Referee robs USA of win against Slovenia.
USA's Landon Donovan blasts the team's first goal of the match over the head of Slovenia goalkeeper Samir Handanovic. The Americans went on to tie, 2-2.
All the factors were there for an incredible come-from-behind victory for the United States. Down 2-0 at halftime, the U.S. battled back behind goals from Landon Donovan and Michael Bradley, and, with four minutes left in the match, substitute Maurice Edu knocked in the winning goal from a free kick sent into the area.
It was jubilation all around. The players had just pulled off a stunning comeback win. At the Rose & Crown pub in Phoenix, where I was watching the match, everyone was screaming. The USA would have four points and be tied atop group C, in perfect position even if England beat Algeria and there’s a three-way tie going into the final match because the U.S. would have Algeria in the final group match.
But the goal was disallowed. Malian referee Koman Coulibaly saw something. What he saw, nobody knows yet. Nobody was offside. There was no apparent foul by an American player. The obvious foul was actually on Bradley, being caught in a bear hug from behind by a Slovenian defender. Not even FIFA has a clue at this point what Coulibaly saw to decide the third USA goal should be called back.
Although the United States had two points taken away by the referee, the resilience the team displayed was simply incredible. Down 2-0 a few minutes before halftime, the American attack started showing some signs of life. And in the second half, it gave Slovenia more than it could handle.
Just three minutes into the second half, the pressure got to Slovenia. Donovan’s defender misjudged a long ball, allowing him to collect it behind him and cut to goal. With no options opening up in the middle, Donovan decided to have a go himself, launching a rocket over the head of Udinese goalkeeper Samir Handanovic and into the roof of the net.
And although the U.S. had to do some defensive work and rely on Tim Howard for a couple big stops, the team kept pressing Slovenia throughout the second half, forcing their backs into several fouls. It paid off in the 82nd minute, when Bradley latched onto Jozy Altidore’s headed layoff and neatly placed it over the head of the onrushing Handanovic.
In order to get out of the group stage, however, the United States must not give up goals, especially such early ones, against Algeria. Slovenia benefited from some early defensive lapses by the Americans to go up 2-0 by halftime.
Valter Birsa had the Slovenians ahead in the 14th minute. The Auxerre midfielder found a few yards of space and let fly a left-footed, curling shot from 20 yards that left Howard frozen. The first half was all Slovenia on the attack, and they would find the goal again three minutes before the break.
Gent forward Zlatan Ljubijankic made a well timed run behind Jay DeMerit, cleanly collected the through pass and cooly slotted a shot under Howard to double Slovenia’s lead.
Perhaps sensing the necessity of collecting points in this match, Bob Bradley didn’t delay his substitutions as long. Benny Feilhaber and Maurice Edu replaced Jose Torres and Robbie Findley to start the second half. Torres hadn’t been able to contribute much other than a stinging free kick that Handanovic made a diving save to keep out, and Findley simply seemed out of his league. He was fast, but his skill needs to catch up with his speed. Findley, however, will be suspended for the Algeria match after he picked up his second yellow card of the group stage in the 40th minute for taking a ball off his face. (Seriously, this was the quality of refereeing in this match.)
The substitutes changed the match immediately, and the U.S. had several good chances between its two goals. Oguchi Onyewu just couldn’t get on the end of a Donovan free kick flicked on by Clint Dempsey in the 51st minute, and Jozy Altidore was unfortunate to put a shot straight at Handanovic after the Slovenia defense lost a free kick put into the penalty area.
After the game, ESPN’s on-field reporter tried to push coach Bradley into slamming the officials, asking several questions about the quality of officiating. Bradley sort of bit when asked how the players feel after such an outcome.
After working as hard as they did, “the players want a fair outcome,” said Bradley.
And a fair outcome is not what the U.S. got from this match. But despite the draw, the U.S. is in a good position to move on. Slovenia has four points, and the U.S. has two. If England beats Algeria and goes to four points, a U.S. win against Algeria and any result other than a draw between Slovenia and England will see the Americans through automatically. A Slovenia-England draw would send it to tie breakers.
If, however, England draw or lose, it gets more complicated. Algeria would not be eliminated with one or three points and could get to the next round by defeating the USA next week.
England versus Algeria is today at 11 a.m. ET on ESPN2. Group C wraps up Wednesday, with both matches at 10 a.m. ET. USA-Algeria will be on ESPN, and Slovenia-England will be on ESPN2.
