Sep
20
Absurd new saggy pants law craze could carry over to Tiger Woods' mock turtlenecks
America often now seems to be all about passing as many laws as possible to restrict individual choice and put as many people as possible into the jail system. So it’s no surprise that several cities across the country are proud of their new so-called saggy pants laws.
These are the laws that make it illegal to wear your pants low enough that boxers or bare buttocks are visible. (Which is really going to steam TravelGolf.com’s resident hipster Tim McDonald, who doesn’t roll any other way).
The saggy pants laws are being passed in places as different as Atlanta and Trenton, New Jersey. Here, the stiffest penalties are fines, community service and mandatory counseling (yes, counseling to learn how to wear tighter pants). Delcambre, La has said to heck with that crazy rehabilitation idea and added the specter of prison time - up to six months for showing your underwear in public.
Couldn’t Delcambre just save itself a lot of trouble and put up a sign that says No Black People Allowed instead. That’s obviously what the town is going for anyways. Somehow, I don’t think the local plumbers union feels targeted.
Well, some of these saggy pants laws may seem like little more than closet bigotry, there exists the potential for carryover into the golf world. You can’t imagine how many golf pros and general managers have expressed their dismay to me over Tiger Woods’ popularization of the mock turtleneck. These golf industry leaders will moan how Tiger’s effectively crushed the collar required rule, emboldening every punk who would desecrate golf to claim his collarless shirt is mock.
Apparently, many people in golf lose sleep over this.
Now, I’m not down with WorldGolf.com’s Brandon Tucker’s idea that everything from jean shorts to John Travolta’s white suit in Saturday Night Fever should be allowed on the fairways. But do we really need to have head pros obsessing over what’s mock and what’s just collarless?
This is what brings about ridiculous laws like saggy pants. Golf needs to get above this fray.
| « A PGA Tour drug testing policy without known penalties: That's pure Tim Finchem | O.J. Simpson's Las Vegas robbery defense: I hang out with golfers, who can golfers scare » |
33 comments
Comment from: Kiel Christianson [Visitor] 
I once got kicked off a course for
wearing nothing but mock turtle soup. It did sort of stink after the first few holes, though...
wearing nothing but mock turtle soup. It did sort of stink after the first few holes, though...
2007-09-20 @ 13:48
Comment from: Judge Smails [Visitor]
We've always had indecency laws. It's a shame that idiots like you revel in the deterioration of society.
2007-09-20 @ 19:25
Comment from: Kiel Christianson [Visitor]
I think one of the surest signs of
the deterioration of society is the growing
number of people people who think it's just fine to call people names instead of making
a cogent point.
the deterioration of society is the growing
number of people people who think it's just fine to call people names instead of making
a cogent point.
2007-09-21 @ 09:06
Comment from: Judge Smails [Visitor]
Nah, Kiel, the surest sign of deterioration is when liberals are tolerated.
2007-09-21 @ 15:47
Comment from: Mike [Visitor]
Calling people names? Kiel saying Baldwin is brilliant is name calling too. Which one better describes Baldwin: Brilliant or idiot?
2007-09-22 @ 07:06
Comment from: Judge Smails [Visitor]
Mike,
Good point. I'm not sure that any of this site's writers would meet the clinical definition of "idiot," but I definitely know that none of them fall into the brilliant category.
Good point. I'm not sure that any of this site's writers would meet the clinical definition of "idiot," but I definitely know that none of them fall into the brilliant category.
2007-09-22 @ 12:33
I do have to say that I'm all for the law against baring your behind in public. Please, spare us all. I'm not so sure the mock turtle neck shouldn't be banned, too. I mean, really, it simply is not an attractive look on very many people at all. As for demanding a shirt with a collar on the course, well, that may be taking it a little far. I definitely would like to see that they keep things classy, but that can be done in many different ways.
2007-09-22 @ 14:40
Comment from: Kiel Christianson [Visitor]
When did I EVER call Chris "brilliant?"
I like him and all, but geez...
Back to my point about not being able to make a cogent point...
I like him and all, but geez...
Back to my point about not being able to make a cogent point...
2007-09-22 @ 15:35
Comment from: Judge Smails [Visitor]
Kiel,
I retract one of my previous statements. Since you would have to be the idiot of these blogs, I'm going to have to upgrade Baldwin to "moron."
