You never thought you'd see gourmet food item
foie gras and low-rent fashion item
baggy pants mentioned together, did you? No, me neither, but they have something in common. There are proposed bans on both. Of course, in Chicago, we already have a
foie gras ban in place, and it was
ruled constitutional by
U.S. District Judge Blanche M. Manning recently. (Of course, it would also be constitutional for the City Council to repeal the ordinance.)
To be consistent, Judge Manning would have to uphold a ban on baggy pants. Manning just ruled that a city can indeed ban a legally produced item such as foie gras. Manning's ruling, then, would serve as precedent for a ban on baggy pants. This means that supporters of
Chicago Alderman Joe Moore's foie gras ban would be dishonest and hypocritical if they attack a baggy pants ban as unconstitutional. (
Want to bet that they will anyway?)
Generally speaking, guys who wear their pants like the moron shown in the photo (right) have IQs about the same as their waist size.
On the other hand, I have great respect and admiration for women who wear their pants as shown by the lady in the other photo here.
So, I'm torn by news stories about legally banning the butt-crack look. The law should be equally applied, right? What a quandry.
The town council of
Delcambre, Louisiana is considering a
ban on baggy pants.
The mayor said he would
"sign an ordinance the town council approved this week setting penalties of up to six months in jail and a $500 fine for being caught in pants that show undergarments or certain parts of the body."
Y'know, if you look real close at this lady's pants, they're not actually
baggy. They're low below her waist, true, but the cut is not
baggy.
There might be a
loophole here.
You never thought you'd see gourmet food item foie gras and low-rent fashion item baggy pants mentioned together, did you? No, me neither, but they have something in common. There are proposed bans on both. Of course, in Chicago, we already have a foie gras ban in place, and it was ruled constitutional by U.S. District Judge Blanche M. Manning recently. (Of course, it would also be constitutional for the City Council to repeal the ordinance.)
To be consistent, Judge Manning would have to uphold a ban on baggy pants. Manning just ruled that a city can indeed ban a legally produced item such as foie gras. Manning's ruling, then, would serve as precedent for a ban on baggy pants. This means that supporters of Chicago Alderman Joe Moore's foie gras ban would be dishonest and hypocritical if they attack a baggy pants ban as unconstitutional. (Want to bet that they will anyway?)
Generally speaking, guys who wear their pants like the moron shown in the photo (right) have IQs about the same as their waist size. On the other hand, I have great respect and admiration for women who wear their pants as shown by the lady in the other photo here. So, I'm torn by news stories about legally banning the butt-crack look. The law should be equally applied, right? What a quandry.
The town council of Delcambre, Louisiana is considering a ban on baggy pants.
The mayor said he would "sign an ordinance the town council approved this week setting penalties of up to six months in jail and a $500 fine for being caught in pants that show undergarments or certain parts of the body."
Y'know, if you look real close at this lady's pants, they're not actually baggy. They're low below her waist, true, but the cut is not baggy.
There might be a loophole here.
What exactly about his attire makes him a moron. I would guess its a teen ager and teen agers across the IQ spectrum who like the hip hop image would be dressed in a similar style. In fact, a moron is less likely to dress this way, because a moron would have trouble picking out their own clothes and be less likely to keep up with fashion trends. Besides, , I very much enjoy seeing the hot young males with their pants half down. The eroticism of it gets my blood boiling and puts the color in my cheeks and the twinkle in my eye. The woman is the moron because she's too stupid to actually secure her pants at that waistline and has to hold them up with one hand or she'd drop them entirely. If they outlaw anything it should be the butfloss these women wear peeking out of the jeans. It's a filthy health hazard.
ReplyDeleteParadise,
ReplyDeleteI have nothing against eroticism, per se, really. But (in my opinion) it's moronic to wear pants in such a way that the wearer is usually forced to hold them up, constantly pull them up, and is always at risk of tripping over them. There have been numerous news items, for example, of guys wearing baggy pants who fall over themselves when the police give chase. As for the woman, she's obviously posing for photograph. I doubt that she walks down the street that way, whereas Mr. Baggy Pants does even though he is not being paid modeling fees to do so.
eeh, baloney, you are constantly portraying young black and hispanic males as morons. Sure its the gang banger image you use to do it, but I'm quite sure that all the young people who dress that way are not gang bangers and the ones in gangs are not morons. They say the smart ones are the best criminals. I'm not a big personal responsibility type when it comes to criticising others and I certainly don't expect young people to know any better, young people don't know shit, it's a FACT that they aren't equipped yet to grasp the consequences of life choices. Women in high heels are wearing just as ridiculous of attire, even worse, it may be motion restrictive, but it damages the feet, ask a podiatrist, they end up needing expensive surgery. You pick on people of color, let's see some across the board negative portrayals for some balance here.
ReplyDeleteDear Paradise,
ReplyDeleteYou win the Dumbest Commenter of the Week Award! Apparently you've missed all of my posts that have been critical of Tom Westgard, Joe Moore, David Fagus, Rod Blagojevich, Karl Marx, Vladimir Lenin, and numerous other white men. In fact, the vast majority of people criticized by me are crackers. YOU are the one equating a criticism of fashion with a criticism of race. I do not pick on "people of color," whatever those are. As a person of color myself (white is a color, too), I am confused by your comment. You're also a hypocrite; you criticize today's youth "across the board" with your dumb statement, "young people don't know shit." Thanks for playing, Paradise, and congratulations for winning the Dumbest Commenter of the Week Award!