USA draws with England in teams’ World Cup opener.
England goalkeeper Robert Green watches a mishandled 25-yard shot from USA midfielder Clint Dempsey trickle into his net. England and the U.S. drew, 1-1.
Opening the World Cup with its biggest match of the group stage, the United States drew 1-1 with England, giving both teams one point. The result gives Slovenia and Algeria a chance to lead Group C with a win tomorrow.
Robert Green highlighted the island nation’s deficiency at the goalkeeping position when he deflected Clint Dempsey’s low, 25-yard shot behind him and to his right, spilling what should have been a routine save across the line in the 40th minute, bringing the score to 1-1 just before halftime.
Green’s blunder canceled out Steven Gerrard’s early opener. The Liverpool midfielder latched on to a neat layoff from Emile Heskey in the fifth minute and placed the ball just out of USA goalkeeper Tim Howard’s reach to his left.
England’s talisman, forward Wayne Rooney, was kept quiet for most of the game by the American defense. It wasn’t until about the 65th minute that Rooney began getting noticeably involved in the match, but even then his best chance was a shot from 35 yards that went wide of Howard’s far post.
The USA defense struggled against England right back Glen Johson’s forward runs for most of the match. Johnson spent more of the match attacking than defending, and he sent dangerous crosses through the penalty area regularly.
But it was the United States that had the best chance to win the game. Forward Jozy Altidore shrugged off second-half substitute Jamie Carragher on the left side, then drove toward goal and fired a hard shot at Green’s near post. The England goalkeeper got a hand to the ball but pushed it backward, knocking the ball off the inside of the post. Unfortunately for the USA, the ball rebounded away from the net and back into the penalty area, and England’s defense cleared the danger.
U.S. manager Bob Bradley appeared to have an opportunity to change the game when England manager Fabio Capello used his second of three substitutes at the beginning of the second half. Left midfielder James Milner, reported to be ill in the days before the match, came off with about 15 minutes remaining in the first half, and oft-inured center back Ledley King was withdrawn in favor of Carragher to start the second half.
Bradley, however, didn’t use any substitutes until Edson Buddle replaced Robbie Findley with less than 20 minutes to go. The center of the U.S. midfield was a defensive setup from the start, with Michael Bradley and Ricardo Clark paired together. While they were effective in keeping England’s attack out of the center of the pitch, they weren’t able to start any for the USA, either.
The U.S. defense was alternately shaky and solid, beginning with Gerrard’s early goal. Center back Jay DeMerit allowed Heskey to step in front of him and make the layoff to Gerrard, and Oguchi Onyewu lost Gerrard on his run through. On the right, Steve Cherundolo was solid for the most part, keeping the speedy Shaun Wright-Phillips from hurting the U.S. Over on the left, Carlos Bocanegra was usually outnumbered and outpaced by Johnson and Aaron Lennon and dove in or was beaten a couple times, but it didn’t cost the U.S.
The United States’ biggest problem against England was being unable to link passes together and make a strong attack. Dempsey and Landon Donovan were just about stranded on the flanks with little service from the middle. Most of the balls to Altidore and Findley came from the back or wide midfield.
It’s hard to say whether Bob Bradley started playing for a draw when England proved to have little attacking bite, but that’s how it seemed with his low-risk substitutions late in the match. A few minutes after Buddle came in, Stuart Holden replaced Altidore (who may have been bothered by his ankle), and the manager’s third substitution – Herculez Gomez for Dempsey – was denied by the referee because it was near the end of added time.
If the USA was killing off this game for a guaranteed point, that’s OK. England is on notice now. Slovenia and Algeria are going to be hard-pressed to take any more points away from them. The U.S., however, can’t take that attitude with either of those opponents. Bob has got to start going for victories now. When the USA plays Slovenia Friday at 10 a.m. ET on ESPN, he won’t be able to be so conservative should the game be tied late. For the USA to get out of Group C, it’s got to pick up three points from one of the two remaining matches, preferably both.
Notes:
Despite having 51 caps for the national team, Howard made his World Cup debut in this match.
Rooney had no touches in the penalty area for the first 70 minutes of the match.
Five players received yellow cards in the match: England’s James Milner (dissent) and Carragher (reckless challenge), and the United States’ Cherundolo (reckless challenge), Jay DeMerit (unsporting conduct) and Findley (reckless challenge).
Stanley Cup contaminated by Bieber fever.
