Stupidity Remains Legal
Atlanta asshat and City Councilman C.T. Martin has introduced legislation that would outlaw clothing that shows off underwear -- from boxers, thongs, and sports bras to bra straps, writes Today Show contributor Mike Celizic -- but the legislation was specifically targeted at baggy, drooping, boxer short-revealing pants:
“I don’t think women should have to see that. I don’t think young girls should have to see that. I don’t think children should have to see that,” Martin told TODAY’s Ann Curry during an interview Friday.
I likewise don't think I should have to see people's dingy toes in their flipflops when I'm eating, but there's not a hell of a lot I can do about it, short of going to a livestock supply place and buying a set of blinders.
Two cities in Louisiana, Delcambre and Opelousas, have similar laws providing for fines up to $500 and up to six months in jail, although no one has yet been charged under the laws.“I’m a firm believer in the First Amendment,” Martin told Curry. “It’s not about putting anyone in jail. It’s about trying to get some educational discussion about the future for young people.”
How come everybody always says they're "a firm believer in the First Amendment" just as they trying to rip it up?
And let's contemplate the enforcement process. Is Atlanta so crime-free that they can afford to start having the cops come out on, say, "Code 34D, Code 34D, bra strap showing on Main!"?
And guess what: The kids will grow up and tire of wearing their pants around their ankles. You see a lot of 45-year-olds favoring that style?
There are real problems out there. Either solve them or resign so somebody with a clue can take over.
There are real problems out there. Either solve them or resign so somebody with a clue can take over.
The problem with this is that the "somebody with a clue" is also smart enough to know they don't want to shovel shit against the tide. You'd need a whole buncha "somebodies with clues" in order to get anything done, and you'd have to weed out all the morons without clues that seem to pop up constantly, whose sole purpose seems to be to impede the process. o_O
Flynne at August 26, 2007 9:20 AM
When I see someone dressed as if they couldn't quite figure out what their sizes are, I see it as a waring that the person contained therein is quite possibly not too bright, inarticulate, and straining for an identity. It allows me to not waste any of my time on them, and I can get right on to the next thing. Whatever the next thing is at the time. It would be wrong to remove this sort of communication from society.
Now if you want to make something illegal, go after car stereo systems that can shake my office windows from three blocks away.
Steve Daniels at August 26, 2007 9:46 AM
go after car stereo systems that can shake my office windows from three blocks away.
I have a friend who likes...no, loves...to pull up alongside those cars, turn up his own (awesome) sound system, and drown them out. What does he play? Wagner.
Rebecca at August 26, 2007 9:58 AM
Interesting how he's only interested in protecting the delicate sensibilities of women and children. I guess adult males don't matter.
Or, worse, this is likely some kind of discrimination that would stereotype women as of particularly delicate sensibilities. Quite frankly, I think that's mildly insulting to women, to suggest that they should be protected from unsightly fashion statements, least they swoon in revulsion.
Perhaps the women he's referring to are still wearing modest ankle-length dresses with long sleeves, big picture hats and carrying parasols, coyly peeking from behind their fans.
Patrick at August 26, 2007 11:00 AM
I think I just described the Western Hemisphere's version of the burqa.
Patrick at August 26, 2007 11:02 AM
You know, people dressing like that annoys me. Honestly, I don't want to see it myself, delicate sensibilities and all that. This does not justify trying to pass laws against it, mocking it yes, criminalizing it, no way. The fun part about mocking it - they can't catch you. . .
DuWayne at August 26, 2007 11:51 AM
There is something odd about grown people who turn a tid bit such as this into A REALLY IMPORTANT ISSUE. I have the same qualms with uniforms in public schools. Supposedly thinking, professional adults believe navy, khaki, and white clothes are going to majestically erase all issues of socioeconomics and ignorance. That's bad enough, but when these same adults have near aneurisms because of an untucked shirt or a belt loop, I question their character. Maybe they are quite possibly
It's annoying.
kg at August 26, 2007 5:36 PM
Du Wayne writes:
And I think it's perfectly fine to be annoyed by it. I don't think it makes you "delicate" to not want to see it. What I would object to is the idea that you need to be protected from it. "Oh, help! Police! I can see the waistband of this man's underpants!"
And I whole-heartedly support the noble custom of ridicule. I applaud your methods of addressing this ridiculous custom.
Patrick at August 26, 2007 5:55 PM
Is Atlanta so crime-free that they can afford to start having the cops come out on, say, "Code 34D, Code 34D, bra strap showing on Main!"?
Well, the cops have solved the epidemic of jaywalking professors, so...
Jessica at August 27, 2007 12:56 PM
We have the same fashion "problem" in Stratford, CT:
http://www.connpost.com/localnews/ci_6736143
Flynne at August 28, 2007 6:22 AM
From the story:
But O'Neal said about 40 senior citizens in his district contacted him because they "are sick and tired of going to the supermarket, or walking down the street and seeing people's underwear and buttocks," O'Neal said. "A similar ordinance was approved earlier this year in Delcambre, Louisiana and is under consideration in Atlant
I'm sick and tired of seeing 45-year-old women with big flabby bellies wearing bare midriffs, but as I still have full functionality of my eyes and neck, I generally just look away.
Amy Alkon at August 28, 2007 7:00 AM
Exactly. And what about those senior citizens who walk around with their rolled down support hose or (eek!) socks with sandals!? o_O These are the same people who want cable TV to have multiple restrictions on every channel, because "the children musn't see" whatever it is they find offensive. (Personally, I find Alvin O'Neal offesive! So, I just look away.) They've got remote controls and they're too lazy to use them. Change the channel already! Kids are too lazy to pull up their drawers. Just look away! It buuuurrrrrrnnnns the eyes! Look away!
Flynne at August 28, 2007 12:10 PM
Leave a comment