The dawn of a new age of blogging

Alright it's the first post here so let's get this party started off right... I don't know what song that was (or any other words) but I'm pretty sure it was pretty lame either way. In any case, first post, start off strong with nice grammar and capitalization and all that good stuff that I'm sure I'll slip out of within a couple of weeks. In any case, prepare for all your blogging preconceptions to be shattered (unless your preconception was that this blog will be comprised of 100% pure awesome, in which case you would be correct. no blog from concentrate.) and for your mind to be boggled by the unique yet poignant observations made in this blog. This blog will be everything you dreamed of - and more! Just give it time, I have to wait until some weekday afternoon when I'm really bored to make it look cool and the such.

On to the writing! While the event I'll tell you about in a second hasn't really broken the municipal threshold yet, the arguments that surround it have and for all the accusations being made this could make it all the way to the Supreme Court.

The article this post is loosely based off appeared in the Op-Ed section of the LAT, under the title of "Thong politics" (yeah, now you're excited) and was written by Jill Fields, though some of the big questions posed were asked by her. If you want to read it, here's a link to the article http://tinyurl.com/3bz98d. I don't remember exactly how long that link holds up but I'm pretty sure it lasts for over a month, so hopefully that's sufficient. Anyway, here is the gist of the event: recently some Louisiana towns have passed laws that prohibit the showing of any undergarments in public, and similar measures are being considered in Georgia, New Jersey, and Connecticut. That's right ladies and gentlemen, it's NOT just the South, so it can't be THAT crazy of an idea. Essentially the law is meant to stop the sometimes extreme sagging of pants that has become seemingly commonplace and the oh so popular "Hey everybody! I'm wearing a thong! Oh you don't believe me? Don't worry, as soon as my backside is to you the entire world will know because I'm an attention whore who needs the whole world to look at me!" look (yeah that's what that look is called. don't question) that my female counterparts seem to enjoy so much.

A lot of people are opposed to this law for a variety of reasons. The ACLU argues that this law is violating the 1st Amendment rights guaranteed to all Americans, many detractors in the South say that it is unfairly targeting the black youth of the area as they are the ones that primarily prescribe to the saggy pants fad, and other people think that enforcing a city-wide "dress code" is just absolutely preposterous. I tend to agree with all of these people, but I have a different question that I think is just a little bit more important. Do the city legislators in these respective cities honestly have nothing better to do than create a dress code for their youth? Especially in the South, shouldn't these people be figuring out how to keep these mostly black kids out of gangs and crime, the usual problem areas for this demographic, rather than dictating what kind of jeans they can wear? Maybe if they spent this time improving on their school system they wouldn't be ranked 55th out of 50 every year in education, though I'm not exactly standing on top of Mt. Olympus here writing from California. Furthermore, it needs to be determined exactly how far these people plan on taking this. What they are doing with this law is widening the boundaries of what can be classified as "indecent exposure," but the line is much more fuzzy than it was before. Really, what is more "indecent:" an 18 year old guy whose boxers you can see, or an 18 year old girl who is wearing a pink bra under a white shirt? Essentially you can see it just as well as if she hadn't been wearing a shirt at all, but due to the fact that she has that see-through white shirt on she can't be busted. And for that matter, would you have to classify a push-up bra or a visible panty line as being "indecent?" Because as of right now they aren't, and that seems mighty unfair to the guys.

Let's face it, kids don't want to do what their parents tell them. In fact, they want to do the exact opposite. And what better outlet is there to rebel than their clothing? It isn't the government's job to control the social outcomes that are based off our inherent rebellious nature. I really do hope that this gets challenged to the point where it makes it all the way to the Supreme Court, so it can be shot down once and for all as discriminatory against both young blacks and males (the young black males have it harsh) and as a violation of our civil liberties so that it can never come up again. Although really, who would be surprised to see it upheld 5-4 with the deciding vote being that of the Grim Reaper himself, Antonin Scalia? I know I wouldn't. Well I just wrote more than I ever expected to, so hats off to you if you actually read that whole thing.