Following up at Booker Rising, I noticed the following:
An Atlanta lawmaker and civil libertarians debate a proposal to police pants. The trend of wearing baggy, drooping pants that ride around the thighs - the better to show off a young man’s taste in boxer shorts - is the target of Atlanta City Councilman C.T. Martin. “I don’t think women should have to see that. I don’t think young girls should have to see that. I don’t think children should have to see that,” said Mr. Martin during an interview on the "Today" show.
Inspired by his constituents - particularly teachers - who are tired of looking at other people’s underwear, Mr. Martin has introduced legislation in Atlanta that would outlaw clothing that shows off underwear, be it boxers, thongs, sports bras or even bra straps. Two cities in Louisiana have similar laws providing for fines up to $500 and up to six months in jail, although no one has yet been charged under the laws. “I’m a firm believer in the First Amendment,” said Mr. Martin. “It’s not about putting anyone in jail. It’s about trying to get some educational discussion about the future for young people.”
It's not racial profiling any more than it is racial fashion. Which is to say it's an ambiguity that is entirely subjective. Fortunately, it's a dumb idea. It's just as dumb to defend the wearing of prison clothing as fashion as it is to attempt to criminalize it. I take the trend as yet another example of the failure of multiculturalism and another vote of no confidence in the upper classes of America.
Once upon a time, I lamented in a poem about police. Speaking derisively against middle class morality I wrote that certain poeple always said "There oughta be a law" and half of the time they got one, we're all the worse for it, because every law needs police, and there are already too many things police are doing for us that we ought to feel confident doing for ourselves. While I'm not one of those who complain against the 'prison industrial complex', I certainly recognize overproductions of law and order through the Justice system. But the alternative is exactly what multiculturalists most hate, which is cultural hegemony. Remembering my quote of last week, PC is the mincing language of those who desire physical proximity but not spiritual communion or philosophical synergy. In the wake of Robert Putnam's report on diversity, all is consistent. When people mix but don't assimilate, when you give everybody social license, when the demand is not for Culture but for multicultural eclexia, we must over-rely on laws and police. We must take it all to court, because we refuse to accept being judgmental.
"Who am I to judge?" is the appropriate response to baggy pants fashion only if you have no opinion. Yet I find it difficult to believe that people have no opinion about the appropriateness of wearing droopy pants in order to show off one's drawers. It seems to be one of those things that people either love or hate but cannot ignore. My judgment is that it is simply foolish and a bit degenerate. I've never worn the fashion and since I'm clear about the prison and gang associations, I don't approve. I would also tend to dislike and distrust anyone who did wear that fashion.
Without a strong national culture, we are doomed to PC and fashion police. But our strong national culture has been divided by the politics of war and the foolish overproductions of multiculturalism. it will take some time to mend all that. In the meantime, people are questioning whether or not anything is real, and that is the sad state of much of America today. People are asking if Conservatism is a cult. People are looking towards environmentalism as a religion. From the perspective of many Americans, our national culture doesn't mean beans, and so the thuggish bohemianism of gangsta droopy pants is yet another foolish excrescence accepted into popular culture. All that foolishness should not be against the law. You can legally enforce good taste and good sense. The moment you attempt to, it becomes a contest of witlessness. It's just so sad that so many people are caught up in that nonsense.
I think Fred Thompson understands this. This week he said the following:
"I simply believe that on the present course that we're going to be a weaker, less prosperous, more divided nation than what we have been," Thompson told the crowd in a deep baritone that rarely strayed from an even tone. "I do not say that lightly, but I think it's the truth. And I think the American people are ready for the truth."
There are three major challenges, Thompson said, and none are being given appropriate attention or sufficient commitment. National security ("our country's in danger; it's going to be that way for a long time to come"), the economy ("we are doing steady damage to our economy, that if we don't do things better its going to result in economic disaster for future generations") and the polarization, cynicism and incompetence gripping the capital ("in order to have leadership you got to have somebody who's going to follow; our people follow, but they don't have any confidence in what's being said or who's saying it").
Many conservatives see civil libertarians as corrosive of society. I understand that sentiment. To what degree is an open question. Fred's priorities are correct. So how tightly woven is the third priority to the first two? That is the same degree to which exclexia poisons the strength of the nation.
Recent Comments