July 9, 2008

Dicks: "This immoral self expression goes beyond freedom of expression."

Flint Police Chief David Dicks "announced that his officers would start arresting people wearing saggy pants that expose skivvies, boxer shorts or bare bottoms."
"Some people call it a fad," Dicks told the Free Press this week while patrolling the streets of Flint. "But I believe it's a national nuisance. It is indecent and thus it is indecent exposure, which has been on the books for years."
It's a misdemeanor that could put you in jail for up to a year!

A lot of people think Dicks is going too far:
"If I pay for my pants, I should be able to wear them how I want to," said 16-year-old Montez Phifer, taking a break from playing hoops in the city Monday. "Everyone thinks it's gangster, but it's a fashion. Nothing more."

His friend, Lorenzo Johnson, 14, said his mother warned him about the chief's stance on sagging.

"I pulled them up to respect her," he said. "When she left I pulled them back down."

Another friend, Senita Abrams, 18, said: "I think it's cute when boys sag."....

Greg Gibbs, a lawyer and chair of the ACLU Flint chapter, said the crackdown sounds like a "vast waste of resources."
Ha ha. Crackdown. You know which side the newspaper is on.

146 comments:

Tom said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Host with the Most said...

Go Dicks!

Simon said...

"'If I pay for my pants, I should be able to wear them how I want to,' said 16-year-old Montez Phifer...."

Ah to be sixteen and to think that nothing that is legal to buy can be set to illegal purposes. I'm sure he thinks he should be able to download any songs he likes, too. It's his computer, after all.

"'Everyone thinks it's gangster, but it's a fashion.'"

I don't think it's gangster, I just think it means you're too stupid to know how to use a belt; now it seems that the cops think it's indecent exposure. Good for them. I predict the first lawsuit in about twenty minutes, see Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 590 (2003) (Scalia, J., dissenting) (warning that laws based on moral choices are now living on borrowed time).

JohnTaylor88 said...

Flint residents now have to watch their butts because Police Chief David Dicks is on the lookout.

Jeremy said...

"I pulled them up to respect her," he said. "When she left I pulled them back down."

That's no respect. And when mama hears how disrespected her in the paper, you will be getting an ass whipping at home.

Smilin' Jack said...

Stupid cops v. stupid kids. With all the conflicts in the world, it's nice to run across one where I can root for both sides.

Gahrie said...

For those of you not in the know:

"Sagging" is wearing your pants deliberately lower than your waist. In extreme cases, the waist of the pants is actually fastened mid-thigh and lower. It is common today for the person to actually wear an additional layer of clothing between his underwear and pants, but for this layer to resemble underwear.

This is yet another example of popular culture glorifying thug life and drug culture. The fashion began in prison. Prisoners were sometimes given oversized clothing, but were not allowed to use belts, so they sagged. In gang life, this became a sign of being hard core, and then this transferred into mainstream through rap culture.

I completely support the sheriff. It is an example of the "broken window" syndrome.

Civil society needs to fight back against the popularization of thug culture, and this is a way to begin.

BillHall said...

After reading this article, I believe I am for cracking-up.

ricpic said...

I hope Obama comes to the defense of his natural constituency on this one.

kimsch said...

What happens when one of these people is trying to flee say, a fire, and the pants fall down to the ankles, tripping the person up, and perhaps causing grievous injury? Do they sue the clothing manufacturers?

MadisonMan said...

Flint should pay someone to pull the pants all the way down, and when the kids bend down to pull them back up, they can be kicked in the kiester and on to the ground.

Have someone film it -- if they're outside there is no expectation of privacy -- and turn it into a YouTube sensation.

Otherwise, yes. A collossal waste of time and resources. Luckily, Flint MI has a booming economy so they don't have to watch every cent like most cities in the nation.

lurker2209 said...

The only police officers that should be enforcing dress codes are those assigned to schools. I think it's perfectly appropriate for a principal to declare that sagging pants violate the school dress code and to enlist the school officer in assisting with that. But of course most principals in schools where this is a major issue are too busy trying to manage a failing school to even think about requiring students to dress appropriately.

paul a'barge said...

Ha ha. Like you, this cracks me up!-)

the wolf said...

Dicks then shook his fist and chased some kids off his lawn.

perry masonmint said...

Blogger ricpic said...

I hope Obama comes to the defense of his natural constituency on this one.


Ah, here's some of that barely concealed gleeful racism we were discussing the other day.

Thanks dude. As always, this place has lived down to my expectations.

bearbee said...

The waste of resource comment prompted me to look at crime rates and Flint has surprisingly high rates.

This is not to suggest a causal relationship between sagging pants and high crime rates......but a study could uncover something.

Crime Rates:

Flint Michigan

Compare Flint-Detroit-National

Just for the heck of it, here is Flint-Madison-National.

How are pants levels in Madison?

Chip Ahoy said...

Arrest that man! His heavy belt and pants worn low are defying gravity.

And that will never do.

The logical extension is to wear pants bunched at the ankles with boxers as ersatz shorts. Modest and disarming, actually, because it conveys, "I'm going nowhere quickly." This is the most amusing men's fashion I've ever seen.

MadisonMan said...

I do see boxers above the beltline. Bad fashion statements know no political boundary. Throwing government resources at bad fashion statements is foolish.

This whole thing smacks of a smokescreen to me. The Flint Police Chief is saying Pay no attention to the astronomic murder rates! I'm doing something about pants levels! Now you might say it's a tipping point thing -- that people expect murder when baggy pants are worn. But I think that's beyond the limits of credulity.

Fen said...

I'm okay with it. Saves me time in figuring out the person I'm dealing with is an idiot.

bill said...

kimsch said...
What happens when one of these people is trying to flee say, a fire, and the pants fall down to the ankles, tripping the person up, and perhaps causing grievous injury?


That's nature weeding out the stupid or "think of it as evolution in action."

BladeDoc said...

Perry --

what, Obama isn't against thuggery and gangster culture? I immediately assumed ricpic meant that Obama should support the police in this issue. Interesting that you immediately thought his "natural constituents" were the kids -- whose race BTW was never mentioned.

Fen said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Fen said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Freder Frederson said...

I predict the first lawsuit in about twenty minutes, see Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 590 (2003) (Scalia, J., dissenting) (warning that laws based on moral choices are now living on borrowed time).

Too bad obscene gestures aren't illegal, Scalia could cool his heels for a year in jail and we wouldn't have to hear his idiotic pronouncements based on his interpretation of Catholicism. (And a rather "cafeteria catholicism" at that since he has decided that the death penalty and torture is perfectly appropriate under his version of catholicism.)

I don't know in what free society the police get to decide, apparently based only on their fashion sense, what is or is not appropriate dress. But I guess in Simon's world, fashion he doesn't like are perfectly acceptable targets of almost unlimited police power.

Fen said...

Ah, here's some of that barely concealed gleeful racism we were discussing the other day.

There you go again. Please explain how pointing out that "sagging" is practiced almost exclusively by blacks is racist?

And why do you consider Obama "black" when he's actually half-white? Something to do with the one-drop rule?

Mote. Eye. You pathetic racist scum.

Cabbage said...

You know, this year's UW moot court competition dealt with this issue and how it might relate to the 1st amendment and Due Process.

http://hosted.law.wisc.edu/mootcourt/evans/2008/problem_2008.html

Fen said...

Now you might say it's a tipping point thing -- that people expect murder when baggy pants are worn. But I think that's beyond the limits of credulity.

Maybe not. The police may be responding to increased violence resulting from their citizens expressing offense at seeing some thug's ass in the 7-11 check-out line. Black males routinely respond to civil criticism [and even polite requests] with threats of violence.

Try it next time you see a black male doing something rude. Attempt to correct him. Sir, wearing a shirt with "Fist the Bitch" really isn't appropriate around these children". I'll bet you approach him differently than you would any non-black male. Just be careful you aren't stomped to death in the parking lot for "disrespecting" him.

perry masonmint said...

Fen said...

"Ah, here's some of that barely concealed gleeful racism we were discussing the other day."

There you go again. Please explain how pointing out that "sagging" is practiced almost exclusively by blacks is racist?

And why do you consider Obama "black" when he's actually half-white? Something to do with the one-drop rule?

Mote. Eye. You pathetic racist scum.


The fact that you can write the above without embarassment is proof positive that irony is well and truly dead.

Projection and deliberate disingenuousness in one brief noxious post. Quite an accomplishment, in a perverse sort of way.

ricpic said...

mintybreath, you mean to tell me the hip hop "community" is NOT Obambi's natural constituency?

UWS guy said...

Next time you see a black man doing something rude.

whaa...

No sir, black middle class doesn't exist! Black professionals don't wear suits and ties dontcha know!