"Get mad if you want, hockey fans, but you can't do anything about it. My head is protected by my impenetrable hair helmet, eh."
Canadian teen idol Justin Bieber got to lift the Stanley Cup before his appearance on the “Today” show Friday. Not only was it the only time the 16-year-old will ever touch something so representative of masculinity until his pop career flames out and he starts picking up aggressive, in-the-closet gay johns, but it also presents a possible turning point in the NHL finals.
Will the Chicago Blackhawks or the Philadelphia Flyers try not to win the cup knowing it’s been tainted by Bieber fever, a disease fatal to all who catch it except 9- to 17-year-old girls. Perhaps with his poor performance in game 5 Sunday night, Chris Pronger was already thinking that way.
Regardless of how this travesty affects the Stanley Cup finals, it’s time to lay some ground rules about who can touch the cup.
- Teen idols – past, present or future – whether solo or group acts, cannot touch the Stanley Cup.
- If, in the interest of national security for any nation(s) that may be affected by the Stanley Cup, it becomes necessary for a teen idol to touch it, then tough shit. He’s still not touching it.
- There are no exceptions. Bieber is Canadian, a people who would normally have a birthright to do whatever they wish with the cup. Not even that is going to circumvent the rule.
- I don’t care if NBC shows a couple hockey games each year, the Stanley Cup has no business on the “Today” show. Nobody who watches that program has any interest in the trophy, unless it is being contaminated by a teen idol with a terrible haircut and prepubescent voice.
Let’s face it: the closest Bieber gets to being worthy of touching the Stanley Cup is that his hair closely resembles a hockey helmet. The NHL should start working on a list of persons not approved to touch the cup. And one more thing. Being a “hockey fan” isn’t going to cut it, either. Because no true hockey fan would ever do this.
If Google Maps told you to jump off a cliff, would you?
Sadly, Rosenberg is not the first to suffer because of poor walking directions from Google Maps mobile.
Google is being sued in U.S. District Court in Utah by a Los Angeles County woman who believes the company’s Maps application for mobile phones led her into mortal peril in January.
Lauren Rosenberg needed walking directions from one end of Park City, Utah, to the other, so she pulled up Google Maps on her mobile phone. When the walking directions pointed her to state Route 224, Rosenberg did what any reasonable person would do: walked down the highway.
Somehow, Rosenberg was struck and injured while walking on the highway. The driver of the vehicle that struck her, Patrick Harwood of Park City, is also named in the lawsuit, presumably because Rosenberg would just look greedy and/or stupid if she went after only Google.
If you have a minute, check out Park City on Google Maps. Specifically, look at state Route 224. It’s a four-lane highway with a shoulder on either side. Unless Harwood was driving recklessly – and I assume he wasn’t, because not one report on this story has mentioned he was cited or found at fault – the only way Rosenberg would have been hit by a car was if she had been walking in traffic.
Is it a dubious lawsuit? There’s an easy test to find out.
Is the defendant a person or entity with a lot of assets? Check. Are the plaintiff’s actions completely devoid of common sense, and, put in a similar situation, could anyone be expected to do the exact opposite? Double check. According to the test, this lawsuit is absolutely frivolous.
But hold the phone! According to reports, the disclaimer for Google Maps walking directions (Walking directions are in beta. Use caution – This route may be missing sidewalks or pedestrian paths.) is not placed on the mobile phone version. Without that vital information, the phone app might as well told Rosenberg, “Walk as you please, because those cars zooming past can’t hurt you while you’re following Google Maps directions!”
I’d like to know the thought process involved here. If while following Google Maps walking directions I arrived at a busy highway and they told me to walk on the highway, my thoughts wouldn’t be, “OK! That’ll work out well!” They would be some choice words about the fallibility of Google Maps. Then I’d walk on the shoulder.
And if Google can be sued for this, what can’t it be sued for? Can a student sue Google for leading him to a Wikipedia page that mistakenly reports someone as dead when he fails an assignment because of it? Can someone sue Google for emotional distress when a search for furrycrittersexit.com, a hypothetical website about stuffed animal donation, leads them to disturbing pornography? Can a company sue Google when its website is ranked poorly? That already happened?
Whatever the outcome of Rosenberg’s lawsuit, I want her to know something. You’re a complete moron! Who in their right mind would follow Google Maps to the letter and walk down the middle of a highway ?! The worst part of this isn’t that you’re a money-grubbing opportunist tying up the civil court system with your absurd lawsuit and are bound to at least get a settlement on a technicality; no, the worst part of all this is that you survived being hit by the car to get the chance to do that.
