Sunday, May 30, 2010

The Monday Roast: FBI: Female Body Inspector Shirts

1.  No, you don't.  Boom, roasted.

2.  Why don't you go ahead and tear the sleeves off too.  Boom, roasted.

3.  If you indeed have a significant other, buy her the matching "I'm with stupid" tee.  Boom, roasted.

4.  Unfortunately, there is not a governmental agency abbreviated ITD so you can have the more appropriate shirt: "I'm a Total Douche."  Boom, roasted.

5.  And now we know you've been to Vegas and/or Cabo.  Boom, roasted.

    Wednesday, May 26, 2010

    Musings on the Phoenix Suns

    I was driving around town the other day, and as is often the case, I had some sports radio blaring in the background.  The banter for the day focused on the NBA, which was fine with me because we're in the midst of the NBA playoffs.  However, to a passive listener, the topic of the show would have indicated that we are in the midst of the NBA Finals rather than the playoffs.

    The reason a passive listener may have drawn such a conclusion is because the radio show hosts were previewing the Lakers vs. Celtics final--but the Eastern and Western Conference finals weren't even over.  Granted, the Celtics held a 3-0 edge over the Magic, but the Suns were down just 2-0 and had not even played a game in Phoenix yet.

    It didn't stop there.  Celtics fans had already begun printing and selling green shirts that read "Beat LA."  While most people assume they will finish off the Magic, Boston fans should not be too quick to forget their Bruins that dropped a 3-0 lead just a month ago, and their Red Sox who came back from 0-3 just a few years back.  Moreover, that shirt operated on the presumption that the Lakers were going to finish off the Suns too--a presumption which apparently the radio show hosts (and their guests) were fine with too.

    Well, look where we are now.  The Suns have won two consecutive games and have their is series knotted at two a piece.  In hindsight counting the Suns out so promptly after losing two games in LA seems odd.  After all, the Suns swept a San Antonio Spurs team that was playing very well and looked like a threat to come out of the west.  However, after the Suns were dismantled by the Lakers in two games everyone couldn't help but start salivating over the ratings slam dunk match up of Celtics v. Lakers; Boston v. LA; East Coast v. West Coast; Storied Franchise v. Storied Franchise.

    Maybe a Lakers v. Celts final is inevitable.  After all, Phil Jackson is something like 46-0 when winning the first game of a playoff series; and the Lakers are 35-1 after winning the first two games of a best of seven series.  Moreover, the Lakers exposed Amare Stoudemire in the first two games and the Suns could not find a shot from behind the arc.  Finally, the Suns were simply blown out of game 1 and when it looked like they had a shot in game 2 the Lakers just found another gear and ran away with it.

    Everyone was saying the Suns had no chance--unless Amare had an amazing game and the Suns bench showed up.  So basically, unless the Suns played like they had during the end of the season and through out the playoffs until this point they had no chance.  Well I guess there is no place like home, because in two quick games the Suns played exactly the way they had up to this point: Amare had a monster game and the Suns' bench showed up.  Not to mention Alvin Gentry's astute imposition of a zone defense that confused the Lakers and left Gasol only looking like he wasn't human rather than playing like it too.

    In the span of a few days the Suns have gone from a prelude to a Lakers championship, to being locked in a three game series for the Western Conference Championship.  No one is sleeping on the Suns now; they obviously have the Lakers attention; and this series might be the only exciting series in the entire playoffs.  That excitement shouldn't wear off any time soon either.  The lowest scoring total between the two teams in the series thus far is 221 points. 

    So Celtic fans: put those beat LA Shirts down for now, finish up your own series (which is now 3-2 after a beat down in Orlando and an injury to your whole team) and imagine for a second what shirt you'd be wearing if you hadn't gone out and purchased Ray and KG.  And another thing: hey sports media, stop previewing the NBA finals before they come to pass.  First, it makes you look foolish when you put one team into the finals before they have played a road game, and then that team loses both games on the road.  Second, you're not very good at predicting the finals; you've been predicting a Lebron Kobe final for two years now and by my count you're 0-2.  

    Viva los Suns!

