By The Time I Get To Arizona

Two more days until surgery. I think the waiting is worse than the actual operation.

I guess when you’re on a roll, you’re on a roll, right? Hot on the heels of demanding any suspected non-Americans show them their papers, the state of Arizona passed two more of the most ridiculous laws to come across a governor’s desk in the 21st century. In the span of a week, the legislature approved a bill banning teachers with “heavy accents” from teaching English, and another attempting to eliminate ethnic studies courses - required or elective - from the curriculum of all publicly-funded schools.

As usual, proponents of these laws have attempted to cast their distain for people of other than white, anglo-saxon decent, as just looking out for the well-being of the kids. They don’t want teachers with heavy accents teaching English because proper pronunciation and enunciation are essential to the language and skills - and therefore future success - of the children. Outlawing ethnic studies programs is a way to ensure that all children learn the same version of American history and all the important people and events that have taken place. Those “reasons” may or may not have redeeming value. I would argue that they do not. Let’s be honest, how many teachers sporting a heavy Southern drawl or quirky Minnesota jaunt are going to be excluded from the the English classroom? And how many U.S. history courses without an emphasis in ethnic studies include details of significant contributions from non-European Americans? I don’t think I’m walking too far out on a limb by answering few to none. All these new laws are designed to marginalize brown people in Arizona, legal or not, and make them understand that they are expected to conform to a very specific idea of how the older, whiter majority in that state believes they should look, sound and think . And the fact that so many people in Arizona - and around the country - support these initiatives, and are attempting to duplicate them elsewhere says something very disconcerting about the direction in which too many would like to take us.

There has been a lot of talk, mostly on Fox News and conservative talk radio, about the continuing BP oil spill being “Obama’s Katrina.” A few points on the absurdity of that statement. First, why is it that every time this President does something his conservative critics consider to be a gaffe, they always seem to find the perfect Bush screw-up to describe the situation? Second, these same critics have spend the past four years trying to convince us that Bush’s response to Hurricane Katrina was perfectly adequate, and that the blame for the chaos and death in New Orleans and surrounding areas were really the fault of the Governor and Mayor Nagin. If this spill is “Obama’s Katrina,” does that not mean, by their own definition, that this administration is therefore doing a “heck of a job,” and that the fault for the economic and environmental damage should really be placed with Governor Jindal? And finally, exactly what is it that the conservative critics expect the government to do, beyond what they are already doing? The coast guard was on the scene the day of the explosion. Both NASA and NOAA have been providing a steady stream of information to British Petroleum to assist them in directing their clean-up effort. The Navy is providing equipment and deep water operating experience to a company with obviously no idea of how to tackle a deep water spill. Did the Minerals Management Service perform its function of properly permitting, regulating and overseeing oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico? Of course not. What do you expect from an oil regulator gutted by two oil executives for eight years? About the only thing the government hasn’t done is nationalized BP, plugged the leak and performed the clean-up themselves at taxpayer expense. The critics certainly aren’t advocating a government bailout and operation of British Petroleum, are they?

As the returns for Tuesday’s primary races come in, one thing is abundantly clear. Voters (those that bother to vote in primaries anyway) are angry. Angry with the establishment, be they Republican or Democrat. Irrationally angry. But angry nonetheless. And they’re willing to direct that anger at whoever is in power by attempting to replace them with the most polar opposite candidate they can vote for. It’s reflexive. And stupid. And reminiscent of a four-year-old’s temper tantrum. But that is what it is.