Hey, I feel a little better now.
Take our left backs, please.
In a game that was many fringe players’ last chance of convincing coach Bob Bradley they should be included in the 23-man roster for the World Cup, the United States lost to the Czech Republic 4-2 last night at Rentschler Field in Connecticut.
Although Rangers midfielder Maurice Edu gave the U.S. a 1-0 lead in the 17th minute with his first international goal, the Czechs responded through Tomas Sivok off a set piece just before halftime. Thirteen minutes into the second half, Jan Polak gave the Czechs a 2-1 lead.
Herculez Gomez scored his first international goal in the 65th minute, bringing the U.S. level at 2-2. The unsettled American defense, however, couldn’t keep the score level, giving up the game-winner to Martin Fenin in the 78th. Tomas Necid added the fourth Czech goal in the 90th minute.
Forward Edson Buddle was expected to be left off the United States' 23-man roster, but Bob Bradley included the L.A. Galaxy player, who has nine of the team's goals this season.
A quick recap of the first three Czech scores makes the United States’ major flaw immediately obvious. Left back Jonathan Bornstein committed one of several fouls – the best of them being a football tackle on the winger who evaded him – to give the Czechs the free kick that led to Sivok’s opener.
Commentator John Harkes singled out Oguchi Onyewu, who was playing in his first game in seven months after suffering a ruptured patellar tendon, to blame for the goal because he let the much smaller Sivok out-jump him to the ball from behind. Sure, Onyewu could have played it differently, but Bornstein could have avoided fouling in that situation.
When Polak scored in the 58th minute, it was because he made a simple run in front of second-half substitute left back Heath Pearce. While Pearce let Polak run free, David Lafata’s ball to the midfielder was so perfect that Polak really just kept running and let it hit him. Twenty minutes later, it was Pearce making another mistake, completely missing a sliding tackle just outside the penalty area and leaving the defense shorthanded. Fenin ended up unmarked and took advantage of the U.S. being unable to clear the ball away.
Three big mistakes by American left backs led to three goals for the Czech Republic. There isn’t much more damning evidence for the poor state of a position than that.
When Bradley named his 23-man roster today, Pearce wasn’t on it. Incredibly, Bornstein was. It’s getting hard to understand what Bradley sees in Bornstein. He’s good for at least one big mistake per game, and while he was better than Pearce last night, he still won’t inspire confidence in U.S. fans if he steps on the field in South Africa.
The only thing I can think Bornstein’s inclusion means is that he’ll be the defender on the roster to use as cover. If everyone is healthy, which is doubtful, there’s no way he’s the starting left back. As long as someone can partner Onyewu in the middle, Bocanegra can be used on the left. Alternatively, Jonathan Spector has seem significant minutes on the left for West Ham in the Barclays Premier League.
Besides the inclusion of Bornstein and carrying only seven defenders, Bradley’s roster had some other surprises.
Landon Donovan, Clint Dempsey, Michael Bradley, Stuart Holden, Ricardo Clark, Edu, DaMarcus Beasley, Jose Francisco Torres and Benny Feilhaber are the midfielders on the roster. Despite an uncertain future at Rangers and some shaky recent performances, Beasley won a roster spot after a solid camp and good outing against the Czechs. Holden, who suffered a broken leg in the match against the Netherlands March 3, had a great game. His touch was good all night, and his decision making and passing were top-notch. With Holden, Torres, Edu and Beasley in midfield, the U.S. had a lot of possession in the first half against the Czech Republic.
Probably the biggest surprises on coach Bradley’s roster were the forwards. He selected Jozy Altidore, Herculez Gomez, Edson Buddle and Robbie Findley, leaving 2006 World Cup veteran Brian Ching out. Ching had been recovering from a hamstring injury but looked to be in good form last night. Although Ching doesn’t have the strongest fan support among the national team members, Bradley has selected him almost without fail and was widely expected to include him on the final roster. Speaking to ESPN, however, Bradley said he simply couldn’t ignore the form of Buddle and Gomez. Findley will be the team’s speed option, which had been injured forward Charlie Davies’ role.
Based on last night’s performances, including Buddle and Gomez is a good call. Buddle was good at keeping possession and waiting for the rest of the attack to get involved, even though he didn’t get a good chance at goal in his 45 minutes. Gomez certainly didn’t hurt his chances by scoring and had at least one other good chance.
