|
|
|
Crack is Whack
February 9, 2005
VIRGINIANS who wear their pants so low that their underwear shows may want to think about buying a stronger belt.I take this a bit more seriously because the state capitol Richmond, Virginia is my second abode, and with at least a 50% black population it's fairly clear who this Bill is aimed towards. While support for this bill has been bipartisan, Delegate Lionell Spurill Sr., a Democrat has been outspoken against the "Droopy Drawers Bill" because he thinks it unfairly targets black men. The Washington Times reports: It's not clear if the fine would apply to plumbers, carpenters or other laborers who have problems with low-riding pants. The bill states the fine would apply to those who display their below-the-waist underwear in a "lewd or indecent manner."I'm mixed on the issue. Inevitably, people will try to make this some assault on free expression. They will use lots of flowery words and claim the state legislature has unfairly become arbiters of good taste in order make a case for why the entire world has to see somebody's underwear. Quite frankly, I don't buy it. It's disgusting. Considering the negative history behind sagging, asking young people to pull their pants up certainly doesn't take anything away from society. I say it all the time to my brother and his friends. They usually comply. If young black men are the target, the Bill might be misdirected. In reality, the hip hop generation's gone more preppy these days and the new "saggers" on the block are the skater dudes. Lawmakers were unable to pass a similar Bill in Louisiana. This will undoubtedly continue to be an issue in certain states. That said, racial tension in Virginia is palpable. My concern here is two-fold. One, I feel police officers will be given another platform to inappropriately harass people. Two, I worry about if this type of legislation will be wholly enforced. As in, will Miss "Busted Can'o Biscuits" in the too-small t-shirt with her thong showing also be fined? Only time will tell. 
If the people (who elected the officials) feel that showing your butt crack is lewd, then the government is well within their right to enforce a law around it. Most laws stem from a general consensus on a moral issue of some sort. There's a difference between being overweight and showing butt crack. Even if the two have a cause/effect relationship. I don't (at this point) see an ethnic component to it. Though like any law if selectively enforced it could come accross that way. ('course you referred to that already...) A ridiculous bill... Bad government. What's next? A $100 fine for folks with visible tatoos? We have completely lost sight of what the government's purpose is if we're even debating garbage like this. Of course a legislature can pass any law it wants (within constitutional bounds). But the fact that you can doesn't mean you should. I thought you were a conservative. Don't conservatives believe in limited government any more? Or do they believe in it only with respect to laws they don't like? First they'll tell them how to wear their clothes. Then they'll tell them which clothes to wear. What a pathetic waste of time. Aren't conservatives supposed to stay out of personal business like this? And I don't want to hear "well, if I have to see them outside, then it is my business." No. Get over it. Who cares? More moral legislation on behalf of the right. You guys keep calling me a conservative, but you rarely see me call myself that. When I do, it's purely philosophical. Wouldja get out of the labels box please? Anytime a sentence starts "You're supposed to be a (insert political ideology)" I get worried. You people should know me better than that by now. Everything's fair game here. Mike: The Bill had bipartisan support. Cut that "more blah blah from the Right" stuff out. You're sounding like whiny Oliver WIllis. Miss Busted Can 'O Bicuits Dang, I'm glad I swallowed my water before I read that. You woulda owed me a new keyboard girl! Well, Ambra, sorry for my jumping to conclusion on the whole conservatives thing. Unfortunately, I don't know many liberals who would want to enact such dumb legislation. And, because Virginia is considered a southern state, it could be that most of that bipartisan support is thanks to a couple Zell Miller-like democrats. "droopy drawers" bill? hahaha. I say nay to the bill. Thankfully I got a whoopin' whenever I attempted to mimick such fads. Bad legislation. This is not something that should be legislated. This is a perfect example of lawmakers pandering to their constituents. Their thinking: "Underware man doesn't vote anyway, and this will make the voters happy." No. Bad. Do not go there. > If the people (who elected the officials) feel that showing your butt crack is lewd, then the government is well within their right to enforce a law around it. To a point. Our representative form of government (the states being very similar to the federal government) structured the way they are partly in order to prevent this kind of knee-jerk reaction from being made into law. One can only hope that cooler heads will prevail in the state Senate. If the Senate does pass it, and the governor doesn't have the good sense to veto it, I predict that the Courts will strike it down (and rightly so). >Most laws stem from a general consensus on a moral issue of some sort. No argument there, although I wouldn't characterize as a moral issue the display of one's underpants. You and I might understand the origins of this particularly distasteful fashion trend, but it's doubtful that those who practice it do. It's the "in thing" to do among many different groups. But it's no worse than the previous trend of wearing a baseball cap backwards. Seriously. If it's okay for a guy to walk around in baggy gym shorts, why is it bad if all of a sudden you see his boxer shorts peeking out from his waistline? I could see this as a school dress code. But as a public dress code it goes way too far. There is a difference between genuine concern about a moral issue and the holier-than-thou righteous indignation that I see displayed by all too many people these days. I think this Bill is an example of the latter.
