Arizona passes Birther Law, takes early lead in "Dumbest State of the Year" competition

Tips for the new Arizona state bird, the Orly Owl

EPIC STATE WIDE FAIL

---

by: MinistryOfTruth @ Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 02:21:07 AM UTC

I can hear her

saying FAIL.

Oh and fuck you, Arizona. You may be beautiful but you suck.

McCain wonders if it will lead to racial profiling. What a dork. hmm.. gee? Walnuts?  

---

by: Fong @ Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 05:27:00 AM UTC

Why do angry, old white people

think they should take everything into their own hands if the Big Bad Federal Government doesn't do exactly what they want?

I would like to think this kind of law couldn't pass challenges in the courts, but with today's courts...

---

by: WeatherDem @ Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 16:20:48 PM UTC

Coming from a State with a Senator....

born in fucking PANAMA!!  Too bad we couldn't vote them off our Water Treaty. We can't trust our water to be used wisely with so much ignorance.

---

by: Just Anita @ Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 21:58:33 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Arizona should just secede from the Union

....and I say that as someone who lives in Arizona.  

" You would think that at least one or two people in the entire Arizona state GOP would know basic stuff about the US Constitution, wouldn't you?"

You want to hear something hilarious but not that surprising? ARIZONA'S GOVERNOR IS THE ONLY GOVERNOR IN THE U.S. WHO DOES NOT HAVE A COLLEGE DEGREE. All she has is a certificate in radiology. That sounds like it might be semi-important, but radiologists don't read x-rays (doctors and surgeons do), they just take the picture.

On top of it, when I tried to find out what bottom-run community college she went to, I couldn't! Then I thought, maybe this is how the webpage bio's are made. WRONG, I went to my city's (Mesa) webpage, and EVERYONE has their education credentials listed. City Manager Brady has an MA from Brigham Young. Mayor Scott Smith has an MBA and JD from ASU. The city council is made up of business professionals, attorneys, and engineers.

So I searched high and low.....and managed to find a few different (reliable) sources. Only thing is, they report different schools. Some said Contra Costa California Community College (not verbatim, so don't quote me), another side Glendale Community College.... which made me wonder....

DOES THE GOVERNOR OF ARIZONA EVEN HAVE A GED? Possibly.

I'm sure she hears phrases like "Pareto Optimum Economic Efficiency" or "Full Employment" and has no idea what they mean and accuses the speaker of using Mexican words. HA.

The thing is, even SHE is embarrassed by her lack of educartion (that's why she won't list or comment publicly about her education). I mean, she's running an entire state and hasn't even taken Economics 101. She sure as hell hasn't taken American Political Theory (as I understand it, community colleges don't offer 300-level courses, ha), so I'm sure she thinks "unconstitutional" isn't a real word.

No one knows that she doesn't have a degree. I didn't when I moved to the State, neither did many of the residents here I told this to. You assume politicians at least have a basic degree of core classes, and you DEFINITELY assume a governor has that. I know I assumed most governors have an MA or a law degree. I think these idiotic and unconstitutional laws make a lot more sense once you know this about her.  

---

by: TruthInVoting @ Sat Apr 24, 2010 at 02:53:30 AM UTC

Hey, thanks for coming to squarestate

now would you mind telling us why a four year degree is the only way someone can be intelligent enough to be a Governor?

There are plenty of reasons to attack her but in the end, degrees don't make you smart.

I can tell you as someone who has seen many people with degrees do dumb things and be some of the dumbest people.  

---

by: Fong @ Sat Apr 24, 2010 at 03:04:44 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

You're welcome

Absolutely.

While creating a budget for an entire state, one needs to fully understand concepts of Finance, Economics, and Political Theory (and those are just the 3 I think are most essential).

Many things are popular politically (either because they have initial benefits or simply are perceived as sound policies). Take for example, the highly popular concept of subsidies (supply side), and for argument's sake, let's say we're subsidizing ethanol (which is a VERY popular subsidy). The purpose of a subsidy is to reduce the market equilibrium price and increase the quantity of goods sold. At the initial market equilibrium, the equilibrium price is P₀ and the equilibrium quantity is Q₀.  A subsidy leads to an outward shift of supply and a lower equilibrium price. Given the new supply curve, equilibrium price decreases from P₀ to P_{1, and quantity bought increases from Q0 to Q1, meaning more ethanol can be supplied at each price. This analysis indeed predicts the subsidy will increase the equilibrium quantity because of the subsidy in place. If a subsidy is guaranteed to producers, then the government pays a subsidy per unit to the producer above the new market price; in our case the unit is $.50 per gallon of ethanol. The subsidy reduces the consumer price from P0 to P1, and for producing Q1, producers receive the price P1 plus P1P2.Government subsidies, thought meant to lower the price for consumers, inevitably carried an opportunity cost as well. If we look at the market economy as series of transactions and distributions, we see that the subsidy of ethanol is only transfers of wealth from consumers to ethanol producers. Unless you fix the consumer price of a product, subsidy is simply the transfer of cost from one party to another. In the case of ethanol subsidies, the subsidy is absorbed by ethanol producers, and the government (taxpayers) pays the added production costs, a cost which should be the responsibility of the producer. Distorting the price system then creates a trade-off between equity and efficiency.}

Now, I haven't even gotten into the compensated demand curve for ethanol, the income effect, the substitution effect, or any number of impacts of ethanol subsidies. The fact that someone signing these bills into law is deciding this, is extremely unfortunate.

