They said it: “man this dude is Krazy!” “you sir are an idiot” “you are a lunatic” “are you really black?” “meanest, most divisive, most irrelevant blog I have ever read”
Across Atlanta that proposed amendment – sponsored by Atlanta Councilman C.T. Martin — got mixed reaction Thursday from people with and without exposed boxer shorts, skivvies, thongs, and bra straps, all of which would be banned under the new ordinance mainly aimed at people in saggy pants with wobbly walks.The ordinance claims saggy pants are an “epidemic” and have become a “major concern” in Atlanta and other cities around the country. Martin says he wants children subjected to a higher standard of dress.”I don’t want young people thinking that half-dressing is the way to go,” said Martin. “I want them to think about their future.”Some asked for their opinion on the proposed law are amused at the notion of a city telling people how to wear their pants; and others decried it as just another form of racially profiling blacks.
“That’s [crazy],” said Atlanta hip-hop artist Yung Joc, by phone Thursday from Philadelphia.
“That’s attacking people’s freedom of expression. When Woodstock was around did they tell people not to wear their hair long, or hemp clothing? Are they telling the skateboarders they can’t wear the jeans so tight? Or those little shirts? This is targeting a certain group: Young black males. And this will only give them more of a reason to pull them over; more of a reason to detain them.”
Joc said when he returns to his hometown Sunday for the Screamfest tour, he’ll be dressed for civil disobedience — “sagging, for sure!” — in droopy pants.
Ya know fuck it, I was going to spit out my usual venom aimed at retarded ass black folks and try to make sense out of this perceived problem of seemingly brain dead folks who want to try and convince someone like me that wearing pants around your kneecaps is a fucken fashion statement.
I’ll freely admit, I’m a very boring dude overall. I don’t wear earrings, never have and never even remotely considered it. I don’t process why putting holes in parts of your body is a “fashion” statement.
I don’t have tattoos, never even considered it, I’m sure the day it goes on while the colors are bright and vivid and the initial reaction from interested folks may be a half hearted smile of approval. But I can never get past the image of what I would look like at 70 plus with some outdated indecipherable skin wrapped irrelevant artwork staining my body.
Damm near everything about me is pretty boring, and I like it that way. I have never liked drawing attention to myself through clothing, hair color, tattoos, and earrings.
I have always thought that people who use outward appearances to gain attention “needed” that brief high you get when someone stares at you or pays you just a little bit more attention, that extra glance whether good or bad.
I like stealth, blending in, being in the background. The closest thing to a fashion statement I have is letting my hair grow into a 70’s style afro. I keep it padded down a bit for work, but I got tired of waiting hours for a haircut every other week but most of all getting the same fucken haircut all other black dudes get. So my fro is my fashion rebellion I guess. People say I look younger with it, instead of the clean shaved bald thing I sported for a number of years.
Now back to the baggy pants, should there be a “law” prohibiting sagging pants, no.
The idea is dumb, plain and simple.
After reading the story yesterday and processing it after watching the story I posted, I’m just like who gives a fuck. If these stupid ass Negros want to draw attention to their utter ill logic and colossal lack of common fucken sense by looking like circus clowns then what the hell.
Maybe it’s the blogging, maybe I’m growing weary of hearing about the idiocy in Negrodom day after day. Black men, blasting one another, stealing from one another, beatings, child abuse, school dropouts, voting Democrat, I’m simply starting to not give a shit.
This is just another reason for Middle America Mr. and Mrs. Whitefolks to say damm those Niggas are crazy, more reasons to abandon cities, keep black people are arms length, racial profile, yada, yada, yada.
Saggy pants are NOT a fashion statement as much as it is an anti-white statement or anti-establishment statement.
I suppose more and more young black men feel invisible to society at large so this is drawing the attention they obviously seek.
However more than that what fashion statement can be more polar opposite that the pressed shirt, pressed pants starchy look of corporate white dudes or pink golf shirt pressed shorts and sandal uniform of the yuppie, wine sipping, country club, Catholic church folks.
The Post got thousands of angry letters and calls last week — the vast majority from women — in response to a July 20 Style column by Fashion Editor Robin Givhan, commenting on Clinton showing a bit of cleavage on the Senate floor. A note from Ann Stingle of Fairfax echoed others’ complaints: “Robin Givhan’s story is sexist and demeaning of both women and the seriousness of issues needing to be addressed.’’
Ann Althouse had a little fun responding to some of the letters Howell reprinted, including this letter, which I’m going to address (emphasis added):
I can’t decide what horrifies me more: that The Post, which I have often touted for its intelligent reporting, would publish such a sexist, dated article, or even worse, that the author was echoing a common viewpoint still prevalent in society.
As a mother and a professional analyst for the government, I have always believed that my colleagues have respected my work, my mind and my opinions, not whether my cleavage was showing. I dress as I believe all women should: with the ability to choose clothes that represent who they are, be they feminine, nurturing, intelligent, sexy or fashionable. But I do so with the hope that clothes represent my style — not how much skin is exposed.
Althouse’s response:
So women should wear clothes that “represent who they are,” but it’s wrong to analyze this self expression? Your “clothes represent [your] style — not how much skin is exposed”? What does that mean? The style of your clothes obviously includes the way it covers some parts and not others. Once you concede that clothes express the inner self, it follows that we should try to understand the meaning of the clothing worn by a person who seeks political power. Why would you censor this valuable line of inquiry?
