Sour Grapes and the Folly of Secession

Article first published as Sour Grapes and the Folly of Secession on Technorati.

Arizona is certainly a trendsetter, unfortunately for all the wrong reasons...

This week, hot on the heels of President Barack Obama's second term the local news reports that over 14,000 Arizona residents have signed a petition to ask "permission" to secede from the union.  The petition was started by the mysterious Nicholas M. of Gilbert, Az. 

Using the White House's We the People website a petition submitted by our Mr. "M" states...

 "The citizens of the great state of Arizona have the right to stand for their principles,” and  “That man is granted unalienable rights, which are not the dispensations of the government, but find their beginnings in God and come from God alone. These are the principles that our forefathers stood for, the principles upon which our Constitution is based, and those in which we firmly place our belief and resolve"

I'm not sure which constitution he's talking about. 

To hold up the U.S. Constitution won't work since it governs the body you're trying to leave.  To hold up a  state constitution is folly since the last state to have anything resembling a secession clause was Texas.  In fact one of the conditions of statehood is to specifically remove any secession language from the constitution of the prospective state.

Arizona isn't alone in its activism and apparently all  50 states have similar petitions in the wake of the election with some more successful than others.   

In Texas an equally mysterious character in the person of Micah H. has managed to collect over 100,000 signatures for his Texas secession petition. 

Strange how all these mysterious characters are suddenly starting petitions.  It's almost as though there was some type of organized effort.  Perhaps by a conservative group pre-occupied with politics and hot caffeinated beverages?

Petitions require only 25,000 signatures to receive an "official" response which upon meeting that threshold is likely to go something like this, "Thanks for your petition, we value your opinion but No"

Even Arizona's fiery state's rights advocate, Gov. Jan Brewer, has publicly stated she did not support the idea of secession.  Of course she doesn't.  Her distaste for the federal government may be obvious but no state can afford to lose its share of the Federal dole.

Unfortunately for the secessionists, they're not likely to find much support from other state governors either.  Setting aside the legal ramifications, state governments are far too dependent on federal funding to seriously entertain the idea of secession. 

When the South lost the Civil War (a secessionist movement)  it was due to a failing economy and flawed economic construct.   Perhaps it is the best example of the dangers of an extreme ideology overruling reason.   Apparently history has few lessons for a secessionist. 

So much for the bloodless revolution.

Arizona and the Politics of Abortion

Article first published as Arizona and the Politics of Abortion on Technorati.

If you were born anytime during the last half of the 20th century it's probable that someone at some point ended a sentence with the phrase, "when you were just a twinkle in your mother's eye." 

With the stroke of a pen Governor Jan Brewer (Repbulican, AZ) has made that seemingly flippant statement legally binding...

Under Arizona's HB 2036 anti-abortion law, conception is now considered to take place the first day of its mother's last menstrual period.    The issue stems from language in the bill (similar to ambiguous language in the recent HB 2549 anti-bullying law)  that refers to a "gestational age" which is calculated from the previously mentioned timeframe extending to 20 weeks at which point any abortion would be outlawed except in cases of medical emergency.

Do the math and it appears an Arizona woman could be considered pregnant before even engaging in a sexual act.  Old wives' tales of pregnancy due to use of public restrooms come to mind.  Apparently the Arizona House puts merit in the possibility...

Section 5 of the bill outlines a litany of directives that must be satisfied for compliance with the law.  That includes a directive to the state department of Health Services to deploy an informational abortion  website.  The verbiage is very specific as to the content of this website.  From Section 5 Part C:

6. Information that is designed to inform the woman of the probable anatomical and physiological characteristics of the unborn child at two‑week gestational increments from fertilization to full term, including pictures or drawings representing the development of unborn children at two‑week gestational increments and any relevant information on the possibility of the unborn child's survival. The pictures or drawings must contain the dimensions of the unborn child and must be realistic and appropriate for each stage of pregnancy. The information provided pursuant to this paragraph must be objective, nonjudgmental and designed to convey only accurate scientific information about the unborn child at the various gestational ages.

At this point the law is both ambiguous and graphic, not far removed from the depictions of aborted fetuses seen on the signs and banners of anti-abortion activists.  Therein lies a serious issue.  The state has effectively taken a side in the argument.  The use of the state's website to depict abortion at various stages of fetal development (at 2 week intervals) is perhaps the most unambiguous part of the bill.

Pulled from the context of the abortion debate such directives are no different than if the state were to require an agency's website to depict the grisly outcomes of capital crimes such as murder and rape in the name of the public good.   This too would be informational but lacking any political motive, unlikely to find support in the Arizona legislature. 

In related news, The Arizona state Senate passed a bill to ban public funding of Planned Parenthood because the organization performs abortions as well as providing family planning and preventative care services.  The move was said to ensure that no public funds are used for abortion services.  Planned parenthood says the funding ban would affect services for 19,000 Arizona women many of which have limited means.

Arizona currently has an unemployment rate of 8.7 percent and thousands of residents without health care due to changes in eligibility requirements for AHCCCS (Arizona's Medicaid program).  It's strange then, that so much legislative effort appears to be focused on purely political agendas instead of pressing economic and social concerns.  Ah, but this is Arizona we're talking about after all with plenty of precedent for such things...

Arizona, the Dry County of Free Speech

Article first published as Arizona, the Dry County of Free Speech on Technorati.

Arizona, Here we go again...      

With all the decorum of a bar fight, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer was captured wagging a finger in the face of President Obama last January.  Less than 6 months later we now have the conservative state legislature presenting the Governor with a bill that has the potential to censor Internet speech. 

Proposed as an anti-bullying measure added to current stalking legislation, HB 2549 now on the Governor's desk states...

Section 13-2916, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to  read:

 Use of an electronic or digital device to terrify,  intimidate, threaten, harass, annoy or offend;

Opponents of the bill cite a dangerous ambiguity concerning the terms "annoy or offend" which would empower the state to function as a de-facto censor for all forms of communication deemed offensive or annoying.  That includes the Internet with the penalty being a Class 1 Misdemeanor.

It should be noted that the original text of the bill cited "telephone call" as the protected medium but was struck and replaced simply with the terms "Communications" and "Electronic or Digital Device."  As with SOPA/PIPA this may be another example of government misunderstanding the effect of their legislation on the medium and the First Amendment in general.  If passed Arizona could become a virtual "dry county" for free speech.

The bill's relatively short length (1.5 pages) fails to define the scope or moderating agency responsible for enforcement which potentially leaves it's interpretation broad, ambiguous and subjective.  With such a measure signed into law, opposing political and social viewpoints could be curtailed by simply claiming they are offensive or annoying. 

Proponents cite the need for broadening the stalking provisions of the current statute to protect individuals online from bullying.

Perhaps the most amusing outcome should the Governor sign the bill into law is the ability to censor the speech of any individual or group deemed offensive or annoying.  That includes the Governor herself as her wagging finger could be deemed offensive.