How about the topic of public education? Or unemployment? Given available quantities of capital and labor, the production functions that the economy is able to produce lie on or below the production possibility frontier; if the economy could be Pareto-improving, it means that the capital and labor could be reallocated to increase the production of one good without changing the production of another good. Thus, someone who runs a state should consider all the factors of production so the economy produces combinations of goods on the frontier and not below it. Now factor in the Utilities Possibilities Curve and the Social Welfare function. Sure, you can have an economy that is at pareto optimum (a competitive equilibrium), but unless you understand social welfare functions, you will not actually see why you may have - or already have - a market failure (the most well-known types of market failures are monopolies and external costs, and you don't have to go much further than Walmart or polluting firms or Goldman-Sachs to see why market failures are atrocious).

To my main point:
No, degrees do not make you smart. Plenty of people are smart without degrees, and plenty are still successful. But those people are not making decisions and policies that have the potential to alleviate or ruin the situation of millions of families. Many politicians are ESPECIALLY prone to bad policies based on the fact that they are narcissists who love being in office and will create unsound popular policies for the almighty vote. Or for the almighty dollar of special interest groups. It's even scarier if they do not know what they are doing.

I'm not saying degrees and intelligence are mutually exclusive or do not intersect. In fact, if they were Venn diagrams, degrees would be inside the intelligence vector. I am pointing out that Jan Brewer lies outside of both the set for intelligence and a degree. At least if a governor has a First Professional or Advanced Professional degree, we can be reasonably assured they have the training necessary for the job. I think plenty of people are smart, but I wouldn't let them operate on me or decide what's best for my economic future.

---

by: TruthInVoting @ Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 09:13:27 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

(Reformatted correctly without the need for a magnifying glass)

While creating a budget for an entire state, one needs to fully understand concepts of Finance, Economics, and Political Theory (and those are just the 3 I think are most essential).

Many things are popular politically (either because they have initial benefits or simply are perceived as sound policies). Take for example, the highly popular concept of subsidies (supply side), and for argument's sake, let's say we're subsidizing ethanol (which is a VERY popular subsidy). The purpose of a subsidy is to reduce the market equilibrium price and increase the quantity of goods sold. At the initial market equilibrium, the equilibrium price is P₀ and the equilibrium quantity is Q₀.  A subsidy leads to an outward shift of supply and a lower equilibrium price. Given the new supply curve, equilibrium price decreases from P₀ to P₁, and quantity bought increases from Q₀ to Q₁, meaning more ethanol can be supplied at each price. This analysis indeed predicts the subsidy will increase the equilibrium quantity because of the subsidy in place. If a subsidy is guaranteed to producers, then the government pays a subsidy per unit to the producer above the new market price; in our case the unit is $.50 per gallon of ethanol. The subsidy reduces the consumer price from P₀ to P₁, and for producing Q₁, producers receive the price P₁ plus P₁P₂.Government subsidies, thought meant to lower the price for consumers, inevitably carried an opportunity cost as well. If we look at the market economy as series of transactions and distributions, we see that the subsidy of ethanol is only transfers of wealth from consumers to ethanol producers. Unless you fix the consumer price of a product, subsidy is simply the transfer of cost from one party to another. In the case of ethanol subsidies, the subsidy is absorbed by ethanol producers, and the government (taxpayers) pays the added production costs, a cost which should be the responsibility of the producer. Distorting the price system then creates a trade-off between equity and efficiency.

Now, I haven't even gotten into the compensated demand curve for ethanol, the income effect, the substitution effect, or any number of impacts of ethanol subsidies. The fact that someone signing these bills into law is deciding this, is extremely unfortunate.

How about the topic of public education? Or unemployment? Given available quantities of capital and labor, the production functions that the economy is able to produce lie on or below the production possibility frontier; if the economy could be Pareto-improving, it means that the capital and labor could be reallocated to increase the production of one good without changing the production of another good. Thus, someone who runs a state should consider all the factors of production so the economy produces combinations of goods on the frontier and not below it. Now factor in the Utilities Possibilities Curve and the Social Welfare function. Sure, you can have an economy that is at pareto optimum (a competitive equilibrium), but unless you understand social welfare functions, you will not actually see why you may have - or already have - a market failure (the most well-known types of market failures are monopolies and external costs, and you don't have to go much further than Walmart or polluting firms or Goldman-Sachs to see why market failures are atrocious).

To my main point:
No, degrees do not make you smart. Plenty of people are smart without degrees, and plenty are still successful. But those people are not making decisions and policies that have the potential to alleviate or ruin the situation of millions of families. Many politicians are ESPECIALLY prone to bad policies based on the fact that they are narcissists who love being in office and will create unsound popular policies for the almighty vote. Or for the almighty dollar of special interest groups. It's even scarier if they do not know what they are doing.

I'm not saying degrees and intelligence are mutually exclusive or do not intersect. In fact, if they were Venn diagrams, degrees would be inside the intelligence vector. I am pointing out that Jan Brewer lies outside of both the set for intelligence and the set for degrees. At least if a governor has a First Professional or Advanced Professional degree, we can be reasonably assured they have the training necessary for the job. I think plenty of people are smart, but I wouldn't let them operate on me or decide what's best for my economic future.

---

by: TruthInVoting @ Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 09:17:57 AM UTC

[ Parent ]