I retract one of my previous statements. Since you would have to be the idiot of these blogs, I'm going to have to upgrade Baldwin to "moron."
2007-09-22 @ 20:11
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
Judge Smails,
It really should be no surprise that the flaming liberals on these boards would defend the practice of a lot of young lads of exposing too much of their buttocks and the attendant cleavage. They think it's cool.
These are the same folks who jumped to the defense of the young woman on the Southwest flight who thought that dressing like a two-dollar streetwalker was appropriate dress for travel.
These guys apparently don't believe the old saw that "clothes makes the man" (or the woman).
Maybe being decently dressed isn't the main criterion for gaugeing civility in behavior, but maybe it is.
When is the last time anyone has witnessed a group of men dressed in suits and ties and woman clad in elegant dress, or a group in dress military uniforms engaged in boisterous or riotous conduct and criminal activity?
It really should be no surprise that the flaming liberals on these boards would defend the practice of a lot of young lads of exposing too much of their buttocks and the attendant cleavage. They think it's cool.
These are the same folks who jumped to the defense of the young woman on the Southwest flight who thought that dressing like a two-dollar streetwalker was appropriate dress for travel.
These guys apparently don't believe the old saw that "clothes makes the man" (or the woman).
Maybe being decently dressed isn't the main criterion for gaugeing civility in behavior, but maybe it is.
When is the last time anyone has witnessed a group of men dressed in suits and ties and woman clad in elegant dress, or a group in dress military uniforms engaged in boisterous or riotous conduct and criminal activity?
2007-09-23 @ 10:35
Comment from: Judge Smails [Visitor]
Alex,
You put that very well, as usual. These counter-culture lunkheads seem to think that we should embrace the cultural norms of the Papua New Guinea of 50 years ago, as if they are preferable to the ones characteristic of the apogee of western civilization.
I bet these "cool" commie-libs (who would be thought dorks by the kids) don't even know how the saggy-pants style originated. It found its genesis in the prisons, where inmates' pants would sag and ride low because the possession of belts was not allowed.
Yes, it's a great thing that we're all adopting the cultural elements of the ghetto (i.e., fashions, rap, etc.). That's definitely what my father fought for in WWII.
You put that very well, as usual. These counter-culture lunkheads seem to think that we should embrace the cultural norms of the Papua New Guinea of 50 years ago, as if they are preferable to the ones characteristic of the apogee of western civilization.
I bet these "cool" commie-libs (who would be thought dorks by the kids) don't even know how the saggy-pants style originated. It found its genesis in the prisons, where inmates' pants would sag and ride low because the possession of belts was not allowed.
Yes, it's a great thing that we're all adopting the cultural elements of the ghetto (i.e., fashions, rap, etc.). That's definitely what my father fought for in WWII.
2007-09-23 @ 12:09
Comment from: Brooklyn [Visitor]
Judge,
What side was your father on in WWII; the side that "didn't tolerate liberals"...or Jews or others not of the Aryan pursuasion? I know my side fought for freedom of expression--one of the basic principals of the US Constitution!
What side was your father on in WWII; the side that "didn't tolerate liberals"...or Jews or others not of the Aryan pursuasion? I know my side fought for freedom of expression--one of the basic principals of the US Constitution!
2007-09-24 @ 14:02
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
Brooklyn,
I was with the USMC on the side of the USA in Vietnam for two years. Does that qualify me for the expression of my opinion?
Like the Judge, I have no qualms about anyone expressing his opinion.
I just think he could express it better without revealing his ugly butt crack.
I was with the USMC on the side of the USA in Vietnam for two years. Does that qualify me for the expression of my opinion?
Like the Judge, I have no qualms about anyone expressing his opinion.
I just think he could express it better without revealing his ugly butt crack.
2007-09-24 @ 15:16
Comment from: Brooklyn [Visitor]
"Like the Judge, I have no qualms..."
Did I mis-read his comment above that society suffers deterioration when liberals are "tolerated"? How does intolerance of others equate to having no qualms about freedom of expression on his part?
