Friday, August 24, 2007

ACLU Caught Discriminating Against the Black Culture?

Boxer shorts, thongs, sagging pants, no underwear and no panty lines . . .

Yesterday, Atlanta city councilman C.T. Martin, who happens to be black, proposed an amendment to Atlanta’s indecency laws that would ban baggy pants that show boxer shorts or thongs. C.T. Martin, stated that sagging pants are an "epidemic" that is becoming a "major concern" around the country.

The proposed ordinance states that "the indecent exposure of his or her undergarments" would be unlawful in a public place. It would go in the same portion of the city code that outlaws sex in public and the exposure or fondling of genitals.

Naturally, the always vigilant race baiting specialists, the ACLU, jumped in to the issue. Debbie Seagraves, the white executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Georgia, stated that the proposed ordinance would also bar women from showing the strap of a thong beneath their pants. They would also be prohibited from wearing jogging bras in public or show a bra strap.

Seagraves also said that the law could not be enforced because such a law would very likely be applied in a racially discriminatory manner, and the implication is that it could not be applied without discrimination because it targets something that came out of the black youth culture.

Hmmmmm??? Do we have a Gotcha???

Using the ACLU’s logic we could also assume that noise ordinances could never be enforced when music gets too loud because much of American music: Gospel, jazz, Blues, rock, hip-hop, etc. “came out of the black youth culture.” The ACLU places no time-limits on when any fad was actually developed or if it is still a culturally-based fad.

We know that low-riding pants have crossed into the youth of all races. And so has our American music no matter where it originally came from. But it would appear that the ACLU really wants to keep the black culture separate from the larger America pop culture. Sounds like discrimination by the white controlled ACLU to me. But until this issue is resolved, music lovers of Atlanta, blast away!!!

Apparently I’m not the only one to make the music connection or to see that the ACLU is actively using racial profiling to achieve its ends:

Classic Values wrote:

. . .I've seen plenty of white men and women wearing these stupid clothes. What does it mean to say that something "came out of the black culture?" That's awfully broad, and I think a number of assumptions are involved. Rock and roll came out of the black culture, so did disco, so did hip-hop, and so did rap. If loud music were prohibited after certain hours, and it could be shown that most loud music was one of these forms, would that constitute discrimination against something that "came out of the black culture"? Is Seagraves arguing that black people invented baggy pants, boxer shorts or bras? Or merely that they decided to wear them in certain ways? I'm old enough to remember when miniskirts first horrified the nation, but would it in any way be relevant to claim that they came out of "white culture" because they first appeared in England? . . .

MORE: In a more recent post,
Jeff Goldstein explains why a white leftist like Debbie Seagraves does in fact have the unique right to castigate blacks with whom she disagrees . . .

C.T. Martin has the best of intentions but he’s got it all wrong. It isn’t really just about indecency.

It’s about the public health!

Last year while having breakfast in a local IHOP, we couldn’t help but notice that the white bus-boy was wearing his pants down to his thighs. His boxers were completely exposed as he brushed up against the tables to “clean” them! I was about to go to the manager to complain, but as luck would have it, the boy never returned into the dining area. If I had complained, would that have been racist???

Wait, don’t be so quick to say “No”. Let’s use the ACLU’s twisted logic

How did I know that the boy was white? We can‘t just go by appearances. He could have been racially mixed. Not only that, but he was wearing his pants in a way that showed solidarity with the black youth culture. So If I had complained that complaint could be assumed to be racist.

Underwear is meant to be worn under outer clothing. It serves to protect the outer garment from the traces of bodily fluid and excrement that would-be Hollywood types like to spread around. Guys and Gals, think about that the next time you try on or borrow jeans. When underwear becomes outerwear it is not only visually offensive, it exposes you and me to possible diseases.

In Great Britain last year they ran these public service ads:

The campaign features teenagers wearing underwear with the slogans: "I've got gonorrhea" and "I'll give you one". The TV ad, which will appear from 20 November, shows couples with the name of an STI displayed on clothes or jewellery. It aims to show that in real life such infections are not so easy to spot.

Isn’t it high-time for a panty lines fad? Perhaps someone will start a Panty Lines blog or blogroll?

Best one-liner
Its-jim wrote:

"It may be the only fad ever to have started in nursing homes and spread to the Y Generation!"









Related tags: georgia, news, politics, democrat, liberal, 1st amendment music, culture, racism, london, booty, panties, thong, butt, breasts, string, lingerie, panties, fashion, bra, men's underwear, men,

Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, http://morewhat.com/wordpress/?p=2265, Perri Nelson's Website, Rosemary's Thoughts, third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, DeMediacratic Nation, Adam's Blog, The Uncooperative Radio Show!, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, Webloggin, The Bullwinkle Blog, CommonSenseAmerica, and Church and State, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

2 comments:

  1. I hate seeing kids/people dress so inappropriately. But I hesitate to want another law against something. Schools should have dress codes, businesses should have dress codes, even families should have dress codes. But do we want the government making laws on what we wear?

    Nice article.

    ReplyDelete
  2. consider the intent implicit in guys wearing their slacks below their genitals - the intent of this "style" (which severely offends the most enduring elements of African-American culture - that which produced so many eminent contributors to greater American culture) is for adolescent males to ostentatiously present in public their sexual readiness. It is to advertise to all fertile girls and women around them - including and especially in the school room - that they will not hide the physical arousal of their sexual organs, and that all around them should take note, any desire on the part of others that young men maintain privacy respecting their aroused privates, or general desire for civility in relegating one's gross, impersonal, erotic needs to a private domain apart from everyday encounter in the general society be damned. These low-wearers have no appreciation for any of the latter. What is uppermost in their minds is - their erect members and their desire that everyone around, especially girls and young women should become aware of the same - or of the imminent possibility that the same may pop up in the vicinity of said females. As for treating males and females 'equally' - consider how likely women are to lower their clothing to the point that their erect clitori continually threaten public exposure - the absurdity of this exemplifies the stupidity with which the ACLU carries its legalistic formalism, as a weapon of infantile protest against reasonable social mores. The ACLU cannot understand the destructiveness of this incivility - for American public schools or for the larger society. The ACLU has become a childish vehicle for self-styled champions of uninhibited freedom including the uninhibited sexual freedom of children. They do some good work besides, but there are better civil liberties associations, such as People for the American Way, which have priorities more meaningful for a mature politics and are not imprisoned in an overgrown litigiousness over adolescent protest against the kind of self-restraint which is required for civil society, including for the college and law school education of the self-important ACLU warriors against any social rules that may suggest that becoming an adult may require some restraint on the behavior of the young.

    ReplyDelete