The USA regulars should be involved in Saturday’s friendly against Turkey (11 a.m. PT, ESPN2), which should give fans a better picture of Bradley’s plans for South Africa. Goalkeeper Tim Howard; defender Carlos Bocanegra; midfielders Donovan, Clint Dempsey, Michael Bradley and Feilhaber; and forward Altidore didn’t even dress for last night’s match.
New Arizona law thanks to Bay Area flag fiasco?
San Francisco may have started the “boycott Arizona” conversation after SB 1070 became law, but thanks to a Bay Area high school, Arizona might be considering another heavy-handed, anti-Latino law soon.
Four students at Live Oak High School in Morgan Hill, a community about an hour south of San Francisco, were given an ultimatum regarding their American flag-bearing attire on Cinco de Mayo: go home or be suspended. Daniel Galli and four friends were asked to remove their American flag bandannas and turn their American flag T-shirts inside out. Administrators though the shirts were “incendiary” and would lead to fights.
“They said we could wear it on any other day,” Galli said, “but today is sensitive to Mexican-Americans because it’s supposed to be their holiday so we were not allowed to wear it today.”
Maybe such cultural sensitivity and general sissiness flies in liberal, nearly bankrupt, pot-smoking states like California, but that’s not how it works in Arizona. When word reached the office of Russell Pearce, recently endeared to the world as the author of SB 1070, the Republican senator burst into action. Pearce immediately began writing a new bill to guarantee similar situations never happen in Arizona. Here’s what he’s come up with so far:
Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Arizona
Section 1. Intent
The legislature finds that there is a compelling interest in not ever doing anything similar to what those crazy stoner Californians did making those patriotic high school students remove their American flag attire in order to make Mexicans feel more comfortable on “their holiday.” (Note to self: Find out exactly what Cinco de Mayo means besides half-price tequila shots so I can legislate against that, too.) The legislature declares that the intent of this act is to always allow patriotic Americans to display the nation’s flag and colors while never allowing other persons present in this country to make similar displays of their nations’ flag and colors.
Sec. 2. The Arizona Revised Statutes are to be amended by adding the following: (Note: Have intern figure out where this needs to go.)
DISPLAY OF AMERICAN FLAG AND COLORS: The display of the American flag and colors is always permitted. Attempting to prevent said display is a class 1 felony. DISPLAY OF FOREIGN FLAG AND COLORS: The display of foreign nations’ flags and colors is never permitted. Attempting said displays is a class 1 felony.
VAGUE DISPLAY OF COLORS: It was brought to the legislature’s attention that at certain times, foreign colors may be displayed for a purpose other than nationalism and American colors may be displayed for a purpose other than patriotism. To clarify, persons in the State of Arizona must follow the following guidelines.
DISPLAY OF AMERICAN COLORS: Red, white and blue must be displayed together in a manner so as not to confuse observers for their purpose. There is nothing worse than displaying these strong, patriotic colors and being mistook for a sissy Frenchie, neanderthal Brit, commie Russian or Cuban, etc. Therefore, the American colors must be in a pattern recognizable as American – i.e., 4th of July designs, that patriotic bunting stuff on county fair stages, with stars or a badass eagle. Other uses, such as those hip Obama posters are not allowed. Similarly, use of singular colors red, white or blue, is not allowed. They go together, you know!
DISPLAY OF FOREIGN COLORS: Foreign colors may no longer be used in combination unless easily recognizable as a corporate logo. Example: red, white and green, while traditionally Christmas colors, are also Mexican colors. As Christmas is not a Mexican holiday, but an American one, blue should replace green as a Christmas color immediately. Red and yellow, while the colors of those devious, tiny Chinese people, is most recognizable as McDonald’s. This should not be discontinued. (Note: Somebody clean this up. You know what I’m going for, here.)
Do you think the irony is lost on him?
Cutting through the B.S. about SB 1070.
Enough with news reports talking about the protests on either side. It's time for some good old-fashioned, boring legal analysis by someone who is not an expert.
By now, chances are you’ve heard about and formed an opinion on Arizona Senate Bill 1070 (PDF), AKA the Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act, AKA that immigration law that has everyone upset with Arizona and various entities pretending they’re the U.N. and preparing to impose economic sanctions.
