About Us

Name: Ed Lilly
Biography
Name: Disgruntled in NY
Email: disgruntled.blogger1@gmail.com
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Maybe it's just a "conspiracy" backed by Big Belt?

Posted by Ed Lilly on Sunday, July 20, 2008 9:57:24 AM
A south Chicago suburb is the latest place to try to legislate against young men who wear their pants around their mid-thighs:

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.

 

Interesting how the ACLU automatically drags race into it, saying it targets young men of color.  From my experience this past school year doing a fair amount of substitute teaching, I can say that the tendency to wear baggy pants way too low, exposing one's boxer shorts, is not a phenomenon that is limited to young men of color.  Perhaps in other areas, and if looking at the nation as a whole, the numbers show a different story.  But my own eyes tell me differently here in small town New Jersey.

More interestingly, as the story clearly notes, the ordinance calls for a fine against anyone who violates it.  I expect that the goal is indeed to have a selective, and discriminatory effect.  But it is one that is directed at all young men.  Young women, at least from what I have seen in the greater Trenton area, have not adopted the drooping, baggy pants style with 6 inches of boxers showing.

I guess that's just more of how the game gets played.  By harping on the racial angle, the ACLU hopes for publicity, and in the inevitable court challenge, by making it about race they hope to get "strict scrutiny" analysis, which is pretty much impossible for a government body to pass.  If they only focus on the more realistic gender discrimination, then there is at least a chance that the ordinance could survive the less exacting "intermediate scrutiny" test applied by the courts.

 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

You mean, actual lawmakers are going to keep making and enforcing laws?

Posted by Ed Lilly on Thursday, June 26, 2008 7:52:50 AM
Instead of just letting the self-appointed legislators on the judicial bench try to take over everything instead?  Maybe:

Unbowed, politicians vow to execute child rapists

Well, I should hope so.
Tags: law   courts  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Thoughts of OJ...

Posted by Ed Lilly on Saturday, June 14, 2008 9:14:27 AM
OJ?  You mean, OJ Simpson?  Yes, indeed.  I see from the headlines this morning that singer (?) R. Kelly has been acquitted of having sex with a thirteen year old girl.  Despite the videotaped sex sessions.

So, I guess all those people who said that even if they had a videotape of OJ killing Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman, they wouldn't convict him, really meant it.

My lovely wife's take is a bit different.  She just saw the start of this post, learning of the acquittal, and has concluded that the court system's mandate to seat a jury of 12 reasonable people has to be viewed as an unachievable failure.  No word from her on what comes next should we abandon the jury system.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (4) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

If only life were like the movies...

Posted by Ed Lilly on Friday, June 13, 2008 7:21:19 AM
I think it was Steve Martin's character in "Grand Canyon" who tells Kevin Kline that he doesn't watch enough movies, because all of life's questions are answered in the movies.  I was reminded of this in light of yesterday's ridiculous ruling by 5 members of the Supreme Court that foreign, illegal, enemy combatants somehow have habeas corpus rights.

Someone needs to get the folks in the White House to sit down today and watch "National Treasure."  They just might learn something in how to respond to yesterday's ruling:

So... Here's to the men who did what was considered wrong, in order to do what they knew was right... [nodding] what they knew was right.

I know I'd have a heck of a lot more respect for an executive branch that came out and simply told the Supreme Court to shove it on this ruling.  Heck, presidential precedent is on the government's side, and the side of common sense:  "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it."

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Could George Costanza make it on the Supreme Court?

Posted by Ed Lilly on Thursday, June 12, 2008 6:33:30 AM
I only ask because that's who I was reminded of when I read this post at Hot Air:

The chief justice of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals[,] ...  Alex Kozinski[,] stored sexually explicit photos and videos on his personal web site, stating later that he thought no one could access the materials.

As George asked when caught when confronted with his own inappropriate sexual behavior, "Was that wrong? Should I have not done that? I tell you I gotta plead ignorance on this thing because if anyone had said anything to me at all when I first started here that that sort of thing was frowned upon, you know, cause I've worked in a lot of offices and I tell you people do that all the time."

At the risk of improperly mixing pop culture references, I think this could really put the Marv Albert phenomenon to the test.  Many people thought Albert was done as a broadcaster after his hotel assault on a woman while wearing ladies’ underwear and having his wig pulled off in the tussle.  Seems like a pretty difficult thing to live down.

But, Albert had the benefit of being a public figure in the age of Bill Clinton.  I predicted at the time of Albert’s fall that he would be back in broadcasting after a short time to let things simmer down.  Guys I worked with thought I was nuts and that Albert’s career was so clearly over it was laughable to think otherwise.

Turned out, Albert was gone from network tv for about 2 years, then was hired back as NBC’s prime NBA announcer, and is now doing Nets play-by-play on the Yes Network.  Who’s laughing now?

If Kozinski were one of the 9th Circuit liberals who are continually getting overruled by the Supreme Court, my guess is he would have a decent shot at still getting the call for a Supreme Court seat in an Obama administration.  But as a Reagan appointee, even if McCain wins in November, no chance in the world the media would let him survive a nomination for the Supreme Court.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »