AZ Proposition 204, Explained For People Who Have Working Brains

Arizona-based fans, I'm calling a huddle here for a minute. How many of you are familiar with Prop 204? It's a ballot initiative that would keep the temporary sales tax increase that we approved last election, to the tune of $1 billion for public schools. Republicans, like the Center for Arizona Policy, Secretary of State Ken Bennett, and State Treasurer Doug Ducey don't like it one bit. Bennett tried to disqualify it from the ballot, and now Herr Ducey has a new bone to pick with Prop 204: it's "fifteen pages long, single-spaced".

Apparently, this is too much for our dear state treasurer, who likes his books 15 pages long, with pictures of dogs on bikes and only one short sentence every other page. He's so perturbed about this page length issue that he's made a commercial to complain about it. Well, listen up, Ducey:

1.) The revenue from this proposition isn't coming from a "tax hike", because it's actually maintaining the current sales tax rate. If you truly understood math, you'd know that "constant" does not equal "increase".

2.) Monies in the fund are not going towards "bigger bureaucracy" as stated in the many commercials I've seen against Prop 204. If you'd actually read the proposition, you'd see that the money gets distributed to school districts with only $1 million out of the total $1 billion going towards administrative costs, with all surplus going to the payment of education-incurred state debt and/or facilities upkeep for needy school districts.

3.) A large part of the proposition sets up need-based scholarships amounting to 50-60% of total revenue, which from what I gather about you would apparently threaten your job. Wouldn't that just be sad if a third-grader could beat you in reading comprehension?

4.) It puts an end to the AZ GOP's sociopathic compulsion to cut education budgets willy-nilly while throwing heaps of our tax revenue at Joe Arpaio's birther quests to exotic Hawaiian resorts.

5.) It also helps out reservation schools and implements a system of accountability, which I guess you don't like because those Indians are just fine on their own, right? HAHAHA wrong.

6.) The proposition places the revenue out of the hands of the AZ GOP and their so-called "sweep funds", which is just code for stealing from the poor to give to the rich. If only we could keep social programs out of your foul grip as well...

7.) Guess what? It also sets up a fund for infrastructure development! You know, that thing that you Republicans liked so much when you could lay claim to it as President Eisenhower's idea. Too bad he's doing backflips in his grave over you people right now.

8.) Wouldn't you know it, we're back to social programs. A children's health care fund paid for by federal money, the tobacco tax, and private donations? Really? You want to kill that, all because the proposition that sets up its legal framework is too long for you to handle? Well, you'd better buckle up, because I'm a college student right now (incidentally, at one of the universities that your fellows love screwing out of budget money so much), and I'd like to give you a peek at my homework for this weekend. I'll be reading 27 pages by Wednesday for my Native American music class, in addition to 135 pages by Wednesday for Colonial Latin American History. That second one is an entire book, by the way, and both assignments are single-spaced. So do us all a favor and get off your high horse about 15 pages before me and my 162 pages tell you do to something obscene, along with that high horse you rode in on. If you're willing to make this much noise over 15 pages at the expense of Arizona's children, then I'd hate to see what you'd do if you had my homework load.

9.) I'm starting to see why you guys hate this proposition so much. Another section about using taxes collected from businesses to keep children and the general homeless population from starving! I'd accuse you of being Dickensian, but if you can't even fight your way through 15 single-spaced pages in a PDF- that, I should add, is also public record- then I really doubt that you've even cracked a Dickens novel. And not being able to read is no excuse: after all, you've always got Wishbone's version of Oliver Twist (parts one, two, and three)!

10.) I would go on about how the proposition includes measures for re-evaluating the revenue and disbursement structure every five years, as well as outside auditing by state and local courts, but I'm probably fast approaching the threshold of your attention span. I should probably start wrapping it up so you can go back to dreaming about ice cream and how best to defraud your franchisees once you leave state office and rejoin the rest of us out here in the real world. With luck, your pals in the legislature will fail at realizing their Hobbesian fantasies in the lives of your fellow Arizonans, but if they should succeed, I'd simply call it poetic justice.

