Tuesday, February 08, 2005
Beware unintended consequences
Virginians who wear their pants so low their underwear shows may want to think about investing in a stronger belt.
The state's House of Delegates passed a bill Tuesday authorizing a $50 fine for anyone who displays his or her underpants in a "lewd or indecent manner."
Call me a bonehead, but it seems that there are at least two certain consequences that will flow from this law.
First, teenagers will -- Duh! -- run out and buy a lot of low-rider pants. If there is something fairly tame that you don't want teenagers to do, outlawing it is precisely the wrong strategy. Nothing inspires a teenager more than legislated sanctimony.
Second, teenagers will -- Duh! -- stop wearing underwear. After all, no visible underwear, no violation of law.
Unbelievably, opponents of the law do not seem to have objected on the grounds that the law will make it fashionable to go commando. That would be too intelligent. Instead they are objecting on the grounds that the law is racist:
On Tuesday, [Del. Lionell Spruill Sr., a Democrat who opposed the bill] said the measure was an unconstitutional attack on young blacks that would force parents to take off work to accompany their children to court just for making a fashion statement.
WTF? Blacks have a monopoly on visible thongs? You certainly don't get a sense of that here in central New Jersey, but maybe it's a different deal in Richmond.
Every time I think that we need to shift power from the federal government to the states, something comes along to remind me that most state legislators really are idiots.
UPDATE: Friday, Virginia backed down. In Fauquier, Buckingham, Appomattox, Louisa, Albemarle, Fluvanna and everywhere else, Virginians can still wear low-slung pants.
3 Comments:
By 
Final Historian, at
Wed Feb 09, 12:54:00 AM:
"Every time I think that we need to shift power from the federal government to the states, something comes along to remind me that most state legislators really are idiots."
There is a direct relation there. Because the states are less powerful, Americans are less concerned who makes it to state office. If the States were to gain more authority, then accountability would likely rise as well.
By TigerHawk, at
Wed Feb 09, 06:30:00 AM:
While it may be true that a massive reduction in federal power to pre-Civil War levels would shift the quality of people from Washington to the states, I doubt that the sort of subtle shifts that are possible today would have any impact.
I grew up in Iowa. The state government there is honest, dedicated, part-time and effective. It was easy to be a big states-rightist living there, since elected officials in Iowa were so obviously more honest and competent and less pandering than those in Congress. My father, who had grown up in Manhattan, said that if I lived in any of the more populated states in the country I would feel quite differently. Alas, he is correct. Since then I have had some exposure to the governments of Illinois, New Jersey, New York, Massachussets, California and Pennsylvania, and I find myself wondering why we bother with states at all.
By Sluggo, at
Wed Feb 09, 12:51:00 PM:
Too right, Jack.
Washington DC will cure a reasonable person of Big Governmentitis and a couple years living in Jersey will suck the States Rightism right out of you.