Why would I see a black person doing something rude as opposed to any other person?

next time you see a skin head doing something rude

But all white people aren't skin heads are they? Just as all black men aren't scarry thugs. Of course pointing out that black men are all criminals isn't racist...

UWS guy said...

FYI my younger brother (27 years old and in the Navy!) wears saggy pants that show off his designer underwear.

So, yes...some of you are racist pricks who give "conservatism" a really really bad odor.

rhhardin said...

Saggy pants could be an important part of an Obama administration policy of projecting toughness and unpredictabilty abroad, helping to keep Iran in line, dinner jacket or not.

MadisonMan said...

Attempt to correct him. Sir, wearing a shirt with "Fist the Bitch" really isn't appropriate around these children". I'll bet you approach him differently than you would any non-black male. Just be careful you aren't stomped to death in the parking lot for "disrespecting" him.

Why would I correct him? Adults can do what they want as far as wearing clothing goes in this country. If it's an acquaintance of mine wearing the shirt, I might comment on it. But who -- of any race -- likes to hear negative comments on what they are wearing?

Shorter answer: Just because someone else is impossibly rude doesn't mean I have to be rude as well.

UWS guy said...

Again...who said these kids are black?

bearbee said...

Here is an interesting article on the
Chief including some questionable behavior and a possible 1st Amendment violation involving suspension of offiicers who made comments about him.
He has also experienced the tragedy of losing his son to violence.

perry masonmint said...

ricpic said...

mintybreath, you mean to tell me the hip hop "community" is NOT Obambi's natural constituency?
12:50 PM


No, I mean to tell you that when you make comments like that you're obviously enjoying yourself way too much.

A blind man could read between the lines with a cane...

Fen said...

/Ignore racist scum like Perry and UWS Guy

MadisonMan: Just because someone else is impossibly rude doesn't mean I have to be rude as well.

Where did I say anything about responding rudely?

Why would I correct him?...

Hold on a sec. If you came across someone cursing in front of children, you wouldn't at least feel the need to correct them?

Fen said...

Again...who said these kids are black

The ACLU:

"Michigan ACLU Executive Director Kary Moss said race could become an issue if the chief aggressively enforces the law."

gophermomeh said...

I mean, come on, it looks like they just fell out of bed and put on some baggy pants and take their greasy hair - ew - and cover it up with a backwards cap and we're supposed to swoon?

Al Swearengen said...

"Hold on a sec. If you came across someone cursing in front of children, you wouldn't at least feel the need to correct them?"

I propose that the little cocksuckers have to learn sometime.

Pogo said...

I don't know in what free society the police get to decide, apparently based only on their fashion sense, what is or is not appropriate dress.

Is exposure of the buttocks and/or genitals a "fashion sense", or a violation of the law?

Can a grown man flash a group of high school girls or grade school boys and claim he was merely expressing his fashion sense?

Thug culture is more than a fashion misstatement, but evidence of barbarian culture supplanting all moral codes. Its message is obvious: kill or be killed.

If you think otherwise, try being a typical adult of the 1950s and correct a teenage miscreant who might be, say, screaming at your wife while she shakingly leaves a gas station.

I see the half-dressed man, who lacks any feature of being civilized, especailly evidenced by pants at his knees and boxers below his crack, waving his arms yelling obscenities. What do you think the response would be to the 1950s dad?

He'd be killed, would he not?
It's the lord of the flies out there in Flint, and the pants are as much evidence of that as anything. You can mock their attempt to gain some foothold, some modicum of control, and liberals are great at mocking attempts to create public safety.

But when these thugs enter your neighborhood (because never do you live among them very long), demanding you pay the deingeld, your tune will aslo change.

But of course then it will be too late.


So what do low-hanging pants have to do with crime?
They are the low-hanging fruit of crime prevention.
Imposition of an imposed uniform is the first of many steps to civilization.

But we are too far gone for that, as evidenced here by the capitulating mockery of such an attempt.

Goodbye Flint.

ricpic said...

We must all practice restraint in deference to leftist sensibilities. Only lefties can foam at the mouth spewing the R word with criminal abandon.

Zieg Heil! glorious vomit mintybreath.

perry masonmint said...

ricpic said...

We must all practice restraint in deference to leftist sensibilities.


Really? I seem to recall you were the guy who Ann took to task for thinking the phrase "the jig is up" was a little too funny.

You were rather gleeful, if memory serves...

UWS guy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Al Swearengen said...

Someone should teach these cocksuckers a modicum of civility in the thoroughfare.

UWS guy said...

All these fellas (ricpic/fen/pogo) penning revenge porn featuring traumatised white children and white women verbally assaulted at gas stations. It would be frightful if not for your impotence. Getting in the mood for a good ol' fashioned lynching?

(ha! replete with al swearengen for some HBO frontier-style justice!)


By the way, informal poll: Ricpic, Fen, Pogo? Jesse Helms: "Great Senator, or Greatest Senator Ever?"

ricpic said...

masonjarhead, your tryin' to stamp out gleeful like all the other stalinist thugs that ever were or ever will be won't work as long as America remains free. Which includes shitting on shitheads.

perry masonmint said...

ricpic said...

masonjarhead, your tryin' to stamp out gleeful like all the other stalinist thugs that ever were or ever will be won't work as long as America remains free. Which includes shitting on shitheads.


Not to mention drooling on your keyboard, I'll warrant.

Trooper York said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Fen said...

But we are too far gone for that, as evidenced here by the capitulating mockery of such an attempt.

I'm still astonished by those who feel no obligation to correct such behavior. The thug is boasting about "ripping whos" within earshot of children, and there's MadisonMan staring down at his shoelaces.

Bobby Meachum's Aunt said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Pogo said...

UWS guy
Who brought up race?
Not me, you.
The guy who I saw was white. You weren't there. but he was all gangsta dress, low pants and ballcap askew and all.

Remember, UWS guy, the only Senator who was in the KKK is till a Senator. Democrat Robert Byrd.
Remember, the Democrats tried to stop the civil rights bill.
Liberals like Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, favored eugenics to reduce the black population.
Liberals like FDR made it impossible for blacks to own land and farm in the South.

And now it's modern libberal racists like UWS guy who try to foil every effort for the poor to better themselves. No! They are best left to dress and become gangbangers, never to encroach upon their lilywhite elite enclaves.

To that I say goddamn you and people like you.

By the way, informal poll: UWSguy, perry masonmint, Emperor? Robert Byrd: "Great Senator, or Greatest Senator Ever?"

Fen said...

Its the same disease that infects those who watched that woman get gang raped on the pool table. Or the drivers that remained idle while a man beat his baby to death on the side of the road [it took a police officer landing his helo and sprinting to the scene to end to it].

Smilin' Jack said...

Actually, this form of self-expression has a valuable social function. It instantly conveys the message that the wearer is not someone worth paying any attention to. Tattoos serve much the same purpose. Without these visual cues, one would have to wait for the kid to begin a sentence with "Yo..." before confidently consigning him to the cretin bin.

perry masonmint said...

Pogo said...

Remember, the Democrats tried to stop the civil rights bill.


Yup, I vividly recall Lyndon Johnson doing everything he could to make sure the Dems didn't pass his Civil Rights Act and thus lose the South for generations.

Give it a rest. Even an asswipe like Newt Gingrich eventually apologized for the fact that the Republican party got it completely and deplorably wrong on Civil Rights in the 60s.

Fen said...

Obama-fans like Perry and UWS are easily discounted. They don't care about racism - its only a tool they employ to make themselves feel righteous, to feel better about their miserable selves.

Else, how can they support Obama? Here's Dr Cone, Obama-fan and champion of Obama's "madrassa", pointing to Trinity Church as the archetype for Black Liberation Theology:

"Black Liberation Theology will only accept the love of a God that participates in the destruction of the White enemy"

It would be fun to hear them defend this, to explain how they can support a man who worshipped at this racist altar for 20 years.

[chirp chirp]

What a bunch of race-baiting hypocrites they are.

Palladian said...

So which old, worn-out Althouse troll is perry masonmint? They always come back, you know.

Al Swearengen said...

I know.

Pogo said...

"Yup, I vividly recall Lyndon Johnson doing everything he could to make sure "
What an idiot you are.

Civil Rights Act of 1964

The original House version:
Democratic Party:
152-96 (61%-39%)
Republican Party:
138-34 (80%-20%)

The Senate version:
Democratic Party:
46-21 (69%-31%)
Republican Party:
27-6 (82%-18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House:
Democratic Party:
153-91 (63%-37%)
Republican Party:
136-35 (80%-20%)

The bill came before the full Senate for debate on March 30, 1964 and the "Southern Bloc" of southern Democratic Senators led by Richard Russell (D-GA) launched a filibuster to prevent its passage.