Regrettably, thus far coverage of the bill has focused on the fallout. Group A is angry about the potential civil rights violations. Group B is angry about the fact group A would even consider being angry. The ACLU is considering a lawsuit at the behest of group A. Group B … well, group B owns a lot of guns, so I won’t go on about them.
The point is, reports have been quick to briefly summarize the bill and move on to the (overwhelmingly negative) reactions. But paraphrasing the law as giving police “broad power to detain people they reasonably suspect are illegal immigrants and arrest them on state charges if they do not have legal status” doesn’t do much to clarify why opponents are so up-in-arms other than they don’t want the police to have broad power.
SB 1070 is an addendum to Arizona statutes already in place, and the main part of it does address the power of state agencies to enforce federal immigration law. The legislation adds article 8 to Title 11, chapter 7 of the Arizona Revised Statutes, and it appears to be what opponents hate and supporters love.
The new article prohibits law enforcement agencies from making any policies that don’t allow the full enforcement of federal immigration laws. Conceivably, this is the legislature’s way of ensuring everyone is on the same page. If the state’s law is the maximum enforcement level of federal laws, then there will be considerable pressure on law enforcement agencies to follow the new bill to the letter. There is an additional incentive: agencies are subject to civil suits for failing to enforce the law.
Most of the other parts of this new article are pretty straightforward. Illegal immigrants will be turned over to the federal government after serving any sentence or paying any fines. Arizona law enforcement has access to federal immigration records as allowed by law.
Presumably, the opposition has focused on two sections of article 8. The first requires police officers, during “any lawful contact,” to verify immigration status “where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States.” The other section allows officers to arrest someone if there is probable cause to believe he or she has committed any crime punishable by deportation, no warrant required.
Opponents of the law are right to question the latitude granted to law enforcement officials in this case. “Lawful contact” can cover any circumstance, including consensual contact initiated without probable cause when the person doesn’t know he or she may refuse. Combined with the vagueness of what reasonable suspicion of legal presence is – poor English? certain race(s)? Obama supporter? fashion sense? – it’s a recipe for civil rights disaster.
And despite the “when practicable” qualifier, this section leaves the door wide open in regards to who, when and where officers may demand to verify immigration status. Before reading the text of this bill, I was skeptical about immigrants being afraid to cooperate in criminal investigations out of fear of deportation. After reading it, however, it’s clear that there really isn’t a provision to prevent a victim or witness from being asked for immigration papers. That’s a glaring omission the legislature should have addressed.
The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, and the other section of the bill in question crosses the line by explicitly allowing police to arrest based merely on probable cause. Under normal circumstances, that isn’t unconstitutional. If it were, there would be very few arrests in the U.S. Take driving under the influence; if a police officer determines someone is driving while drunk or otherwise intoxicated using sobriety, blood or breath tests, the arrest happens then and there. The officer doesn’t have to record the findings, request a warrant and then go find the person again.
The Arizona law, however, doesn’t distinguish any situation as different from another. As it’s written now, prosecutors could argue any objections to an arrest using the idea of probable cause. Arizona’s immigration law takes a constitutional stumble by inviting challenges to what an unlawful arrest is.
(Before anyone objects on the grounds the Constitution doesn’t apply to illegal immigrants, the Supreme Court – in Yick Wo v. Hopkins and Boumediene v. Bush – has decided it does, based on the 14th Amendment. If you have any further objections, take it up with the Court.)
It's not just protestors rallying. Supporters have also been hitting the streets to back the new law.
Besides granting law enforcement officers increased powers to enforce the federal immigration laws they’re now required to, SB 1070 institutes harsher penalties for illegal immigrants who commit certain crimes. Although some may argue the stiffer penalties run afoul of the Eighth Amendment, I don’t see how they’re different from gang enhancements that have already passed constitutional muster.
Finally, from a safety standpoint instead of a legal one, the Arizona immigration bill effectively prohibits illegal immigrants from getting jobs. Even applying for a job could be a misdemeanor. While the goal is to make Arizona an unattractive destination for illegal immigrants, this section goes a step further and makes it a potentially dangerous destination for them.
When you can’t work legally, your options are limited to finding under-the-table odd jobs or committing crimes. Both of these options can endanger illegal immigrants. They may take on day laborer jobs that nobody else will because of hazardous working conditions. Or, they may be coerced into dangerous tasks by unscrupulous citizens who know they won’t be able to tell authorities without facing criminal charges and deportation. Worse yet, illegal immigrants may turn to crime to scrape out a living, giving local police even more work to do. As those affected by the new law grow increasingly desperate, it is very likely police will encounter more violent crime and threats to their safety.