Exactly. As a woman, and knowing many women, I can tell you from first hand experience that when professional women dress, nine times out of ten they’re dressing to impress, I don’t care where they’re working. They also expect to get noticed for how ’sharp’ and/or ’stylish’ they’re dressed and, shocker of all shockers, they actually like to receive compliments for what they wear. Now I can guarantee you that if Givhan’s column had been more flattering about the way Hillary dresses, i.e., if she was wearing red, how the color and style she was wearing was a symbol for power, or if it was along the lines of “Hillary is showing some cleavage and leg in a Congress that traditionally shies away form overt displays of skin. You go girl! Break down those walls!” the reactions to that column would have been totally different - especially amongst the liberal woman responding to what was written.
Goodie, goodie we get to mix the raunchy talk of politics and boobies together.
I swear, if I had not read news articles about this “controversy” if I had been watching her speech on the floor live I would not have thought anything about it.
I frankly don’t see a problem with what she wore on the floor or in the pic I have above.
Now if she were falling out of the power suit with triple D’s then well…BUT I would not be here as a right wing blogger saying HOW DARE SHE!
I can hear some of you saying, “Sure, any excuse to post crude pictures on your blog,” I don’t NEED an excuse to post what some may consider crude photos, because as I have said numerous times I don’t give a shit what y’all think.
Now speaking from the male pig perspective, if a women is wearing a really well tailored “power suite” you don’t have to show any cleavage to look hot, c’mon! If you women don’t already know this then you need to get a clue.
Just like a couple of year ago as folks were shocked by Secretary of State Rice’s boots and her “Matrix” suit, I was like damm, I liked that. Some took issue but it quickly faded.
Remember what was written about back then.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice arrived at the Wiesbaden Army Airfield on Wednesday dressed all in black. She was wearing a black skirt that hit just above the knee, and it was topped with a black coat that fell to mid-calf. The coat, with its seven gold buttons running down the front and its band collar, called to mind a Marine’s dress uniform or the “save humanity” ensemble worn by Keanu Reeves in “The Matrix.”
As Rice walked out to greet the troops, the coat blew open in a rather swashbuckling way to reveal the top of a pair of knee-high boots. The boots had a high, slender heel that is not particularly practical. But it is a popular silhouette because it tends to elongate and flatter the leg. In short, the boots are sexy.
Rice boldly eschewed the typical fare chosen by powerful American women on the world stage. She was not wearing a bland suit with a loose-fitting skirt and short boxy jacket with a pair of sensible pumps. She did not cloak her power in photogenic hues, a feminine brooch and a non-threatening aesthetic. Rice looked as though she was prepared to talk tough, knock heads and do a freeze-frame “Matrix” jump kick if necessary. Who wouldn’t give her ensemble a double take — all the while hoping not to rub her the wrong way?
Do you have Sean John under your tree?, Then it must look like this cute creature… :-)
By ANNE D’INNOCENZIO, AP Business Writer - Story Link
NEW YORK - Macy’s has pulled from its shelves and its Web site two styles of Sean John hooded jackets, originally advertised as featuring faux fur, after an investigation by the nation’s largest animal protection organization concluded that the garments were actually made from a certain species of dog called “raccoon dog.”
“First these jackets were falsely advertised as faux fur, and then it turned out that the fur came from a type of dog,” said Wayne Pacelle, president and CEO of the Humane Society of the United States.
Pacelle added that the issue is an “industry-wide problem” and its investigation demonstrated that retailers and designers “aren’t paying close enough attention to the fur trim they are selling.” He added that the issue is especially problematic when “the fur is sourced from China where domestic dogs and cats and raccoon dogs are killed in gruesome ways.”
Raccoon dogs — which are not domestic animals — are indigenous to Asia, including eastern Siberia and Japan, and have been raised in large numbers because their fur closely resembles raccoon, Pacelle said.
Orlando Veras, a spokesman at Macy’s, a division of Federated Department Stores Inc., confirmed Friday that the retailer had removed the jackets, releasing a statement saying that it has a “long-standing policy against the selling of any dog or cat fur.” He continued, “This policy is clearly communicated to all suppliers.”
The Sean John jackets — one a snorkel style, the other a classic version — had been labeled “raccoon fur,” but were advertised as faux fur, Pacelle said.
In a statement by Sean “Diddy” Combs released by his publicist Hampton Carney, the designer said: “I was completely unaware of the nature of this material, but as soon as we were alerted, the garments were pulled off the Macy’s floor and Web site. I have instructed our outerwear licensee to cease the production of any garments using this material immediately.”
Macy’s removal of the coats comes on the heels of other tests conducted by the Humane Society of the United States on a range of fur-trimmed jackets from retailers such as Burlington Coat Factory, Bloomingdale’s, J.C. Penney and Saks Fifth Avenue as well as from designers and clothing lines such as Baby Phat, Andrew Marc, MaxMara and Calvin Klein. Those tests revealed that most of the jackets labeled as “raccoon” or coyote” from China in fact contained fur from raccoon dogs.
Of the 10 garments tested by the Humane Society, nine tested positive as raccoon dog fur and were mislabeled, a violation of federal law.
The Humane Society is also calling upon Congress to amend the Dog and Cat Protection Act — which bans the sale of dog or cat fur in the United States — to include raccoon dog, since the organization says these dogs are so “inhumanely” killed and their species are similar to domesticated dogs.
I don’t give a shit about these Racoon Dogs, but I found this funny on so many levels.
![[Valid RSS]](http://politicalpartypoop.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/valid-rss.png "Validate my RSS feed")