After 54 days of filibuster, Senators Everett Dirksen (R-IL), Thomas Kuchel (R-CA), Hubert Humphrey (D-MN), and Mike Mansfield (D-MT) introduced a substitute bill.

On the morning of June 10, 1964, Senator Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) completed an address that he had begun 14 hours and 13 minutes earlier opposing the legislation. Shortly thereafter, the substitute (compromise) bill was quickly passed.

MadisonMan said...

Its the same disease that infects those who watched that woman get gang raped on the pool table. Or the drivers that remained idle while a man beat his baby to death on the side of the road [it took a police officer landing his helo and sprinting to the scene to end to it].

Spare me the hyperbole. And that Think of the Children! argument at 1:51? Pathetic.

You know how I prevent my kids from hearing gutter? By keeping them away from it. And by setting an example. The one time I recall that I could help -- a car spun out in front of us and rolled a couple times in the median on the interstate -- we (wife and I) got out to see if we could help. The kids stayed in the car per my command.

If some thug tried to impress my daughter with gutter talk, I suspect she'd roll her eyes and walk away. Ignoring someone trying to impress you is far more effective than correcting them.

Al Swearengen said...

You see chief, you basic hooplehead can't help himself. He has to express his self in the middle of the thoroughfare regardless of the effect they might have on both man and animal. It's what makes them hoopleheads. But I am curious to hear what you have to say since even the decapitated are entitled to an opinion.

kimsch said...

from the article:
Michigan ACLU Executive Director Kary Moss said race could become an issue if the chief aggressively enforces the law.

"We will wait and see if this new policy is enforced before we decide to take action," she said in a statement. "We will be concerned if the policy disproportionately affects African Americans."

Dicks also scoffed at any suggestions that any enforcement unfairly targets black men and teens.

"This is not a black issue. This is an issue that's all walks of life," said Dicks, who is black. "Many people from different ethnic backgrounds and races are doing this fad."


The picture at the top shows Chief Dicks patting down a white male with saggy pants.

Al Swearengen said...

"The picture at the top shows Chief Dicks patting down a white male with saggy pants."

No extra charge for that at the Gem. Just know that our whistles are clean and our cunt hairs are braided.

MadisonMan said...

The picture at the top shows Chief Dicks patting down a white male with saggy pants.

It's ridiculous to think that his clothing are in any way immoral. It looks like he's been given a wedgie -- 'tho maybe he's pulled them up for the photo.

Freder Frederson said...

I see the half-dressed man, who lacks any feature of being civilized, especailly evidenced by pants at his knees and boxers below his crack, waving his arms yelling obscenities. What do you think the response would be to the 1950s dad?

Now Pogo, I was referring only to manner of dress, not exposing genitals (crack is borderline). More than dress, this person's problem seems to have extended beyond his manner of dress. I would worry more about his sanity than how he was dressed and your concern was well founded (although your intimation that in the fifties you would have been justified in killing him seems a little extreme).

Remember, when Scalia flipped off (or the Italian equivalent thereof) a reporter, he was in a suit and tie and O.J. was wearing Bruno Magli shoes when he killed his wife and Ron Goldman. Being well dressed does not make you civilized.

Al Swearengen said...

Johnnie go get the sled. It looks like we have another topic to give to the Chinaman to feed the pigs.

Emptyman said...

First off, the "I just got out of prison" sagging-pants look has been around for at least 15 years. Wake up, Flint. And wake up, kids -- dressing like kids did 15 years ago is pretty lame. Come up with something new.

Second off, every new fashion trend inspires a backlash. Skirts that showed ankle. Shorts for men. Bikinis. The trick is to figure out what the next "offensive" fashion is going to be, and then getting in on the ground floor. I'm voting for transparent plastic tops for women.

Third off, we always used to say: "It's cool to be black -- until you need a job." Sagging pants have a built-in expiration date for most people. Let kids be kids.

m00se said...

So we can then subtitle this as "Dicks on Butts"?

Pogo said...

Being well dressed does not make you civilized.
No argument there. Civilization has always been a thin veneer.

Being poorly dressed, especially dressing like thugs, makes the lack of civility far more likely, and the lack of civilization almost a certainty.

Liberals always seem to forget that those seemingly insignificant traditions, including the civility of not dressing like a thug, are necessary precisely because they reduce the level of aggression in society, and we discard or ignore these traditions at our peril.

But a modern liberal would require a double blinded study to "prove it", and even then decry its results as racist.

perry masonmint said...

Pogo said...

Being poorly dressed, especially dressing like thugs, makes the lack of civility far more likely, and the lack of civilization almost a certainty.


This is the kind of stuff that keeps you up nights worrying? The cut of somebody's pants?

Seriously -- with that level of fear, how do you sleep without drugs?

Al Swearengen said...

Man does not fear these pants out of terror of courdroy or denim. He fears the droping of said pants as a signal that all is open to investigation and inquiry. To the curious and perverse. If not thus, everyone would stride the througoughfare in their long johns with the flap undone waving in the wind as the fire flies dance about his buttocks.

Not that there's anything wrong with that chief. Even the decaptitated are entitled to their recreation.

Pogo said...

This is the kind of stuff that keeps you up nights worrying? The cut of somebody's pants?
In fact, you should worry about the lack of table manners, much as their history developed as a ritual to demonstrate and demand nonaggression.

These seemingly insignificant rituals help keep the dogs at bay. But you can think it's all meaningless frippery about forks and spoons if it makes you feel better.

Pissed Off Hillbilly said...

Since this is a law blog, let's not forget that Democrat Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black was also a KKK member. And FDR knew it when he nominated him.

That said, Dicks is one.

Revenant said...

Since when is exposed underwear "indecent exposure"? It is legal to walk around in swim trunks or a bikini, and those don't show or conceal any more than underwear does.

Revenant said...

Being poorly dressed, especially dressing like thugs, makes the lack of civility far more likely, and the lack of civilization almost a certainty.

There's really no rational basis for thinking that. Just because young people are disproportionately more likely to engage in criminal activity and disproportionately likely to dress in fashions their elders don't approve of doesn't mean there's any causal relationship between fashion and crime.

m00se said...

Hate to tell you Revenant, but you can be charged with sexual battery for public urination in some juristictions...

perry masonmint said...

Pogo said...

These seemingly insignificant rituals help keep the dogs at bay. But you can think it's all meaningless frippery about forks and spoons if it makes you feel better.
4:17 PM


Not really, though I will cop to getting a big kick out of your dreams being troubled by rampaging gangs of baggy-pantsed youths.

Given the recent Supreme Court decision, I recommend heavily arming yourself. Also oxycontin.

Pogo said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Pogo said...

Revenant,

Fashion is no mere thing. It is as loud and meaningful as speech. Today's fashion is a big 'fuck you' to the world at large. And that has side effects.

Quite the opposite conceit to your post has undergirded tradition in most societies. Because young people are impressionable and without guidance, and made insane by hormonal changes beyond their ken or control, they are disproportionately more likely to commit crimes and generally fuck up their futures for evanescent reasons or due to mere juvenile stupidity, one method of social control has always involved strict control of fashion.

It is precisely because the young today disproportionately likely to dress in fashions their elders don't approve of that it does mean there's a causal relationship between fashion and crime.

Liberals and libertarians want "proof", whereas conservatives point to history as proof enough. It's never enough though. Once the underpinnings of society are brought to the dock, mere men always find it insufficient, and trash it all.

Then the goddamned thing has to start all over again.

Revenant said...

Hate to tell you Revenant, but you can be charged with sexual battery for public urination in some juristictions...

I don't see what that has to do with my point. Public urination is generally illegal. Wearing clothes that cover your breasts and genitals and not much else isn't... unless, apparently, you're wearing something else over them, which doesn't cover them completely. That seems to violate the common law principle that laws should serve a rational purpose.

Cedarford said...

Fen -
"Attempt to correct him. Sir, wearing a shirt with "Fist the Bitch" really isn't appropriate around these children". I'll bet you approach him differently than you would any non-black male. Just be careful you aren't stomped to death in the parking lot for "disrespecting" him."

Madison Man - Why would I correct him? Adults can do what they want as far as wearing clothing goes in this country. If it's an acquaintance of mine wearing the shirt, I might comment on it. But who -- of any race -- likes to hear negative comments on what they are wearing?

Shorter answer: Just because someone else is impossibly rude doesn't mean I have to be rude as well.


A great example of Left-Right conversation, between Fen and Madison Man, totally talking past one another. With Madison Man proclaiming "victory" with the 'ol insipid "shorter version" which (1)ignores Fen's points, (2)attempts to declare it all a question of "adult rights" - that no public obscenity laws exist, (3)that private and public efforts by school officials and mall owners alike to enforce dress codes may be "racist" if the obscene behavior is by only one race, normally; (4)And good old Lefty moral equivalency, where pointing out to remand someone that "Fist that Bitch" T-shirts, or booming thug toilet-mouth talk deliberately broadcast past his "hoodie pals", or deliberately littering in front of a crowd - is in itself rude and morally equivalent to the offending act.

My opinion is that even people that wear such attire as a fashion statement and only ape "real gangsta thugs" in public do it because they perceive it intimidates other people. The threat of violence at anyone who points out and attempts to correct such aggressive, provocative behavior may be killed or beaten by real gangstas.

Cut in line - then threaten, brace, or assault any who object - and the odds are if most people are Madison Man-types, you can get away with that behavior. And better intimidate people next time.

Back in 2004, a Chicago friend of mine was knifed & beaten pretty badly when the thugs in hoodies went after him and his teenage son for "disrespecting them" by asking them to be considerate and not just toss several bags of fast food garbage on the street outside a Mall.
His son got a mild concussion, he got bruised up good and he got a few knife wounds to his hands and forearms from some "barely teen thug" who pulled a knife. Guns were flashed and the hoodie thugs took off.

Now, maybe in Madison Man's world, the proper thing to do would be immediately remand a white, Asian, hispanic or "safe-looking black" person littering in public -self-righteously, of course. But on seeing gangstas do it to avoid being rude and disrespecting them - wait till they are gone, then Madison Man picks up the trash. (failing to pick it up would be the real offense if Madison Man was not PC on the environment) And properly disposes of it, to end the "problem".

My Chicago friend learned his lesson and will never again speak out "I endangered my son over Arbee's trash. Fuck Chicago. Fuck the trash in the streets. Fuck the little black animals."

Revenant said...

one method of social control has always involved strict control of fashion.

And it has never worked. This is because fashion doesn't cause behavior. Adults crack down on the fashion for the classic reason:

(1): Something must be done
(2): This is something
(3): Therefore, this must be done.

They can control, to a limited extent, what people wear. They cannot control how they think or act. So they decide to control what they wear, because at least then they're "doing something" about ostensibly wayward youth. It doesn't do a damned thing, of course.

It is precisely because the young today disproportionately likely to dress in fashions their elders don't approve of

Disproportionately likely compared to what? There isn't a person alive today who can remember a time when American adults weren't shocked by the popular fashions of the youth.

that it does mean there's a causal relationship between fashion and crime.

So explain why the rates of crime, drug use, and pregnancy among young adults have declined over the past few decades even while sexualized outfits and, yes, saggy pants became more and more popular.

Freder Frederson said...

Liberals always seem to forget that those seemingly insignificant traditions, including the civility of not dressing like a thug

Now Pogo, you just lack imagination. Thugs come in all sizes and shapes. What next? Would you like the police chief to harass those in Flint who dress like Tony Soprano? Or would that be unfairly stereotyping Italian Americans?

Freder Frederson said...

My opinion is that even people that wear such attire as a fashion statement and only ape "real gangsta thugs" in public do it because they perceive it intimidates other people.

Which is why Cedarford always wears his brownshirt and Swastika armband in public and keeps his head closely shaved. It sure intimidates the darkies and scares the hell out of the wimpy little jews.

Revenant said...

Liberals and libertarians want "proof", whereas conservatives point to history as proof enough. It's never enough though.

"Point" implies the ability to cite examples. What conservatives do is wave vaguely in the direction of history and mutter something about how things didn't used to be done this way.

The problem with that approach, of course, is that this is 2008, not 1908. We now have a century of empirical evidence that progressively relaxing societal standards of dress doesn't lead to the decline or collapse of our civilization. In fact, we can compare our culture to other cultures which did not similarly relax themselves and note that the other cultures have performed in an inferior manner to our own. Without exception, societies that harshly punish people for dressing or acting differently are shittier places to live.

Freder Frederson said...

"Point" implies the ability to cite examples. What conservatives do is wave vaguely in the direction of history and mutter something about how things didn't used to be done this way.

But don't you see Rev, in Saudi Arabia you would never see any exposed thong underwear. In fact, Pogo would rather have girls burn to death than chance an strange man see them without their heads covered.

gophermomeh said...

Cedarford - they wear those kinds of clothes to get a reaction. That's all. You can choose to play, or not.

Pogo - what, do you live in a Jane Austen novel? Jeez, don't be so uptight, it's not worth it.

Pogo said...

There isn't a person alive today
A conservative would call this "a fairly small windowe of time", and one characterized chiefly by a decline in civility in the last 50 years, and a 30 year rise in the near-permanent underclass, primarily composed of jailed young men, disproportionately black.

It is untrue of certain subcultures, BTW (Amish, Orthodox Jews, Mormons).

Freder, I tend not to be terribly concerned about TV characters. But you miss the point. No, not all thugs dress like thugs. But fashion is a signal. The thug fashion is saying FUCK YOU and threatens violence. The mafia thug used civilization's better attire to blend in or maybe show off 'success', but within the larger era's terms, not despite it or flouting it.

There will always be criminals. But the underclass of thugs today is more numerous and far more violent than any in decades past. They are barbarians, by any reckoning.

I don't really give a shit if you think half-off-the-ass pants are meaningless. You're wrong. Fashion has, and always has had meaning. If you aren't just the least bit weary of or afraid of these little animals, you're nuts.

Revenant said...

One other thing -- the "saggy pants" thing has its originals in inner-cit poverty, not in the "gangsta" culture. The original reason you saw a lot of black kids wearing saggy pants is that the pants were hand-me-downs. Eventually it mutated into a fashion statement, but the fact that "gangstas" and saggy pants both come out of the inner cities doesn't mean one implies the other.

Pogo said...

We now have a century of empirical evidence that progressively relaxing societal standards of dress doesn't lead to the decline or collapse of our civilization.
I disagree.
I think we are seeing the decline of civiliation. It's right before you.

I do agree that societies that harshly punish people for dressing differently are generally shittier places to live. But no shittier than places with no rules at all. Denmark is dying because they are failing to defend their way of life, which has collapsed into nihilism, living solely for the self. And they are being bested by barbarians.

You can choose to play, or not.
You're wrong. You are always in the game, every day. You can't not play. Averting your eyes is still playing, it's merely ceding the field, and counts as a loss.

Every time you must look down and walk away from thugs in the mall or on the street, you have played and lost.

Pogo said...

Pogo would rather have girls burn to death .
Go to hell, you asshole.


Can't you have a serious discussion without behaving like a lunatic? Goddamned effin' jockstrap sniffer.

perry masonmint said...

Pogo said...
Can't you have a serious discussion without behaving like a lunatic?


Hey, YOU'RE the guy losing sleep over rampaging hordes of baggy-pantsed youths, not Freder.

Pogo said...

YOU'RE the guy losing sleep over rampaging hordes of baggy-pantsed youths

No, actually, it appears to be the folks in Flint are losing sleep, and property and civilized life to boot.

Y'all think it's pretty damn funny, but then, you don't live in Flint so who cares?

The Police Chief?
Just a idiot I guess. He made the connection between wandering youth gangs and their clothing. Whatta buffoon, huh?

In my town, though, gang clothing is actually illegal. Just had an arrest of a young man of 19, approached by the cops ONLY because of the standard crips uniform of colors and low pants he wore.

Had a gun on him.

Oh yeah, this was in the middle of a crowd of thousands in a park waiting to see the July 4th fireworks. The crips and bloods were going to shoot at each other.

Pretty funny, those baggy pants.
Freakin' hilarious.

Revenant said...

"There isn't a person alive today"

A conservative would call this "a fairly small windowe of time"

Oh? The conservatives I know seem to think it is an awfully LONG time when the subject turns to things like conservative support of state racism, sexism, or slavery. The former two of which actually DID happen during our lifetimes.

But strangely enough, when a liberal says "conservatives are racist and sexist", the immediate reply is always "that was years ago". But apparently when the subject is the fashion choices of American youth, even my great-great-grandfather's choice of cravats is suddenly relevant to today.

and one characterized chiefly by a decline in civility in the last 50 years

The decline must have taken place entirely in the 50s and 60s, then, because it didn't happen during my lifetime. People haven't gotten less civil to one another; in fact, if you expand "people" to include "people not exactly like ourselves", such as blacks, Jews, and homosexuals, we've gotten a good deal more civil.

and a 30 year rise in the near-permanent underclass,

The circumstances of the "near-permanent underclass" have been improving since the early 1990s, Pogo.

primarily composed of jailed young men, disproportionately black.

Yes, and when you exclude young black people from the statistics -- since their clothing isn't any more outrageous than that of white youth -- the situation for modern youth looks even rosier.

Freder Frederson said...

Go to hell, you asshole.