Immigration reform will continue to be a hot-button issue – especially as minorities become majority – but Arizona’s SB 1070 goes too far. By requiring law enforcement officers to verify immigration status, the bill serves to make illegal immigrants fearful and perhaps uncooperative with investigations. Worse than that, the bill runs roughshod over protections afforded to everyone in the United States, not just citizens, by the Constitution, as allowing arrests without warrants disregards the Fourth Amendment.
There needs to be a national consensus about immigration reform. If Americans didn’t believe the federal government was dragging its feet on the issue, then perhaps states wouldn’t feel compelled to enact such harsh – and potentially unconstitutional – laws. The extreme response of trying to remove all illegal immigrants, however, isn’t the answer either.
The Tea Party needs to bust some balls.
In either case, it's not exactly correct.
Briefly peruse the comments section of any online article with anything even remotely to do with politics, and you’ll invariably encounter the digital pablum of someone who identifies with the American Tea Party Movement. It usually includes some reference to the movement, such as, “The teabagging is coming, America,” or, “We teabagged [protested] on that issue,” or is signed “Teabagger.”
Reading their thoughts on whichever topic is at hand generally leads to one of two conclusions: 1) Tea partiers aren’t going to be happy until the United States undergoes a complete social, federal, moral and ethical overhaul, or 2) Nobody connected to the movement bothered to check the status of their (apparently) preferred label, teabagger, or its gerund in the popular vernacular.
The association of the movement with an act decidedly more obscene could have been avoided with a quick visit to Urban Dictionary. (Did you think there were going to be Webster’s definitions here? Not a chance.) Although the political meaning of “teabagger” is on the Web site, it’s far outnumbered – huh, just like actual Tea Partiers – by definitions referring to those who engage in the sexual act of the same name. “Teabagging” and “teabagged” skew much more toward the obscene.
This sort of online behavior is inconsistent with what you’d imagine given the Tea Party’s demographics. It’s mostly made up of white people older than 30, not exactly the sort who espouse their political philosophy by slinging testicle jokes around the Internet.
You could argue that older males still have a certain affinity for jokes regarding their genitalia but just don’t make them. But the Tea Party is still pretty lax about distancing itself from that verbage. Obviously the founders can’t police what people say – only Tim Shriver can do that – but there’s no downside to separating your political beliefs from sex acts, or at least not so proudly associating the two.
These Tea Partiers have an image to protect. Middle-aged and older, educated, wealthy white men who live outside of cities and wear dorky costumes. Sarah Palin adorers. People who think tax cuts, decreased government and current levels of government assistance can coexist.
If, however, the lewd association runs unchecked, the movement can look forward to a more hilarious image.
Tim Shriver goes full retard.
There’s a pattern to Tim Shriver‘s one-man crusade to curb the use of the word “retard” and its derivatives in the popular lexicon.
When it came out that Rahm Emanuel used the phrase “fucking retarded” to describe a proposed strategy for accelerating healthcare reform in August, Shriver pounced on the opportunity for some publicity. Barack Obama’s political pitbull was reduced to a puppy on a leash before most people were aware he had used that phrase.
Maria Shriver accompanies Tim Shriver to a Special Olympics event.
A few months before Emanuel’s outburst, Obama had his own disability-related miscue, on national TV, no less. Shriver was on “Good Morning America” the next day to play up the president’s apology for the good of the Special Olympics.
Yet between those two incidents, actress Megan Fox declared to People magazine, “I resent having to prove that I’m not a retard – but I do.” That remark didn’t even register on the Shriver righteous anger meter (despite other people showing outrage).
In January, Shriver even had a chance to drum up international support for the Special Olympics. Argentine soccer star Carlos Tevez called former Manchester United teammate Gary Neville a retard in the press after a heated exchange during a match with Tevez’s new team, rivals Manchester City. Again, not as much as a blip on Shriver’s offensive comments radar.
Rush Limbaugh’s “retard summit” registered a 10 on the Shriver scale, and the CEO’s rebuke was swift. But Utah Sen. Chris Buttars will preside over a gay wedding before Limbaugh apologizes for anything.
(And, interestingly enough, although Emanuel’s use of the word prompted Sarah Palin to call for his dismissal and remind everyone she’s still here – as if anyone needed reminding – Limbaugh’s usage brought her to his defense. No word from Shriver on that front, either, but it did inspire this gem from Stephen Colbert.)
