{"id":26427,"date":"2015-09-16T18:45:37","date_gmt":"2015-09-16T22:45:37","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/sidebarforplaintiffs.naomifein.net\/?p=26427"},"modified":"2015-09-16T18:45:37","modified_gmt":"2015-09-16T22:45:37","slug":"a-new-law-because-god-would-not-go-around-with-pants-down","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/sidebarforplaintiffs.naomifein.net\/?p=26427","title":{"rendered":"A new law because…”God Would Not Go Around With Pants Down”"},"content":{"rendered":"

Yep. And of course this news comes via\u00a0Lowering the Bar:<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n

“God Would Not Go Around With Pants Down,” Says Councilman<\/strong><\/em><\/h3>\n
\n
\n

I’ve written about anti-saggy-pants legislation several times<\/a>, but this is an argument I’d never considered before.<\/em><\/p>\n

It was made in\u00a0Dadeville, Alabama<\/a>\u00a0(pop. 3,200 and falling), where the city council is about to regulate not only pants height but also inseam and hemline lengths, according to\u00a0this report<\/a>. The pants issue was first brought up on August 25 by council member Frank Goodman.\u00a0“The reason I brought this up,” he said, “is I think people deserve respect when they are in public. I think slacking [also known as “sagging”] is disrespectful.” He also seemed to be concerned that slackers might influence young children to slack likewise. “I think it gives our younger generation the wrong impression of what is cool,” he said.<\/em><\/p>\n

Yes\u2014it is for the older generation to determine what is “cool” and impose it on the young, by law if necessary. That is the way of things. And therefore let us have the city attorney draft an ordinance.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

Do click on the link if you want to read further. I must say, I am myself exhausted from reading all this remarkably…what to call it? Dumb stuff. Yes, dumb. My head is lowered, and going lower, my eyes are closing, fairly soon I will quack like a duck…<\/p>\n

In a moment, but first let’s look at what bravely stated gender equality sounds like in Dadeville. Just in case you fail to pick up the subtlety, I’ve unsubtly bolded it:<\/p>\n

There was\u00a0an objection, though, when the matter came up again last week. The objection, of course, was that the proposal did not go far enough. “My concern is, it should be for everybody,” said Stephanie Kelley, another council member. “I think for the girls,” she said, “with these shorts up so high looking like undergarments and dresses so short, I don’t want us to be showing favoritism.” (Ah\u2014for a second there it sounded like she didn’t approve of the clothing, but actually it’s about discrimination.)<\/strong> It’s not clear whether this change was made, based on the city attorney’s comments about his draft. “I hope to have it ready for the next meeting [on Sept. 22],” he said. But “[i]f the council wants me to write in something for the females\u2014it will take a little more creativity on my part.” Good luck with that.<\/em><\/p>\n

I’m thinking that when a city council has nothing meaningful to do about actual governance, maybe the City should get rid of the council?<\/p>\n

P.S. Doesn’t this one put itself into “the god problem” category? I mean, when god is invoked to promote a law regarding…oh, never mind.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Yep. And of course this news comes via\u00a0Lowering the Bar: “God Would Not Go Around With Pants Down,” Says Councilman I’ve written about anti-saggy-pants legislation several times, but this is an argument I’d never considered before. It was made in\u00a0Dadeville, … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[337],"tags":[9,672],"class_list":["post-26427","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-legal-news","tag-law-and-government-agencies","tag-the-god-problem-2"],"aioseo_notices":[],"aioseo_head":"\n\t\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\t