As noted above Pogo, I am merely pointing out the very real results of what happens when a society becomes so obsessed with moral standards--proper dress becomes more important than life itself.

In case you didn't know, I was recounting an actual incident in Saudi Arabia.

Hitler rose to power partly on the idea that society had become "degenerate" and needed to return to good old German values. Cedarford obviously wants such a society where such elements would be eliminated. Your belief that we were so much more civilized 50 years ago (when lynchings were generally unpunished) puts you on that slippery slope.

Revenant said...

I think we are seeing the decline of civiliation. It's right before you.

How? What, exactly, is worse today than it was fifteen years ago?

Pogo said...

In case you didn't know, I was recounting an actual incident in Saudi Arabia.
No kidding.
Senseless murders by barbarians/ Who knew?

But you accuse me of supporting it, hence my calling you an ass.

I despise that tactic. I don't like your POV. I also don't like Hitler. Ergo, you are Hitler.

I repeat: go to hell.

Revenant said...

Pogo,

While Freder (of course) expressed himself in an asinine manner, his general point is a good one. Saudi Arabia has a very low rate of crime. Its society is not declining; it is staying frozen in place. It applies criminal punishments to youth who act or dress inappropriately. It is almost universally religious. So one has to ask -- what's the *conservative* rationale for considering Saudi Arabia a bad place to live? It has everything you're complaining we've lost. By the logic you're using here it ought to be a paragon of civilization compared to America. So... if it isn't, why isn't it?

Pogo said...

What, exactly, is worse today than it was fifteen years ago?
We're becoming quite alot like England and other soft-fascism countries, where violence by thugs goes unpunished and self-defense is verboten. We are increasingly under surveillance. Minneapolis is Murderapolis again. Detroit is a shithole. So is Flint. So is St. Louis. Chicago is a corrupt cesspool, where it is not uncommon to have 30 shootings per day.

Plus, Tila Tequila had a second season. I mean, criminey, who needs more evidence?

Pogo said...

what's the *conservative* rationale for considering Saudi Arabia a bad place to live?

It lacks liberty. Freedom of choice.

Ahaaaa, you say, but not the freedom to choose clothing?

Not quite that.
Parents today have no control over their kids, or encourage them to dress like thugs and sluts even into early grade school. And then these same brats become thugs and sluts, to some surprise.

There is a point between rigid conformity and libertinism. Theocratic beatings are NOT conservatism.

Absence of civilized behavior is not liberty.

Al Swearengen said...

Sometimes I wish we could just hit 'em over the head, rob 'em, and throw their bodies in the creek.

Revenant said...

We're becoming quite alot like England and other soft-fascism countries, where violence by thugs goes unpunished and self-defense is verboten.

Unless you live in Canada I'm afraid I have no idea who the hell the "we" in that sentence is supposed to refer to. Right-to-carry and "castle doctrine" laws are popping up all over the place, and the SCOTUS just reaffirmed the right to keep weapons for personal defense. We're throwing folks in prison like never before and our rate of violent and property crime is declining. That's the exact polar opposite of England's trajectory.

We are increasingly under surveillance.

Are we? When my parents were born it was legal for the federal government to spy on and wiretap any American citizen they felt like spying on for whatever reason they felt like. A few years prior to that it was legal to throw Americans into camps en masse if they belonged to the wrong ethnic group. I'm not sure that we are "increasingly" monitored.

Minneapolis is Murderapolis again. Detroit is a shithole. So is Flint. So is St. Louis. Chicago is a corrupt cesspool, where it is not uncommon to have 30 shootings per day.

With all due respect, Detriot and Chicago have been corrupt shitholes for at least a hundred years. I don't think the fashion choices of today's youth are having any significant effect on that. But in any event the national per capita murder rate has been declining for the last 15 years, so citing that as an example of the decline of America during that time is silly.

perry masonmint said...

Pogo said...
In my town, though, gang clothing is actually illegal. Just had an arrest of a young man of 19, approached by the cops ONLY because of the standard crips uniform of colors and low pants he wore.

Had a gun on him.


Well, thank goodness the Supreme Court just decided that the young man had a constitutional right to carry it. Otherwise, he would have been in BIG trouble.

Al Swearengen said...

You can't slit the throat of everyone whose character it would improve.

Revenant said...

It lacks liberty. Freedom of choice.

Conservatism doesn't value those things. It never has.

What conservatism values is consistency; doing things the way they have been done, rather than risking a change in the way they are done. Sometimes that puts them on the side of liberty and freedom of choice; just as often, it doesn't. That's why conservatives opposed the New Deal... and the elimination of Jim Crow laws; it is why conservatives opposed laws against hate speech... and the extension of voting rights to women and blacks. Etc, etc.

Your behavior here is a perfect example -- support for criminal penalties for the "wrong" clothing so that girls don't grow up to be "sluts". As if it was any of your fucking business if they did or not.

William said...

Speaking of slippery slopes, I would be saddened if strict enforcement of this statute led to women not flashing their whale tails.

Bobby Meachum's Aunt said...

These young boys should just pull up their pants. I mean really. Who wants to see their business like that. Really.

Cedarford said...

gophermomeh said...
Cedarford - they wear those kinds of clothes to get a reaction. That's all. You can choose to play, or not.


The reaction they seek is fear and intimidation in strangers, by fashion and menacing facial and body language. And for the ones that are just posers, rather than legitimate street thugs, it apparantly encourages aggressive and unlawful behavior thinking - they can get away with it.

Cops have noted that juvenile arrests for vandalism, shoplifting, public disorder are being committed in increasing frequency by posers - not true gang members - who come from good families and go into meltdown when cops arrest them, explaining that they were only "pulling shit like cutting in lines and threatening clerks" because they thought people would be too afraid to stop them.

Revenent -
Your explaination that gangsta attire stems from poverty instead of jail fashion emulation is horseshit, of course.Even the dumbest, poorest black in the days pre-welfare, knew that even the baggiest pants wouldn't fall down with blacks wearing what they wore from 1690 to 1990 - belts, suspenders.
Next up, Revenent explains why gangstas wear hoodies and bandanas to cover their faces - "they walk around in the cold and sun all day, too poor to have a job or go to school!"
Then the weapons:
"They carry knives because they are too poor to be able to afford the fork-tender fare people of privilige eat. And guns were only a defense against the rampant white racist slaughter that went on until armed gangstas made cities livable again!"

**********
Seriously, as this sagging, hoodie, and menacing started in LA with the Crops and Blood bringing prison behavior and attire to the streets, it is worth looking how LA responded.
Whites and well-off Asians have begun to wall off their neighborhoods into safe zones against black gangstas, employing private and public security to challenge the young lads as soon as they cross boundaries.
Hispanics with ethnic cleansing and honor killings. Mess with a hispanic lady in a store, a hoodie gangsta just might get his guts stabbed enough to put him on a colostomy bag the rest of his life. Blacks are being routed out of majority hispanic neighborhoods and schools. After years of predating on Hispanics, the worm has turned. It's bad for gangstas in prison too. They no longer run them. The Mexican mafia does, with help from Asians and whites.

Pogo said...

You can't slit the throat of everyone whose character it would improve.

What a great line.

Pogo said...

As if it was any of your fucking business if they did or not.

It is my business.
Mankind is my business.
I am my brother's keeper.

Revenant said...

It is my business. Mankind is my business. I am my brother's keeper.

Which is why, as I noted above, you don't qualify as someone who believes in liberty or freedom of choice. Pets, children, and domestic animals are "kept". Free men and women are not.

Pogo said...

Free men and women are not.

Thats not what 'keeper' means here.
it means I have responsibility for others, not that I own them.

Pogo said...

support for criminal penalties for the "wrong" clothing

The Flint police chief recognizes the town is being overrun by barbarians and is using what remains of their tattered laws to try to hold back the tide. He may lose, but he must think civilization is worth a shot.

"The crime, he says, is disorderly conduct or indecent exposure"
Your choice, in liberty, is not to live in Flint because you want to be able to walk with your ass hanging out.

That's federalism, just like conservatives like it. (Consistency is for small minds, as you well know.) I doubt the Founders would have thought much of your requirements for 'liberty'; at least, it's not how they lived or voted.

Revenant said...

Thats not what 'keeper' means here. It means I have responsibility for others, not that I own them.

In the sense you are using it, it means that you believe you have the right to decide how other people live their lives. You treat them as your property.

Here is your argument: we must assign criminal penalties to the clothing people wear, because if we do not then they may be more likely to become "sluts", which is a fate you consider it your duty to prevent. You consider this consistent with support for liberty and free will, which is obviously ridiculous; if "you have the right to choose to act the way I want you to" is "freedom of choice" then the Saudis allow it too.

You cannot spin this as merely watching out for their well-being, since you are using the violent power of the state to force them into compliance with your will. You have arrogated to yourself the power to force, at gunpoint, moral behavior, even when the "immoral" behavior harms neither you nor anyone else. While that is indeed a famously conservative viewpoint, it is one diametrically opposed to the ideas of liberty and freedom of choice. For pity's sake, even Jesus gave people the option of choosing to sin without fear of Earthly punishment. So what's your basis for thinking you've got more right to coerce people than God thinks He does?

He may lose, but he must think civilization is worth a shot.

What he thinks is that voters don't re-elect a failure. Since he's hopeless at dealing with real crime, he'll focus on the unimportant crime instead and hope the real crime gets better on its own. If it does, he takes credit, and if it doesn't then at least he can throw a few scary looking black kids in jail for the 6 o'clock news. Politicians have been pulling the exact same stunt for thousands of years. That's why I can't sip a beer on the beach without getting a ticket, but anyone who wants to break into my car is free to do so without any fear of being arrested for it.

Your choice, in liberty, is not to live in Flint because you want to be able to walk with your ass hanging out.

So you don't have a problem with Saudi Arabia either, then. After all, they're free to leave too. If you want to be able to read a Bible without being thrown in prison then don't live in Saudi Arabia; problem solved.

What an interesting definition of "freedom of choice" -- the freedom to wander the Earth in search of a place that won't throw you in jail for the choices you make.

Pogo said...

it means that you believe you have the right to decide how other people live their lives.

Not really, no.
It means I have an obligation to other people, which includes helping to create and maintain -at a minimum- an orderly and safe society.

Any society will have laws that dictate what others can and cannot do. That does not mean they lack liberty, and does not mean they share the barbarism of the ME.

Purpleslog said...

This post should rack up the search engine hits!

Craig Landon said...

Just because someone else is impossibly rude doesn't mean I have to be rude as well.

I'm glad Churchill didn't feel that way.

Ralph said...

I'm pretty sure Dicks doesn't care about male fashion, he just wants an excuse to pat down young guys...to check for weapons and drugs.

Disciple of Swearengen said...

"What he thinks is that voters don't re-elect a failure."

I'm pretty sure that no cities with more than 20,000 people "elect" their police chiefs. They are usually appointed/promoted by a combination of a police commissioner and/or mayor and city council. So I'm pretty sure elections have nothing to do with this. If I had to guess I would bet it has a lot to do with his son being murdered by a thug on the day he was sworn in as chief (a little over a month ago).
http://www.mlive.com/flintjournal/index.ssf/2008/06/new_flint_police_chief_david_d.html

This is probably his way of exacting a little personal vengeance on the thug "lifestyle" responsible for his son's death and I say more power to him.

Fen said...

If some thug tried to impress my daughter with gutter talk, I suspect she'd roll her eyes and walk away.

And then get gangraped for "disrespecting" them. No worries, I'm sure there will be a flock of MadisonMans standing around staring down at their shoelaces. Maybe one will be brave enough to dial 911 before she hemorrhages to death.

Cedarford: The reaction they seek is fear and intimidation in strangers, by fashion and menacing facial and body language. And for the ones that are just posers, rather than legitimate street thugs, it apparantly encourages aggressive and unlawful behavior thinking - they can get away with it.

Cut in line - then threaten, brace, or assault any who object - and the odds are if most people are Madison Man-types, you can get away with that behavior. And better intimidate people next time.

Back in 2004, a Chicago friend of mine was knifed & beaten pretty badly when the thugs in hoodies went after him and his teenage son for "disrespecting them" by asking them to be considerate and not just toss several bags of fast food garbage on the street outside a Mall.

His son got a mild concussion, he got bruised up good and he got a few knife wounds to his hands and forearms from some "barely teen thug" who pulled a knife. Guns were flashed and the hoodie thugs took off.

My Chicago friend learned his lesson and will never again speak out "I endangered my son over Arbee's trash. Fuck Chicago. Fuck the trash in the streets. Fuck the little black animals."


Echo.

MadisonMan said...

fen, we live in two very different worlds. It's too bad you can't live in mine, where everyone is not trying to kill you.

Fen said...

Madisonman: fen, we live in two very different worlds.

Yes, blacks make up a mere 6% of the population in your world...

And I come from the Marine Corps world, where refusal to challenge misbehavior makes you just as guilty as the offending perp.

It's too bad you can't live in mine, where everyone is not trying to kill you.

Again with the Strawman. I never said anything close to "where everyone is trying to kill me". Very disappointing. We've disagreed over alot of things in the past few years, but this is the first time you've been intellectually dishonest.

MadisonMan said...

but this is the first time you've been intellectually dishonest.

You're not paying attention!

MadisonMan said...

..and I should add: Society does not work as it does in the military. Whether or not that's a good thing is left to the judgement of the reader.

Revenant said...

Not really, no.

You want girls thrown in prison so they don't turn into "sluts". If you aren't honest enough to admit that amounts to "deciding how other people will live their lives" then you're not worth my time.

Revenant said...

I'm pretty sure that no cities with more than 20,000 people "elect" their police chiefs. They are usually appointed/promoted by a combination of a police commissioner and/or mayor and city council. So I'm pretty sure elections have nothing to do with this.

The principle holds whether he's appointed or elected, since the people who appoint him ARE elected. The point is, if he wants to keep his job he needs to put on a show.

If I had to guess I would bet it has a lot to do with his son being murdered by a thug on the day he was sworn in as chief

Collective punishment of innocent minorities for the actions of a few also has a long and storied history in small-town law enforcement.

Revenant said...

Yes, blacks make up a mere 6% of the population in your world...

I grew up in a southern city with a majority-black population and a high rate of violent crime. Your description of interactions with black teenagers bears no apparent relationship to reality.

Your Marine background isn't relevant either. Civil society doesn't run like the Marines, thankfully.

Ryan said...

Just for info, sagging pants don't come from prison. They come from poverty. Parents had to buy clothing several sizes too big to save money.

Fen said...

Your description of interactions with black teenagers bears no apparent relationship to reality.

Black males, not all teenagers. And my description of interactions with them is based on personal experience, much like Cedarford's. But thanks for telling me I just imagined all of it. That's rich.

Civil society doesn't run like the Marines, thankfully.

The only major difference I've noticed is that in "civil" society, people don't want to get involved, they'd rather appease the perps and stare down at their shoelaces, with the hope that it happens to someone else. You seem to think thats a good thing.

amba said...

Maybe Dicks should change his name.

amba said...

kimsch said...

What happens when one of these people is trying to flee say, a fire, and the pants fall down to the ankles, tripping the person up, and perhaps causing grievous injury? Do they sue the clothing manufacturers?


No, they get a Darwin Award.

amba said...

-- a Darwin Award.

amba said...

Eloquent, Pogo.

UWS guy said...

All these fellas (ricpic/fen/pogo) penning revenge porn featuring traumatised white children and white women verbally assaulted at gas stations. It would be frightful if not for your impotence. Getting in the mood for a good ol' fashioned lynching?


Hey UWS, you surely know that the overwhelming majority of victims of urban thugs are black.

amba said...

The funny thing is, saggy pants ARE a uniform.

Teen-agers are ardent conformists and tribal throwbacks. They want to Belong. Basically, they will imitate whomever they admire. Joining the military was once a way of imitating whom you admire, and still is in some circles.

"Imitate whom they admire": imitate whoever is perceived as having power and glamour. If the good and order and protection lose their power and glamour -- one of the most laborious and important and precarious achievements of civilization -- then teen-agers will revert to a state of nature and admire the biggest and the baddest, with the most stuff and the most females.

Bohemianism, ├ępater le bourgeois, and the bourgeois' desperate attempt to evade ├ępater-ing by becoming hipper and badder than thou, was the beginning of the end -- bound eventually to trickle down to suburban twelve-year-olds.

Disciple of Swearengen said...

Me: If I had to guess I would bet it has a lot to do with his son being murdered by a thug on the day he was sworn in as chief

Revenant: Collective punishment of innocent minorities for the actions of a few also has a long and storied history in small-town law enforcement.

Me: No where in my post did I mention minorities (or that any one belonging to a minority group was responsible for murdering the chief's son). Nor did I advocate that the policy was or should have been created to discriminate against minorities (it likely wasn't given the fact that the police chief is in fact black - but I guess he is just an "Uncle Tom" beholden to the white men who are forcing him to discriminate against his own race so they can get re-elected right?).

In my post I actually mentioned that it was directed towards "Thugs" probably because a thug murdered the chief's son a month ago. You were the one that assumed both that the murdering thug was a minority ("the few") whose actions are now leading to the "[c]ollective punishment of innocent minorities."

On to whether or not this policy is "collective punishment of innocent minorities." From a legal perspective, I submit, it is not. I would first like to point out that there is no outward discrimination on the face of the policy. It is not policy to arrest all BLACK PEOPLE who "sag." It is to arrest all PEOPLE who sag. The policy, therefore, discriminates against a non-suspect class of people, those who wear their pants to expose their asses. The government only needs a rational basis for enacting such a policy (any conceivable basis will do - indecent exposure, reducing crime, wearing pants that low causes people to trip and injure themselves, etc.) Since the policy is not facially discriminatory against a suspect class (race, national origin) the only way to invalidate the policy is to show that there is a discriminatory effect on a suspect class in the application of the policy AND whether this discriminatory effect is the INTENT of the policy. There may be discriminatory effect (i.e. it affects more minorities than whites), however you have not presented any evidence to this effect - only sweeping generalizations about the likelihood of individuals to dress a certain way based solely on their race (and you deign to imply that I am the racist one). Now assuming there is a discriminatory effect is there discriminatory INTENT? Again, you have presented no evidence to this effect (and I'm sorry but alluding to the "long and storied history [of] small-town law enforcement" is not evidence unless those involved in crafting the no-sagging policy have a history of racial discrimination). In fact, given that the person who is claiming responsibility for creating the policy is himself a minority, it is likely that he is not INTENDING to discriminate against his own race (you, however seem to prefer the Uncle Tom theory).

You may have moral qualms that intent is required to invalidate a law when there is a discriminatory effect (and that viewpoint does have merit), however the way courts currently interpret the Constitution, an intent to discriminate is required before a law is invalidated (the legal definition of "collective punishment of innocent minorities"). If your goal is to invalidate the policy a better argument would invoke the speech protections of the First Amendment, but since this discussion board is focusing on the racial aspects of the law I won't present them here.

Freder Frederson said...

It is to arrest all PEOPLE who sag.

When the plumbers of Flint start complaining they are being harassed by the police as they go about their business, then I will believe this policy is not racially motivated and being selectively enforced.

Revenant said...

Black males, not all teenagers. And my description of interactions with them is based on personal experience, much like Cedarford's.

You got gang raped after being mouthy to a black guy? How many times? And do you really want to be comparing your personal experience to a guy whose "personal experience" has convinced him that the world is run for the benefit of nefarious and evil Communist Jews?

But thanks for telling me I just imagined all of it. That's rich.

Your problem is that you think nobody's life experiences count except your own. I've known alcoholic wife-beating Marines, too. I guess that makes it fair for me to say that Marines are a pack of dishonorable wife-beating drunks who can't be trusted around decent people.

The only major difference I've noticed is that in "civil" society, people don't want to get involved

Marines don't choose to get involved. Marines are ordered to get involved. It is laughable to pat yourself on the back for following orders when the alternative is to be brought up on charges.

Civilians have to choose who is worthy of help and how to help them. They have to figure out what the morally and ethically right thing is to do. Marines don't. The right thing to do is what "whatever I've been told to do", unless what they've been told to do is so grossly immoral that they can risk disobeying the order. If there's a natural disaster and people are in desperate need of food and supplies, the Marines can be a great assistance... if order to be. If not ordered to be, they don't do shit to help. Civilians help not because they are paid and obligated to do so, but because doing so is, morally and ethically, the right thing to do.

Revenant said...

Hey UWS, you surely know that the overwhelming majority of victims of urban thugs are black.

Yet for some mysterious reason the majority of people calling for folks in "sagging" pants to be jailed are white. Curious.

Revenant said...

In my post I actually mentioned that it was directed towards "Thugs" probably because a thug murdered the chief's son a month ago.

Oh, please. You and I both know that the sagging-trousers fad overwhelmingly consists of black men. White, Asian, and Latino thugs do not, for the most part, wear sagging pants.

And by the way -- you do realize that Dicks claims this is all about morality and indecent exposure, right? If it is really about cracking down on "thugs" then Dicks is lying.

I would first like to point out that there is no outward discrimination on the face of the policy.

That's neither intellectually honest nor legally accurate. Singling out a specific form of dress for punishment, when that form of dress is overwhelmingly worn by members of a specific racial, religious, or ethnic group, is generally suspect unless it serves a neutral purpose (which this does not, since the overwhelming majority of "saggers" aren't thugs and the overwhelming majority of thugs don't wear sagging pants). Furthermore, the stated purpose of the policy has nothing to do with cracking down on thugs at all, and is exclusively about "morality" and "indecent exposure" -- yet, strangely, fashions popular with the white majority go unpunished despite showing a lot more skin. That's further cause for suspicion as to motive.

The government only needs a rational basis for enacting such a policy (any conceivable basis will do - indecent exposure, reducing crime, wearing pants that low causes people to trip and injure themselves, etc.)

The third option might, conceivably, count as a rational basis. The first two clearly don't, for the reasons stated above. But the final reason isn't the stated purpose of the law, so I doubt the courts would consider it as the basis for the law.

an intent to discriminate is required before a law is invalidated

Given that the outfit in question doesn't "indecently expose" more than most ordinary fashions, that it is overwhelmingly worn by members of a minority group, and that has no causal link to crime, demonstrating intent to discriminate shouldn't be hard. Discrimination is, after all, the only actual effect of the law.

Al Swearengen said...

The one thing I will not countenance is whores whose tits sag. No gravity is no friend to the whore so if a lift is needed I expect her to sport the appropriate attire.

Al Swearengen said...

Bye the bye, you can festoon the widow in fine silks and powders all you may choose, but she is still a whore.

You can smell it on her like bad peaches left in the sun.

Fen said...

Rev: Your problem is that you think nobody's life experiences count except your own.

Uh Rev, you're the only one here who's saying someone elses life experiences don't count. And I've never implied your experiences are invalid simply because they don't dovetail with mine.

Has someone hijacked your account? This is not the Rev I thought I knew.


Marines don't choose to get involved. Marines are ordered to get involved. It is laughable to pat yourself on the back for following orders when the alternative is to be brought up on charges.

No one ordered me to go to Somolia to save them from starvation. I volunteered to switch from the S-3 to a line company so I could go. Where did you get the impression that Marines are autobots that only step up when ordered to?

Besides, you're missing my point:

"The only major difference I've noticed is that in civil society, people don't want to get involved - "

Take MadisonMan as an example. In my hypothetical, he sees no need to correct the thug who's cursing in front of kids. Marine Corps "society" would judge him just as guilty as the perp, simply for looking the other way.

When did conservatism begin to stand for such appeasement? Why do you so oppose the idea of a few sheepdogs stepping up to face down a bully?

WTH has happened to you?

Revenant said...

Uh Rev, you're the only one here who's saying someone elses life experiences don't count.

Fen, you claimed that a white woman who rolled her eyes at a black man in response to gutter talk would get gang-raped. The reason I "don't count" your "life experience" with this is that I am, to put it mildly, doubtful that your life experience actually supports that prediction. More importantly, even if by some fluke your life HAS been filled with events that lead you to believe that rape is the likely result of ignoring a mouthy black guy, all that means is that your life is very far outside the norm. Most black men are law-abiding. Most people with saggy pants are not criminals. Most criminals don't wear saggy pants. Most people in inappropriate t-shirts, and most people using profanity in front of children, are not dangerous rapists (or "thugs" of any kind). These are all facts. If your personal life experience has been otherwise then your personal life experience is extremely unusual, and thus not something a normal person should use to determine his best course of action.

No one ordered me to go to Somolia to save them from starvation. I volunteered to switch from the S-3 to a line company so I could go.

That speaks well for you as a person, but it has nothing to do with your being a Marine; volunteering is, after all, optional. The Marine Corps sending troops to Somalia was not optional. Marines WERE going to Somalia, like it or no. Civilian philanthropy is entirely voluntary -- and, for that matter, not usually something the civilian can draw a salary for doing.

Take MadisonMan as an example. In my hypothetical, he sees no need to correct the thug who's cursing in front of kids.

First of all the example was a person wearing a profane t-shirt, not a person swearing in front of kids. Secondly, the person in the hypothetical wasn't a "thug", just a guy in an inappropriate shirt.

Consider that a person wearing a "Fist the Bitch" t-shirt either (a) doesn't think it is appropriate, in which case an angry white man getting up in his face about it isn't going to change his mind or (b) knows it is inappropriate and is wearing it to get a rise out of people, in which case an angry white man getting up in his face about it is exactly what he wants. Ignoring him is an entirely appropriate response, even if yelling would be more emotionally satisfying. Avoiding pointless confrontation is not the same thing as not wanting to get involved. Shunning and avoidance are widely-practiced and traditional means for dealing with people who behave badly.

When did conservatism begin to stand for such appeasement?

Appeasement is giving the person what he wants. I don't see how ignoring a guy who is acting like an ass is "appeasement". It is unlikely he views being ignored as a reward for his behavior.

Why do you so oppose the idea of a few sheepdogs stepping up to face down a bully? WTH has happened to you?

First of all, I'm a libertarian, not a conservative -- and anything but a social conservative. I regularly get confrontational when the local conservatives start talking about legislating moral behavior.

Secondly, I have not criticized you for wanting to be confrontational with people who behave badly. I have criticized you for your contempt for people who *aren't* confrontational, and for your attempt to apply this label (and the accompanying contempt) to the 300 million American civilians.

I have also criticized those peoople, like Dicks and Pogo, who feel the State has the right and the duty to use criminal penalties -- backed by the full force and violence of the government -- to enforce standards of "decency". That is exactly the kind of government nonsense that any libertarian loathes: the sacrifice of freedom and individual responsibility for conformity enforced at gunpoint.

Disciple of Swearengen said...

Sorry in advance for another lengthy post.


Rev: Oh, please. You and I both know that the sagging-trousers fad overwhelmingly consists of black men. White, Asian, and Latino thugs do not, for the most part, wear sagging pants.

Me: Where you are from that might be the case. I'm originally from the Midwest. In the small town I lived in, there were plenty of people sagging and they were all white. There were very few African American families in my town but I remember clearly that none of my African American classmates ever sagged (I'm not contending that your statement is incorrect I'm just making a point that there are plenty of people out there who are sagging regardless of their race). I now live in Los Angeles where the "sagging trousers fad" overwhelmingly consists of Latinos.

Me: I would first like to point out that there is no outward discrimination on the face of the policy.

Rev: That's neither intellectually honest nor legally accurate. Singling out a specific form of dress for punishment, when that form of dress is overwhelmingly worn by members of a specific racial, religious, or ethnic group, is generally suspect unless it serves a neutral purpose (which this does not, since the overwhelming majority of "saggers" aren't thugs and the overwhelming majority of thugs don't wear sagging pants). Furthermore, the stated purpose of the policy has nothing to do with cracking down on thugs at all, and is exclusively about "morality" and "indecent exposure" -- yet, strangely, fashions popular with the white majority go unpunished despite showing a lot more skin. That's further cause for suspicion as to motive.

Me:

I assure you that it is both intellectually honest and legally accurate. Your statement may be true under 1st amendment grounds for challenging the statute since fashion is considered expression – under the 1st Amendment strict scrutiny would apply. If you will note at the end of my previous comment I stated that there is a much better argument for a free speech violation here. However when you say that a statute or policy in this case is "racist" you are talking about the 14th Amendment equal protection clause if it is a state or local government action (like in this case) or the 5th amendment equal protection clause if the law is enacted by the feds. As I stated above I presented the 14th amendment analysis (5th amendment analysis is exactly the same) because everyone is talking about race and not free speech. Here is the a condensed version with cites for anyone who is interested (there are brief descriptions of the cases on wikipedia as well for those who don't want to look at the actual cases): For a law to be facially discriminating against a suspect class the discriminatory intent must be explicitly written into the statute (e.g. "African Americans cannot buy homes in California" or the affirmative action policy of your choice). See Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U.S. 303 (1880). If the statute does facially discriminate against a SUSPECT CLASS (race or national origin only) then it is presumed invalid. (All cases applying strict scrutiny including Brown, Grutter, etc.) The government may overcome this presumption (as it has in many of the affirmative action cases) by showing that the law passes strict scrutiny (that the law serves a compelling governmental interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest). See Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003). However when the law does not speak to racial discrimination on its face (like the policy we are dealing with here) you move to the disparate impact analysis I presented. With the disparate impact analysis the government no longer bears the burden of proof; the party challenging the law must prove both that there is a disparate impact on a protected class (race or national origin) & discriminatory intent by the government. See Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp., 429 U.S. 252 (1977). By the way this same analysis applies to free exercise (religious) claims relating to generally applicable laws that also inhibit the free exercise of religion. See Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990).

This is still just a policy that facially targets the way someone dresses (a free speech issue not equal protection) and no evidence has come to light that those that created the policy intended to discriminate against any racial minority . Thus, so long as the government can show ANY rational basis INCLUDING bases that they did not, in fact, rely on when "selling the policy to the public" the law is good. See United States Railroad Retirement Bd. v. Fritz, 449 U.S. 166 (1980) (the law is good if there is any "reasonably conceivable state of facts that could provide a rational basis for the classification"); So all the government has to do is show a connection to wearing pants below the ass to any of its functions and the law can be upheld. This includes protecting its citizens from injury so even if keeping people from tripping down the street and injuring themselves or others is the only rational basis for the law (which it's not), its still good law under the 14th amendment.

Me: The government only needs a rational basis for enacting such a policy (any conceivable basis will do - indecent exposure, reducing crime, wearing pants that low causes people to trip and injure themselves, etc.)

Rev: The third option might, conceivably, count as a rational basis. The first two clearly don't, for the reasons stated above. But the final reason isn't the stated purpose of the law, so I doubt the courts would consider it as the basis for the law.

Me: FCC v. Beach Communications, Inc., 508 U.S. 307 (1993) ("It is entirely irrelevant for constitutional purposes whether the conceived reason for the challenged distinction actually motivated the legislature."). Check out any case applying the rational basis test. They all say that any conceivable basis will do regardless of the purposes stated by the government when they enact the law.

Me: A good rule of thumb when you want to determine whether or not a law is likely to be invalidated based on suspect class discrimination is this: If the policy regulates a group of people based on any personal characteristic they cannot change (e.g. race, national origin, gender) it will likely be invalidated. If that personal characteristic is race the law will almost never survive (exceptions: Korematsu and affirmative action). If it is gender the government must meet a heightened standard but can surpass it in some circumstances. Here the policy regulates the way people dress – this is not an unchangeable characteristic of any person so it will probably be ok under a race-based Equal Protection analysis (still not ok under the 1st amendment free speech analysis but we are talking race here).

Luckyeldson said...

Hey, Fen!  Boy, I wished my bro, the other Lucky was out of prison.  He's the only one who could outlast ol' Remnant here.  Hell, he outlasted you!  Drove you off like a coyote who finally figured out he's been tracking a skunk.

Some coyotes are real dumb, don't you know.

Anyways, how do you like all this high-falutin' legal talk?  It also sounds like you accused Remnant of being a conservative.  Where in the hell did you get that idea?  As he says, he's a dyed-in-the-wool-Althouse-crying LIBERTARIAN for chrissakes.

Plus, like a lot of libertarians, when he gets hold of an idea, no matter how dumb, or how many arguments he runs up against, he's no effing sheepdog.  He's a bulldog!  Clamps that sucker in his teeth and never lets go, no matter how tattered and ripped up it gets.

You know how those libertarians are.  Don't want anybody telling them what to do, specially in their personal life, which includes just about everything.

Reminds me of Cousin Bob.

Cousin Bob was a trucker, lived in Cabezon and kept his rig by the side of his house.  He used to make a lot of runs to the South, places like Nashville, Little Rock, and even all the way to Charlestown.  Anyways, he fell in with some bad company in Arkansas.  He used to want to make sure he made a run to Little Rock at certain times, so's he wouldn't miss a meeting where they all dressed up in sheets and burnt crosses, etc.

Well, one time, he was running behind schedule, so he figured he could dress in his sheet at a rest stop, and just catch the meeting with his rig parked nearby, like other truckers did sometimes.  Anyways, he puts his sheet on, gets out on the Interstate, and who should show up, blue lights and all, but Smokey.

Trooper says to him, "Where in the hell you going with that outfit on?"
Cousin Bob says, "What outfit?  I can wear any clothes I want!  It's a free country!"
Trooper says, "No it isn't when you're dressed in that getup.  We got laws against the Klan in this state!"
Cousin Bob says, "Klan!  No way!  May air conditioner gave out, and I'm just doing like those A-rabs to keep cool!"
Trooper says, "You're under arrest!"

Bob got 30 days, lost his rig and his license.  Last I heard, he was dealing blackjack at an Indian casino in the desert.

I guess the moral of the story is, by Remnant's way of thinking (I'm not leaning on that one too heavy), is that it's OK to wear gangsta clothes OR bedsheets anywhere anytime.  No biggie.  (Hint: Don't do both at the same time.)

AND if you do wear a bedsheet, make sure you can hike that sucker up real fast, 'cause you're going to have to do some quick running.  At least that's the way it would turn out in Remnant's free country.  I guess the police couldn't do anything about the way you're dressed in Remnant's free country until the gangstas actually caught up with you.

Now I'm looking to find a good laundry website, 'cause I'm wondering, what do you use to get blood stains off bedsheets?

Dr Dre's Underpants said...

Yo, Pogo. I coming for you bitch.