Even though there’s a growing consensus that Shriver is playing word cop and/or self-appointed censor, if you look at his actions you’ll see some pretty deliberate outrage. The targets of his ire – Obama, Emanuel and Limbaugh – have all been big political figures. Celebrities’ and athletes’ retard-related faux pas are forgettable because they wield influence only in popular opinion.
If Shriver chastises a famous person, he gets his or her apology and attention from that person’s fans. That’s great, but it doesn’t pay the bills or pass laws.
If, however, he takes a politician to task, his or her livelihood has been threatened, and it’s going to take significant backpedaling and promises of support and cooperation to make it go away, which is exactly where Obama and Emanuel ended up. How did they make up for it? Committing “that the administration would continue to look for ways to partner with [the Special Olympics], including examining pending legislation in Congress to remove the R word from federal law,” according to a press release from the Special Olympics.
Maybe Shriver’s repeated scoldings of public figures for using “retard” is annoying, but it’s getting him what he wants. By putting the spotlight on people with considerable political pull, Shriver is guaranteeing himself and his organization a shot at favorable legislation and perhaps other benefits. Once the word is eliminated from federal legalese, what’s left? Funding. More legislation that benefits him. A national intellectual disabilities awareness day/week/month.
Shriver might be playing word cop now, but if he keeps getting his way, he’ll be in a position to ask for much more later.
Life’s gonna suck when you grow up, and it sucks pretty bad right now.
leave a comment »
Nowadays, instead of being seen as cheap, the blank, rolled-up paper that stands in for a diploma in graduation ceremonies is seen as a powerful metaphor of the days to come afterward.
Perhaps that’s not the message CareerBuilder was trying to convey with its press release – and accompanying “look at us, we’re hip and use social media to promote ourselves,” shabbily written blog post – about the class of 2010′s job market outlook, but it’s supported more by the facts than claims that it’s improving.
First, the bad news. Career Builder’s Annual Job Forecast found that at 44 percent, the overall percentage of employers planning to hire recent college graduates this year has gone up only 1 percent from last year. Just three years ago, that number stood at 79 percent.
But, of those employers hiring recent graduates, 21 percent plan on hiring more of them than last year. So, of the less than half of employers planning on hiring members of the class of 2010, one-fifth of them will hire more of them than they did last year, even if that means last year they hired none and this year will hire one. (Are you feeling optimistic yet?)
That’s fine, but employees like to be paid, too. Not to worry; 16 percent of employers are upping the salary for new hires, something only 11 percent did last year. Five percent increase! Minimum statistical significance-five!
OK, but what does that translate to in annual dollars? Better hope you didn’t pile on too much student loan debt, because chances are you’ll be pulling down less than $40,000. Thirty-three percent of employers surveyed plan to offer less than $30,000, 30 percent plan to offer $30,000 to $40,000, 19 percent will offer $40,000 to $50,000 and another 19 percent will offer more than $50,000.
How are you supposed to get these jobs with the thousands of other 2010 (and 2009, and 2008) grads with the same degree? According to the employers surveyed, there are some areas of experience you should list on your résumé as related work experience.
Surprise, employers are looking for practical experience and really don’t care what you did in school.
What else can you do to land a job if you’re a little light on experience? CareerBuilder North America President Brent Rasmussen has some tips.
Have you tried showing you have relevant experience? “Even if you don’t have years of professional work experience, be sure to include other related experiences – like community involvement or campus activities – on your resume,” reads the article. You know, those campus activities 30 percent or less of employers give a damn about!
Are you leveraging social media? Are you on Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, and authoring multiple blogs, and doing it all in a professional manner that markets your skills?
Keep in mind it helps to be flexible, which may mean looking outside your major, considering internships or temporary jobs and thinking about relocation. As someone who has applied for hundreds of various communications-related positions across the United States, I could not agree more.
And finally, use the job posting to tailor your résumé and cover letter to each employer. Sure, it’s time-consuming and will drive you a little nuts when your painstakingly crafted documents are met with a form letter rejection or never responded to, but you can bet it will be worth it when you land that first job that has nothing to do with what you learned during the last four to six years of your life and are making $26,000 a year.
Thanks, CareerBuilder!
Written by mbtrotter
May 24, 2010 at 2:25 pm
Posted in Commentary, Economy, Politics, Social
Tagged with college, economy, recession