    Monday, May 24, 2010

    The Monday Roast: Thule's

    1.  Would you walk everywhere you go with an empty backpack?  Boom, roasted.

    2.  You spent several hundred dollars on something just to mount bumper stickers on it.  Boom, roasted.

    3.  Which came first, the Thule or the Subaru?  Boom, roasted.

    4.  What would your environmental bumper stickers think of the gas you waste by driving around town with an empty Thule on your roof?  Boom, roasted.

    5.  Just because something is potentially practical does not mean it's not an accessory.  Boom, roasted.

    Monday, May 17, 2010

    The Monday Roast: Exes

    1.  You dumped me and now it's my fault? Boom, roasted.

    2.  But you're my best friend.  Yeah, well best friends don't have sex with each other either.  Boom, roasted.

    3.  But you're hooking up with someone too!  So what, that's different.  Boom, roasted.

    4.  No matter how much I can't stand you, you always find a way to bother my current companion more.  Boom, roasted.

    5.  Don't worry, it's not awkward for anyone else at the party of five when we pretend we don't know each other.  Boom, roasted.

    Monday, May 10, 2010

    The Monday Roast: WebMD

    1.  No my hangover is not cancer or gonorrhea.  Boom, roasted.

    2.  Fear monger.  Boom, roasted.

    3.  Did you actually get your MD on the web?  Boom, roasted.

    4.  While looking for sore throat remedies I wound up taking your depression quiz and now I'm depressed because I think I have AIDS.  Boom, roasted.

    5.  Does the MD stand for Medicinae Doctor or Merck Dow?  Boom, roasted.

    Sunday, May 9, 2010

    Musings on Water Closets

    I was doing some reading today and discovered that the initials W.C. apparently have a widely known alternative to West Coast:

    W.C. also commonly refers to the initial letters of Water Closet, which is another word for bathroom.  The term is used commonly in France (pronounced "le vay-say" or "le vater"), Romania (pronounced "veh-cheu") and Hungary (pronounced "vey-tsay"). The term is also used in the Netherlands (pronounced "waysay"), Germany (pronounced "ve-tse") and Norway (pronounced "vay-say") and Poland (pronounced "vu-tse"). W.C., despite being an English language abbreviation widely used internationally, is a term not in common use in English-speaking countries like the United Kingdom or the United States--at least not to refer to water closets.

    Coincidentally A.B. Homer is traveling to Paris in the next few days, so he may have the chance to be the first W.C. Homer to use a W.C.

    For more information see "Toilet" on Wikipedia.

    Wednesday, May 5, 2010

    Arizona Ridin' Roughshod

    Sometimes saying you're from Arizona can be tough.  Usually, saying so is only tough because you have to explain that the roads have pavement; you don't ride horses to work; not everyone wears cowboy hats; and you don't live amidst sand dunes.  However, none of those issues generally make national news.  In fact, very rarely does Arizona make national news.  But when Arizona does make national news it generally makes a big ugly splash, and then us Arizonans have questions to answer.

    These last couple weeks have been no different.  On April 23, 2010 the esteemed Governor of Arizona, Jan Brewer, signed Senate Bill 1070 into law which will make it a crime for an alien to be anywhere in the state of Arizona without his "certificate of alien registration" or "alien registration receipt."  Furthermore, the law requires law enforcement officials to demand proof of legal residency from any person they “stop, detain or arrest” and about whom they have “reasonable suspicion” that “the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States.”  (The "stop, detain, and arrest language" is a recent amendment; the original language of the bill read: "with whom they have made legal contact.")

    SPLASH! Arizona finds itself on the front page of national newspapers and having negative national rallies held in its honor.  Not since Arizona refused to recognize Martin Luther King day has the spotlight shown so brightly on the 48th state.  So what does the passage of this law mean?

    First it means we have a useless political inferno.  The law has quickly been boiled down to fit neatly into another nauseating dichotomous political debate.  The battle lines are drawn: 'This law promotes racial profiling!'  vs. 'This law only effectuates the rule of law!'  All the major players have weighed in:  The Rev. Al Sharpton, Glenn Beck, Glenn Beck's feigned dramatic pauses, Chris Mathews, Facebook groups, online petitions, off line petitions, major rallies, even the President of the United States chimed in (not so positively).  It's a grand play, and Arizona dutifully plays the role of racist antagonist. 

    However, after wading through political posturing, the reality remains that Arizona has now created a law that rides roughshod over the Constitution; and regardless of its constitutionality, the law will have severe, negative consequences for citizens of Arizona. 