You may be wondering how I was able to gather so much information about Prop 204 in so little time. After all, your commercial made it sound so daunting: "fifteen pages... single-spaced". Well, you wanna know my secret? Do you? Of course you do. Now lean in close... Here it comes...

My secret is...


(wait for it...)


I READ IT (and you can too!). And what's more, I didn't die from brain overload. No really, you should try it sometime. Reading, that is. It's pretty great. At least, I think so.

So does Wishbone, and he's a dog, for crying out loud.

Plausible Deniability and Voting Third-Party

I have a hypothesis. I won't say it's a theory, because that will just bring up all my memories of having debates with people who say things like "it's only a theory!" and I don't have time for that here. Like I was saying...

I have a hypothesis, and that is that third-party voters are the hipsters of the political scene. I've seen this get thrown around with Ron Paul, but he's not even third-party. No, I'm talking about the candidates that are so far out of the mainstream, that the only evidence we have of their existence is the media equivalent of shoddy demo tapes: Ross Perot, Ralph Nader, Gary Johnson, etc.

I'll admit that even though I was alive during Perot's and Nader's respective heydays, I was too busy watching "Animaniacs" to care either way what they did. I knew that Clinton was president and I had some sort of opinion about Bob Dole, but I don't remember what it was other than that he was way old and Clinton wasn't. Don't ask me for details, because I don't know them.

Anyways, now we live in 2012. I'm not too up on Perot's or Nader's whereabouts these days, but I do see quite a bit about Gary Johnson around town and on campus. For instance, a week or two ago I was greeted by a large tarpaulin sign out behind the Student Union that featured nothing but Gary Johnson's name, a picture of some marijuana cigarettes, and the motto "Gary gets it" plastered across the top in large, comforting letters. Well, Gary may "get it", but I certainly didn't. Not the pot thing, but the whole "voting for someone who has a snowball in Mesa's chance at winning the election" thing.

Johnson fans are prepared for skeptics like myself. As pointed out by one of his fans on my FB friends list, "if everyone wasted their vote on him, he'd win". Well, so would Mickey Mouse. In fact, it's highly plausible that Mickey Mouse will pull more votes than plenty of these third-party candidates, if not necessarily Johnson himself. That's a rather silly argument to make about your candidate, because what it really does instead of inspiring confidence is come off with the hipster vibe I mentioned above. It feels like "well, my candidate will never win and you won't vote for him, but I will because then I can get in everyone else's face about how I voted for someone that no one had ever heard about".

This is not a hipster music debate. This is my attempt to understand how an American voter could knowingly (to use a very rough comparison) throw their ballot in the blender, all in order to stand on a soapbox come November 7th to preach to us about how "I voted for x" or "all candidates are the same except for the one I voted for". All I have to say to the first is "how'd that work out for you, to know that your ballot was essentially meaningless in the face of the rest of the popular vote, much less the electoral vote?" What I have to say to the second is "wow, you haven't been paying attention at all to anything but your nobody candidate, have you?" I really don't equivocate on this one.

I have a temporary job as an early ballot registration canvasser. I've also done some volunteering with voter registration on campus. Most of the people I've talked to are already registered, but occasionally I'll get a really unique response that just makes my mouth hang open. Something like "I don't vote", or "I'm too old for that". Well played, sir... NOT. I haven't run into any adamant third-party voters yet, but I'm pretty sure I know how the conversation would go.

Back to the pot thing. Rather than highlighting some more pressing issues on the Johnson/Libertarian platform, his reps on my campus decided to just focus our attention on one thing: smoking dope. They probably figured it would be a sure-fire hit, since my whole campus smells like pot smoke after 8:00 PM. But inquiring minds want to know: what else will he do? "Well," they said, "he won't start a war with Iran." OK, we're on the right track here, but neither will Obama. Can't we just reelect him instead of going with a Libertarian and all the other things inherent in their platform? Like that whole states' rights thing that the Tea Party gets so much traction out of flogging to death with neo-Confederate rhetoric and "land appropriation" bills in state congresses across the nation.

