, further solidifying the corporate takeover of government. The only recourse after that will be a Constitutional amendment declaring that "We the people" refers only to actual human beings, not artificial entities such as businesses.

For now we wait and watch as Arizona becomes the new bottom-feeder in this union of states. Way to go...
 

61 comments (Latest Comment: 04/16/2011 03:37:21 by BobR)
   Perma Link

Share This!

Furl it!
Spurl
NewsVine
Reddit
Technorati