I honestly never intended for this series of postings to become a regular feature. The Electric Telegraph really is more focused on art, culture, and travel. But, in the time honored tradition of my father, arguing about politics is a fun activity. Okay, well, in my family, it’s more like civilized blood sport. On the one hand, we’re all passionately involved in the issues; on the other hand, we all like winning arguments. In lieu of winning, having a good argument will do; stalemates are often all that we do reach. My father could argue with a brick wall, and boy, did he love a good political scandal. The crazier the better. We laughed over the Abramoff scandal for weeks, for no other reason that it loosely involved prostitution and a guy named Dusty Fargo. At any rate, I can only say that my family’s proclivity for always putting politics into the mix is the reason why I keep coming back to this series of posts. (And no mom, you don’t need to call to check if I’m okay. Really, I’m fine. Just riled up.)
I was mistaken when I thought the mid-term election last week would put the crazies to bed. If anything, they’ve been coming out of the woodwork in mass droves. Oklahoma passed a state constitutional amendment banning Sharia law, which a federal judge had to issue an injunction on. Admittedly, the law only bans the legal system from considering Sharia law when deciding precedence for rulings, so in that regard it isn’t as far sweeping as it sounds at first glance. But apparently someone in Oklahoma forgot that pesky little part of the Constitution that clearly lays out that states can’t make laws that contradict federal law, in this case the First Amendment. Not to mention that the implications of this law have farther reaching consequences than I think the people who wrote it intended. If you can’t consider one religious faith’s laws and edicts in court cases, it sets a precedence by which no faith’s laws and edicts can be considered. I’ve watched enough Law & Order to know that’s precisely how this law will be used (I even think there’s an episode to this effect), which completely defeats the panicked purpose of this law. (Okay, so Law & Order watching isn’t exactly the best support here, but the logic stands. Precedence would be set.)
Over to Arizona, where there’s a group of Tea Partiers worried about socialism in their trash collection. I can only assume it’s the recycling they have an issue with because otherwise, I’m completely lost.
Then there’s Rick “Good Hair” Perry on the Daily Show suggesting that states should secede from Social Security. Right.
Still in Texas, and the initial reason for this post because it so irked me this morning when I saw the story while on the elliptical machine, State Rep. Debbie Riddle is proposing an Arizona style immigration bill during the upcoming legislative session. It’s got all the usual canards in it. I’m just curious, does she really care about immigration reform? Her whole rationale is the increase in violence along the border from the drug cartels. Yep, the violence has increased because that war on drugs didn’t do a damn thing to break the cartels’ power; it just strengthened them. Making sure illegal immigrants can’t vote isn’t doing anything about the cartels. Nor does forcing over taxed police forces to be immigration officers. Nor does it do a damn thing about the thousands of people, predominantly women, who have gone missing along the border in the last two decades. Perhaps we can do something about that first.