Look: if you want pot legalization, that's a tough call. The Obama administration doesn't plan to budge in the slightest on this one, but if you honestly think that pot legalization is the most important issue in this whole campaign, you've either not been watching the build-up to the election, or you've been lighting up too much of the sweet stuff to see the many-headed elephant in the room known as "GOP fascist theocracy rearing its ugly head if the Democratic Party doesn't win next month". You think things are bad now with government overreach? Just wait until you get guys like Reps. Hubbard and Fuqua out of Arkansas, who think that "slavery wasn't all that bad" and that citizenship in the US should include some kind of religious exclusion for Muslims. Does those sound like Constitutional principles to you? Or how about more Tea Party reps like those in North Carolina that talk tough about "small government", which really means "it's small compared to a Gatorade bottle and fits inside your uterus (but not ours, because we're men)"? Doesn't really smack of governmental non-intrusion, now does it?

We're approaching the point of this post. I promise. If you're reading this and you plan on voting third-party, I'm sorry if I roughed you up too much in the preceding paragraphs... It hurt me a whole lot more than it hurt you, and I'm being dead serious there. I don't really see many voters in your situation changing your minds on some of these issues. What I would like to see, however, is an acknowledgement of something that Democrats (and Republicans at times) have understood for some time now: compromise is essential to progress.

Just as liberalism used to mean an ideology pushing for rapid change and progress, conservatism used to mean progress as well, but it was more measured and methodical, certainly more so than the socialist movements that arose in the US around the turn of the century. This was also a time when Republicans were pioneers in resource conservation and worker protection. I'm most referring to President Roosevelt the First here, but his ideas enjoyed support then and are still inspirational now. Was he a perfect president? By all means, no. Read some of the things he had to say about the Philippines after we "liberated" them from the Spanish. Sure, they won the war with our help, but then when they asked if they could just hang onto that nice sovereignty thing they'd wanted during the revolution, we pretty much gave them a middle finger and fought the Vietnam War 60 years too early, the biggest difference being that we "won".

That being said, even Teddy wasn't perfect. The system needs balance. It needs compromise. If that means we sacrifice some of our pet legislation to the greater good, then so be it. Exercise a great deal of care, talk out your points and/or grievances, then see that going your own way isn't always the best idea. Sure, I'm tired of Democrats playing too nicely with Republicans who lie, but to conflate the distinction between the Tea Party and the moderate Republicans who still exist out there somewhere will do more harm than good. So will looking down the ballot on November 6th and saying that either "both candidates are the same" or "none of them meet all my expectations perfectly, therefore I'll give my vote to someone who will in all likelihood pull in no more than 4% of the vote if that".

You'd actually be pretty hard-pressed to find a Democrat out there who agrees unquestioningly with every single thing that President Obama has done. Heaven knows it's hard to find a Republican who honestly believes that everything Romney touches turns to gold. Even his campaign workers have to spin and twist his words to get some semblance of continuity between him and the language of his campaign platform... But you know what? That's just the nature of the beast. If you want a candidate who represents you perfectly and believes exactly the same way you do, then you should just go ahead and run now, because I promise you now that the phantom clone candidate that you're looking for simply doesn't exist. I'm serious: go run for something next election. I don't care what office you go after, but if you have some good ideas and a willingness to listen to your potential constituents, why not just go ahead and run?

In this election, however, our obligation is to vote. Not for a candidate whose total voter pull could be threatened by Mickey Mouse, but for a candidate who's been able to demonstrate progress in several areas. Even Reagan's old buddies at the Annenberg Public Policy Center concede that the Obama administration has had some rough times and frankly screwed up in certain areas, but these facts can't be denied: consumer confidence is up, unemployment is on a downward trend line from where it was a couple years ago, around 325,000 jobs have been added in this last year, etc.

Do give credit where it's deserved. Don't give it where it isn't.

Do stay informed. Don't wash your hands of this election and the discussion surrounding it, no matter how annoying or disturbing it may become.