The bill is a waste. Indecent exposure laws are enough. It's a smoke screen. Alex, Me too. If I so much as left the house without a belt, my parents would've wrung my neck. I feel this is more an issue of "home training" (thank you Mrs. Swann, 12th grade English teacher, for that terminology) rather than something that should be brought forth for legislative action. Sure, it's annoying...but so are people picking their noses and wedgies in public. Minor annoyances need not be regulated by law. I love this bill and wish Florida would pass something like it. Why? I am glad you asked. As a high school teacher (at a mostly white mid to upper-middle class school) I find myself telling a male student at least twice a day to pull their freaking (don't say that part) pants up. And then telling the young ladies that I am sure they are proud of their new thong but they don't have to flash it to everyone. Look, just cause a kid wants to wear pants that are so big they have to hold them up with one hand at all times else they fall to the ground and accent the ensemble with no belt cause they are so "street" (term I have been given as a reason for the style) is not a free speech issue. At least not at a school. And yes we have a dress code and I have written up kids for "excessive exposure." A $50 fine would be nice, and heck I might be able to get a new computer and books for my classroom with the fine money. (1) Is this REALLY what we want our police to have to enforce? There should be no mixed feelings on this whatsoever... "There should be no mixed feelings on this whatsoever..." Welp, there are. The government should absolutely not be in the business of telling us lowly citizens how to dress. Even though I find the droopy drawers look unattractive and silly, this bill would be nothing more then legalized fashion policing. No, this proposal is a very bad idea. Ambra, The only reason you won't see enforcement action against "miss busted can o biscuits" is that men like to see thongs. Neither women or men want to see a mans droopy ol' drawers. Check out my new blog "Suspended Reality" http://suspendedreality.blogspot.com/ "droopy drawers" - Just another reason to despise the hip-hop "culture." That said, I oppose the law on libertarian/common sense grounds. Reason and boredom will kill hip-hop, not the government. As for the racial angle, I think that you have good reason to worry. Just another reason for the police to hassle people (some white, but probably mostly black.) This falls under the "difficult to enforce" category. I live a few minutes from Virginia, and I doubt if their police have the time for it. Secondly, it is legal to wear shorts in the street, on the beach, at public pools, and while rollerblading. Pants cover (somewhat)shorts. (have you seen how short some young ladies' shorts are? they're legal in Va.). What of bra straps? Lingerie ads on billboards and mall posters? Men in tank tops? Lowriders w/ no shorts, worn low enough to see tattoos? fashion legislation's a tough go government officials must not have much real business to attend to if they have to legislate how folk wear their clothes...*sigh* Anyway, all the people with some good sense up in here are aware that they should "just say NO to crack"! peace, Gina At least someone in Virginia is sober... http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2005/02/10/va_lawmakers_drop_low_riding_pants_bill/ Thanks for the follow up, Steve. Looks like my suspicion of pandering to the vocal minority was correct. I'm glad the state Senate had the good sense to kill it in committee. One wonders what the House Delegates were smoking. Now why is it I suspect a butt crack inspector is on the way? I agree kids shouldn't make this kind of fashion statement at school. But... If your going to the club or somewhere that's not as formal, you should be able to dress however the hell you want! With all this Indecent exposure B.S. I wish they pass a law in georgia forbidden the confederate flag (shirts, stickers, etc.) cause to me that's discrmination against African-Amercians and more offense then someone showing a little underwear!! Aw man, you missed your chance! { Comments are now closed for this entry. } |
 May 2009 April 2009 August 2007 June 2007 May 2007 March 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004  Baldilocks Black Informant Booker Rising Cobb Evangelical Outpost DC Thornton Hip-Hop Republican Ill Doctrine Jen Lancaster* Joanne Jacobs Joel Stockstill La Shawn Barber Michelle Malkin Nerd With Swag Racialicious The Pioneer Woman You129 *indicates strong language Disclaimer: This is my personal blog. The views expressed on these pages are mine alone and do not represent those of my dog.
|
|||
 |
|
|
|
When Whitney Houston told us all last year that "crack was whack," I don't think anyone realized her foresight. A recent Virginia law is requiring people (youth specifically) to 
 RSS Feed |
Why are you mixed on this issue? The government is making the way someone dresses criminal. There are many styles of dress that are, in your words, "disgusting". How about a seriously overweight person in spandex? I'd prefer not to see that, but I don't think they should be fined. Or is it because it's "underwear" that makes it different? Whoever thought that the term "fashion police" would ever mean just that!