People are mad. And when people get mad, or frightened, or panicked, any semblance of rationality goes out the window. I’ve lost count of how many interviews I’ve heard this week with voters angry with congressmen and/or senators who voted for the financial rescue package. In the very next sentence they admit that either a) the steps to preserve the banking system had to be take to avoid complete economic collapse, or b) they have no idea what should have been done to prevent the impending economic Armageddon. Then, seemingly forgetting what they said three seconds before, demand the removal of the guy whose actions they just said were necessary. Then there’s the guy who claims he is voting against his senator because she voted for healthcare reform. Attempting to explain his anger he claims that the healthcare bill didn’t go far enough in reforming the system, but he opposes the individual mandate, but he thinks healthcare should be less expensive, and he really wants some kind of reform, just not this package, so he’s voting her out. Translated into English, he opposes the healthcare reform package because it didn’t include enough, but was too expensive, even though he opposes the primary cost control measure of the legislation, and hopes some other more perfect version of the bill will happen along and magically pass through Congress without any horse trading and fix the system, even though overhaul is the first in 45 years to be signed into law. I don’t even want to talk about the clowns decrying a “government takeover of healthcare” while fiercely clinging to their Medicare and Social Security. Oh, and then there’s the National Rifle Association. Since the election of Barack Obama people have been acquiring firearms and ammunition at a ridiculous rate. Why? The NRA has convinced them that the President is coming to get them and take away their guns. Is there any evident whatsoever to back up such an assertion? Of course not. In fact, laws governing gun ownership have actually become less restrictive during the tenure of this administration. Yet when asked in an interview with NPR why he continues to insist the government will crack down on gun ownership, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary, the spokesman for the NRA said, “I just have a feeling that there are storm clouds on the horizon.” That’s right. He has a feeling.

These people are idiots. Logic and reason mean nothing to them. The facts don’t matter, only their feelings. Somebody has offended their sensibilities and as a result they’re lashing out. It doesn’t matter that TARP prevented 2008 from reverting to 1939. The system didn’t actually fail, and things aren’t too bad right now, so obviously it was a waste of money and whoever voted for it should be fired. That is, of course, the equivalent of showing up at the five-alarm fire after the fire department has already put it out and saying heck, I don’t see any flames, guess we really didn’t need the fire department after all, what a waste of money! But that doesn’t matter. They’re mad dammit! And they’re not going to take it anymore! It’s irrelevant that the administration has made no attempt to, and given no indication it wants to curb gun ownership. They’re suspicious of that Obama guy, and have “bad feelings” about everything he has - or hasn’t done. They’re mad dammit! Monkeys in pants could do a better job than those fools in power now! Well, looks like some of those pants-wearing monkeys are going to get a chance to prove it. I’m stocking up on bananas.

Indiana Republican Congressman and evangelical Mark Souder held a press conference Tuesday afternoon to announce his resignation and admit he has been having an affair with a staffer not his wife. Surprise! Yet another family values conservative exercising his “values” with someone other than his family. I can’t help but wonder how the rise of gay marriage and the absence of school prayer damaged Souder’s traditional marriage and forced him to copulate with another woman. I would have to assume those things had little to effect, but I’m obviously not an expert on family values like he is.

Speaking of family values, disgraced South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford spent the past week in Florida, trying to rekindle his relationship with his Argentinean “soul mate.” The tryst cost Florida taxpayers $1,200 in security for the Governor and his lady-friend. While its kind of an inconsiderate thing to saddle out-of-state taxpayers with the cost of romancing your lover, you have to admire the man’s persistence. Lesser men, publicly humiliated by the media and divorced by a wealthy, politically powerful wife, might have given up on scoring the mistress. But not Sanford. This guy is the very model of stick-to-it-ive-ness. Perhaps if he had focused a little more of that attention his state and a little less on his illicit love affairs, he would still have both a marriage and a reputation.

Finally, from the desk of solutions-to-problems-that-aren’t-actually-problems, Lysol is advertising a new, touch-less soap pump. Their tag line? “Never touch a germy soap pump again!” Now, call me crazy, but it seems as though this product is aimed specifically at people who apply soap to their hands after they have already washed them. Why else would it matter whether or not there were germs on the soap pump? Isn’t that what the soap is for? To cleanse my hands after I have lathered with said soap from said soap pump? Come on guys. You’re not even trying anymore! I know times are tough, but really. You have to do better than that.