Do vote. Don't throw away that right by either abstaining or giving your vote to a candidate who has no earthly chance of winning, especially if you're doing so for the purpose of standing on an ideological soapbox above the rest of us.

I know that post was basically telling you to vote for President Obama, but let's be real here: you really thought Romney could win this thing? And even if he could, would you really want him to?

A Modern Modest Proposal

A MODEST PROPOSAL

For Preventing the White Supremacists and Racists From Being a Burden on Their Constituents or Country, and for Making Them Beneficial to the African Publick

by Steven Kohlbert

2012

---

As a student of politics, both national and international, it has come to my attention that there exists, even in this post-Civil War America, a sharp divide between certain members of the White community and people of color. This is highlighted by comments recently expressed in the news and in books published by Republican members of state congresses across the nation advocating the idea that the perpetual slavery of the Black race may have been a blessing in disguise. The reasoning behind this statement being that those fortunate few who survived the institution of slavery until its cessation at the end of the Civil War became citizens of “the greatest nation on earth”. Taking into account the gains of the civil rights movement from that time until the present day, this conclusion- that Blacks eventually became citizens as opposed to merely three-fifths of a non-citizen counted for the purpose of the census- can be accepted as partially true. However, it is certainly distressing to see individuals such as these advocating this position without any first-hand experience with the living conditions inherent in slavery. Rather than simply complaining about this disparity, I instead propose a solution that will be beneficial in many ways, which I shall now discuss.

First, it is very important to understand the historical context for African slavery in the Americas. Begun in the 16^th century by Portuguese traders, slaves- typically from West Africa- originally replaced native laborers on plantations in the Caribbean. From there, the practice expanded to cover the entirety of the American Colonies. However, Abolitionist sentiment in the Northern States eventually led to the diminishing of the institution there, if not an end to the trade itself; it eventually ceased in Union territory with the issuance of the Emancipation Proclamation, which freed all African slaves in areas claimed or reclaimed by Union troops. With the capitulation of the Confederacy and the passage of the Reconstruction Amendments, Africans were finally granted both freedom from slavery where it existed previously, and also full citizenship and equal protection under the law. However, history shows us that traditions of segregation and discrimination lasted long into the next century. Recent events have shown us that this divide was never fully healed.

Part of the justification for this is the erroneous belief that Africans are inherently less civilized than Europeans, a mindset that has prevailed for many a century among the intellectually-challenged. Cited as evidence is Africa's supposed lack of so-called hallmarks of civilization, such as skyscrapers, modern infrastructure, and large-scale food production. To this end, I would like to submit my modest proposal as a way to solve both the problems of apparent African under-development and the ability of White racists to speak about slavery from personal experience.

To state my proposal simply, I would put forward the idea that certain among the White race be eligible for sale into perpetual servitude. This would not apply to all; rather, only those with 1.) a deep-seated hatred or aversion of Black people and 2.) a lack of personal knowledge concerning the institution of slavery would be candidates for such service. This can be ascertained through various methods: analysis of internet, mail, or interpersonal communications; membership in certain groups, clubs, or political organizations; display of or commiseration with symbols known to have connections with any group like those described previously. Additionally, slave status could also be determined by the attitudes held and/or stated by an individual's grandfather on either side of the family, given that the individual holds to the same ideas.

Once prepared for service, White slaves would be gathered at prominent East Coast and Gulf ports like New York City, Charleston, Richmond, and New Orleans, where they would be loaded onto ships bound for the African continent and beyond. In order to facilitate a more realistic experience for our trans-Atlantic voyagers, working replicas of period sailing vessels would need to be constructed from traditional materials using methods proper to the time. Construction of these vessels would be inexpensive as the gathering of materials and the construction proper would obviously be the work of the slaves themselves. While historical African slaves may not necessarily have personally built the vessels that carried them across the Atlantic, it could be argued that this step would be a necessary cost-cutting measure in these tough economic times. Also worth noting is the fact that the United States will incur no debt by this process, as the slaves will be sold on profit in accordance with free-market principles.

The fleet would of necessity follow the current across the Atlantic to ports on the west coast of Africa, a journey of approximately six weeks. As space will be very tight inside the ships, rations for slaves will be restricted to only that which is necessary for survival, though in certain circumstances, even smaller rations may be required. Though not encouraged, this experience will help the slaves prepare themselves for the low-calorie diet inherent of their future lives on African plantations. Additionally, the tight nature of shipboard life will necessitate burial-at-sea for any who unfortunately may perish in the crossing. While safe conveyance of cargo is essential for maintenance of the trade, collateral damage is in some cases unavoidable.

Upon arrival in West African waters, the trading fleet will then separate to distribute their respective cargoes to large ports such as Accra, Lagos, and Monrovia; once there, the slaves will be sold in auction to African landowners and householders. Of necessity, potential buyers will not be obligated to buy a slave's entire family along with an individual. Free-market principles dictate that the owner himself is best-equipped to make decisions regarding his private enterprise, without government or regulation stepping in to mandate the purchase of an entire slave family when only a handful of sundry individuals will suffice. This is further reinforced by the variety of potential occupations for these slaves once they reach their respective plantations or households, which will be discussed presently.

From the ports of West Africa, slaves will be obligated to follow their respective masters to their properties across the continent of Africa and beyond, as circumstances demand. Typical labor could include the following: clearing jungle land for planting; building up infrastructure such as highways, dams, and bridges; farming on existing plantations; even working in their master's house. To ensure that sufficient time is devoted to constructive labors and physical exercise, literacy of slaves will be strongly discouraged where applicable, taking into consideration the prior academic attainments (or lack thereof) of the slave in question.

Here we see the benefit to both the slaves and to the African people as a whole: whereas previously these slaves may have derided the supposed lack of food production and modernity in rural Africa, now they have a unique opportunity to offer themselves selflessly in order to improve conditions for the people of the continent. As standards of living improve for Africans in general, it can be expected that, according to trickle-down economic theory, so too may the lives of the slaves improve, though such evidence is not entirely necessary for the theory to be perpetuated in the minds of men.

Finally, we must consider the hardships that these slaves will undoubtedly encounter, among these are: foreign diseases to which they have no natural immunity; sparse living conditions; lack of clothing, food, and/or clean water; housing insufficient for protection from the elements or family size; physical abuse not limited to whippings, amputation of limbs, attacks by dogs, rape or other forms of sexual abuse; and last but not least, murder or other forms of untimely or unnatural death. While it pains the heart to recognize that such hazards will be inherent to their labor, it also must be borne in mind that despite the illusion of perpetuity, their slavery will most likely not be eternal. Not only will slaves be allowed to purchase their freedom- in relation to the price paid for them in US dollars, as opposed to whatever compensation they may collect in local currency- they will also have the same opportunity given to them that was imparted to the African slaves in days gone by. If, centuries in the future, the respective governments of their new lands decide to end the practice of slavery, these slaves- or at least their distant descendants- will be given the chance to become citizens in their own right, free from service without pay on plantations. Instead, they will likely be able to live in the same hovels they inhabited as slaves, only this time they will be paid wages so small as to be considered insignificant in exchange for their former masters not burning their houses down, sending them to prisons for hard labor, or simply killing them out of hand.

In the end, these future descendants will be able to look back upon the servitude of their ancestors, knowing that in spite of all the many hardships they faced, they are ultimately blessed to be where they now are. Not only that, they will now be able to look African-Americans in the eye and tell them with certainty that they now know what it feels like to be the descendant of a people forced across an ocean to a new land, only to be considered a sub-human beast of burden for many subsequent centuries. The present writer imagines that in that day, many a happy tear will be shed by faces both Black and White. It is worth noting that while the present writer offers the preceding as a modest proposal to be considered by those in positions to mandate such a policy, he also objects himself and his future posterity from such service, as he is not especially adept at manual labor, and has a great love for African contributions to American culture.