Still reeling from the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina and the BP oil spill, Louisiana is finally making strides toward recovery thanks to the bold striped-flannel vision of a local parish leader in Shreveport…
Michael Williams, a commissioner in Caddo Parish, Louisiana, is seeking to ban pajamas from the streets after seeing a couple men in public with pajama pants and no underwear, their "private parts about to come out," reports KSDK.
What's the parish leader's rationale? It's not (only) because PJs look, well, less than professional as outerwear. No, he wants to bowdlerize your Snuggie because it's morally bankrupt:
"The moral fiber in our community is dwindling," Williams says. "If not now, when? Because it's pajama pants today, next it will be underwear tomorrow."
With many cities suffering from a depressed economy, high unemployment, and the lasting emotional scars of both natural and man-made disasters, this is a brilliant, totally necessary law. By preventing residents from strutting around town in pajamas, officials are forcing them to purchase new non-pajama clothes, thereby stimulating the local economy.
It remains to be seen whether the proposed law will be a partial pajama ban or a blanket pajama ban. Or whether there will be a blanket blanket ban. There's virtually no limit to the fleece-based solutions to Louisiana's social and economic woes.
Tags: Economy, Fashion, Laws, Louisiana, Sex
There's one thing Alabama legislators know for certain about brown people: they are magic.
The American civilian labor force has been growing steadily since 1948, with Baby Boomers and women entering the job market en masse. Rarely do we say these new workers "took der jerbs," because new employees create demand for more goods and services, while freeing up other workers for more productive employment.
But according to anti-immigration activists, undocumented laborers possess magical job-destroying properties, denying Real Americans the chance to work in such sexy and lucrative fields as agricultural field work and manual labor.
Now, thanks to Alabama's draconian anti-immigration law and a federal judge who upheld many of the law's provisions, those of us seeking backbreaking, underpaid employment on Alabama's poultry farms can breathe a sigh of relief…
A federal judge gave a green light for Alabama to enforce some of the most controversial parts of its toughest-in-the-nation immigration law, ruling that certain measures do not violate federal law.
U.S. District Judge Sharon Blackburn ruled that Alabama can enforce the law’s requirements for schools to verify students’ immigration status and for police to determine citizenship and status of those they stop, detain or arrest. Police are allowed to arrest anyone they suspect of being an illegal immigrant during a routine traffic stop, under the law…
But Blackburn granted the Obama administration’s request to block certain portions of the law until she makes a final ruling. Those sections include provisions making it a crime to transport or harbor an illegal immigrant, or for an illegal immigrant to look for or perform work.
Given Alabama's sterling civil rights record, what could possibly go wrong with a law that deputizes police officers into border patrol agents and turns schoolteachers into Homeland Security officials?
Photo by John Moore/Getty Images News/Getty Images
Tags: Alabama, Immigration, Laws, Unemployment
To you, opposition Arizona's Law SP1070 may seem like a no-brainer with which all rational people in the country should be on board.
You, however, are probably misunderestimating the sheer number of no brains we have in this country. (Hint: There's a lot of no brains.)
Half of Americans reject President Barack Obama's lawsuit against Arizona's controversial immigration law, with only a third supporting the move, according to a Gallup poll released Friday… Nearly eight in 10 Republicans (79 percent) opposed the lawsuit, while 56 percent of Democrats were in favor of the Obama administration's decision…
"The Obama administration is sailing against the tide of public opinion in its efforts to block the law, although members of Obama's own party certainly support the administration," Gallup said.
Do you know what people were also strongly opposed to back in the day? A law that made it it illegal to murder puppies for sport. (Not really.) For real! (Not for real.) In fact, there was an entire industry (no, there was not) built around the practice of murdering puppies for no good reason. And the puppy-murdering lobbyists (never existed) fought tooth-and-nail to keep that law (that did not exist) off the books. Now, we barely even think about about the puppy-murdering controversy. (That part is actually true.)
Think about it. (Don't bother.)
Tags: Arizona, Constitution, Immigration, Laws, Obama Administration, Polls, Racism
So, as you may have heard, Eric Holder and his merry band of the Justice Department lawyers have decided to sue the state of Arizona over it's new anti-brown people/pro-xenophobia law that makes it illegal for police to not harass people of the brown-skin-colored persuasion.
Almost makes you a little misty-eyed, doesn't it? To see our government actually taking an active role in the protection of obvious-and-shouldn't-have-to-be-protected civil liberties?
Oh, that's not the stated reason for the lawsuit. Sorry, I'm an idiot. I forgot for a second that this was America. Okay, so why is the Department of Justice suing Arizona?
"Arizonans are understandably frustrated with illegal immigration” and the federal government should address those concerns, Attorney General Eric Holder said in a statement. "But diverting federal resources away from dangerous aliens such as terrorism suspects and aliens with criminal records will impact the entire country's safety."
"Setting immigration policy and enforcing immigration laws is a national responsibility,” Holder said. "Seeking to address the issue through a patchwork of state laws will only create more problems than it solves."
But that's only part of the reason, right? We're also doing it because of the glaringly flagrant attack on civil liberties, right?
Entirely absent from the government’s argument, though, is any claim that the law encourages officers to racially profile Hispanic residents and violate their Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable searches — the aspects of the law that many people find the most objectionable.
Oh, I see. We shouldn't oppose Arizona's new law because, as Americans, we make it our priorities to protect the rights of our fellow citizens to be free from unnecessary and unethical harassment from the police based upon their skin-color. No, we should oppose Arizona's new new law because of BE AFRAID! AAAAAAAAAHHHHHHH!!!! Hang on. Give me a second to readjust my priorities. Okay, how's this?
This law is gonna what?! Divert federal resources away from blowing up terrorists with bazookas?! We cannot have that! Somebody needs to protect me and my iPhone4 from being terroristed in the face by terrorists! I am an American, and I have rights!!!
So, anyway, that's the angle the DOJ decided to take on this one. Probably a winning strategy, all things considered.
Tags: Arizona, Bill of Rights, Constitution, Eric Holder, Laws, Obama Administration, Racism, Terrorism