Frivolous Measures

Here's an example of busybody lawmakers instituting a ridiculous law that cannot/will not be evenly enforced nor will it remedy the supposed reason for the law.

"Be careful if you have saggy pants in the south Chicago suburb of Lynwood. Village leaders have passed an ordinance that would levy $25 fines against anyone showing three inches or more of their underwear in public.

Eugene Williams is the mayor of Lynwood. He says young men walk around town half-dressed, keeping major retailers and economic development away. He calls the new law a hot topic."

Will the people that refuse to pay the fines be prosecuted? Will they have a bench warrant issued if they don't pay the fine by a specified date? Can the accused contest the fine in court like a traffic/parking ticket? So now a portion of the suburb's tax revenue will be diverted from real crimes to address this non-crime in both enforcement and the courts.

Why did the Village leaders stop there? Why don't they levy fines for wearing ball caps askew, wearing 'do-rags, or people weighing over 200 lbs wearing spandex in public too? Do they really think this will help to solve Lynwood's developmental problems?

While I am no fan of the saggy pants and showing one's underwear look, I think that making it 'illegal' is ridiculous and is not a viable solution to the supposed problem. It's a lawsuit waiting to happen...and of course the ACLU already appears to be willing to take on this fight.

"The American Civil Liberties Union says the ordinance targets young men of color."

Here's my question: Is it "the look" that is now illegal or is it only illegal if it is in fact, the person's underwear that is showing? I ask, because if it is the latter case, it is only a matter of time before an astute entrepreneur (like me) begins making and selling saggy pants with the underwear fabric stitched in to achieve the saggy look while still remaining legal.

The punch-line in this article is in the last two sentences:

"Young adults in the village, like 21-year-old Joe Klomes, say the new law infringes on their personal style. He says leaders should instead spend money on making the area look nicer."

Mr. Klomes thinks that rather than taking the initiative and dressing like an adult (which would help improve the image of the area), the local government should spend money to make "the area look nicer." Well, isn't that special? Not only does Mr. Klomes not see the irony of his statement, but he feels it is not his responsibility to help his neighborhood look nice" instead, it's the government's burden. And Mr. Klomes, I'm sorry it infringes on your personal style, much like the IRS (or Social Security, or speed limits, or 4-way stops) infringes on my personal style, but it is after all, the law no matter how frivolous or stupid.

Who wants to bet that Mr. Klomes is a Obama supporter?

 

Full text of the article:

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080720/D921IS1G0.html It's the law: No sagging pants in Chicago suburb LYNWOOD, Ill. (AP) - Be careful if you have saggy pants in the south Chicago suburb of Lynwood. Village leaders have passed an ordinance that would levy $25 fines against anyone showing three inches or more of their underwear in public. Eugene Williams is the mayor of Lynwood. He says young men walk around town half-dressed, keeping major retailers and economic development away. He calls the new law a hot topic. The American Civil Liberties Union says the ordinance targets young men of color. Young adults in the village, like 21-year-old Joe Klomes, say the new law infringes on their personal style. He says leaders should instead spend money on making the area look nicer.