    By making a law that affects immigration policy, Arizona has intruded on an area of the law traditionally reserved to the federal government. In so doing Arizona is walking dangerously close to its constitutional boundaries, and has arguably crossed a real constitutional boundary in an effort to protect a line drawn in the sand.

    Immigration regulation is the province of the federal government, and the Constitution protects the superiority of federal law over state law.  That protection is important because immigration regulation necessarily involves relationships between the United States and other countries and should not be usurped by the state of Arizona.  Whatever the immigration policy of the United States, or how it be administered, that policy must be uniform in design and application.  The regulation of immigration implicates foreign policy, transnational commerce, respect for treaties, and concern for the treatment of U.S. citizens abroad--not to mention uniform rules for acquiring U.S. Citizenship.  Even if Arizona feels entitled to address these issues due to geographic proximity to Mexico, these issues are the responsibility of the federal government.

    That said, this law is said only to mimic federal immigration laws, thereby avoiding preemption by federal law.  Failure to register in the United States, if required to do so, and failure to carry such registration or proof thereof is a misdemeanor under federal law.  8 U.S.C. 1306 (a) and 8 U.S.C. 1304 (e).  The Arizona law simply makes violations of those laws state crimes too.  SB 1070 lines 42-45.  Moreover, local police enforcement of criminal immigration violations is not new, and was even publicly approved in a 1996 Justice Department memo.  Since September 11th the government has quietly tried to allow local police enforcement of civil immigration violations too.  Therefore, there is at least an argument to be made that these particular sections of Arizona's new law only authorize an accepted practice of local police enforcement of criminal immigration violations.

    Even if Arizona law enforcement officials are enforcing federal immigration laws, they are still prohibited from making determinations about who should or shouldn't be admitted to the country, because doing so amounts to immigration regulation, and immigration regulation is exclusively vested in the federal government.  However, it appears that is exactly what the new law is requiring Arizona law enforcement officials to do.

    In 1994, California introduced Proposition 187.  Proposition 187 sought to deny illegal immigrants access to social services, health care, and public education.  The major tenets of Proposition 187 required state agencies (including law enforcement) to, among other things, verify the immigration status of people they came in contact with; notify individuals of their immigration status; and report those individuals to federal authorities.  However, in LULAC v. Wilson, a federal district court found the measure unconstitutional because the "verification, notification and cooperation/reporting requirements... directly regulated immigration" thereby creating a "comprehensive scheme to detect and report the presence and effect the removal" of undocumented immigrants. 

    Arizona's new law is eerily similar to Proposition 187, and seems to regulate immigration as well.  Several sections of the bill require Arizona law enforcement officials to make determinations about who should or shouldn't be admitted to the country; especially those sections that have created the racial profiling fracas.  For example Article 8 part B will read:
    "...[W]here reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person, the person's immigration status shall be verified with the federal government pursuant to 8 United States Code Section 1373(c)."
     Furthermore, Article 8 part E will read:
     "A law enforcement officer, without a warrant, may arrest a person if the officer has probable cause to believe that the person has committed any public offense that makes the person removable from the United States."
    Other parts of the law further demonstrate that the law intends for Arizona to regulate immigration.  For example, the law will: allow state and local law enforcement officials to transport aliens unlawfully present in the state to federal facilities; prevent the prohibition on any agency of the state, county or cities from maintaining immigration records; and allow citizens to sue state agencies for a failure to enforce federal immigration laws.

    In short, the law as a whole imposes a comprehensive scheme to detect and remove undocumented immigrants just like Proposition 187.  Therefore, the constitutionality of the law should be called into serious question. However, even if the law does not venture into federal territory, there is no question the law begets racial profiling--no matter what any person, preamble, clause, talking head, or politician says.

    Monday, May 3, 2010

    The Monday Roast: The NBA Playoffs

    1.  Do you really need 3 separate months to crown a champion?  Boom, roasted.

    2.  When only TNT wants to buy the first round, don't expand the series from 5 games to 7.  Boom, roasted.

    3.  Instead of paying the refs to fix the games, just save us some time and put LeBron and Kobe in the finals.  Boom, roasted.

    4.  Does the 8 seed in the east really have a chance?  Boom, roasted.

    5.  Who lost the Hawks/Bucks series?  If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around, does it make a sound?  Boom, roasted.