I don't troll here often, but when I do you both are the most frequent commentators. And, I come away with the distinct feeling you're a couple of grouchy old geezers with nothing better to do than belittle people to feel better about yourselves. These blogs are supposed to be a fun exchange of thoughts, ideas...a source of amusement. You two take the 'U' right out of FUN.
Did I mis-read his comment above that society suffers deterioration when liberals are "tolerated"? How does intolerance of others equate to having no qualms about freedom of expression on his part?
I don't troll here often, but when I do you both are the most frequent commentators. And, I come away with the distinct feeling you're a couple of grouchy old geezers with nothing better to do than belittle people to feel better about yourselves. These blogs are supposed to be a fun exchange of thoughts, ideas...a source of amusement. You two take the 'U' right out of FUN.
2007-09-24 @ 15:42
Comment from: Curtis fallen [Visitor]
Hey Judge..... I've been away for awhile, but It's good to see things haven't changed much!!! You're still spewing you hatred to anyone who'll listen.
My grandfather fought in WWII as well, but when he returned he had to drink at a fountain marked "colored"
What did he fight for ? For you to have the freedom to call people commies-libs and idiots and for you to wear you pants any damn way you choose.
My grandfather fought in WWII as well, but when he returned he had to drink at a fountain marked "colored"
What did he fight for ? For you to have the freedom to call people commies-libs and idiots and for you to wear you pants any damn way you choose.
2007-09-24 @ 15:42
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
Curtis,
Just for my own edification, what branch of service and in what theater did your dserve in in WWII?
Also, in what year and in which state did your grandfather encounter the "colored only" drinking fountain?
Brooklyn,
Fuhgetaboutit!
Just for my own edification, what branch of service and in what theater did your dserve in in WWII?
Also, in what year and in which state did your grandfather encounter the "colored only" drinking fountain?
Brooklyn,
Fuhgetaboutit!
2007-09-24 @ 15:50
Comment from: Judge Smails [Visitor]
Curtis,
Cry me a river. My guess is that your grandfather wouldn't have cottoned to the idea of stupid kids wearing ghetto style clothing. In fact, he and I just might have gotten along swimmingly.
By the way, freedom of speech was meant to pertain to just that, "speech," not p____graphy, flag-burning or sartorial stupidity. The Founding Fathers crafted the First Amendment because they didn't want the rendering of political, social and religious ideas stifled; it had nothing to do anything beyond the written and spoken word.
Unfortunately, the commie-libs, being ignorant at best and malevolently Machiavellian at worst, play with the supreme law of the land as if it's Lloyd in the bathhouse. They have misinterpreted the First Amendment and claimed that it encompasses "expression" whose fate is supposed to lie in the hands of legislatures, while simultaneously trying to criminalize that which it protects by trying to create hate speech laws.
Yes, they are commie-libs, they are dangerous, and they should NOT be tolerated on a personal (do you know what "personal" means?) level.
Cry me a river. My guess is that your grandfather wouldn't have cottoned to the idea of stupid kids wearing ghetto style clothing. In fact, he and I just might have gotten along swimmingly.
By the way, freedom of speech was meant to pertain to just that, "speech," not p____graphy, flag-burning or sartorial stupidity. The Founding Fathers crafted the First Amendment because they didn't want the rendering of political, social and religious ideas stifled; it had nothing to do anything beyond the written and spoken word.
Unfortunately, the commie-libs, being ignorant at best and malevolently Machiavellian at worst, play with the supreme law of the land as if it's Lloyd in the bathhouse. They have misinterpreted the First Amendment and claimed that it encompasses "expression" whose fate is supposed to lie in the hands of legislatures, while simultaneously trying to criminalize that which it protects by trying to create hate speech laws.
Yes, they are commie-libs, they are dangerous, and they should NOT be tolerated on a personal (do you know what "personal" means?) level.
2007-09-24 @ 20:07
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
Judge Smails,
I'd bet next week's check that neither Brooklyn nor Curtis has never served, and neither has Curtis' grandfather.
As far as either of them ever seeing a "colored only" drinking fountain,
never happened.
By the way, anyone familiar with Jim Crow in the Deep South knows that the long-gone fountains were labeled "colored only", not "colord."
I'd bet next week's check that neither Brooklyn nor Curtis has never served, and neither has Curtis' grandfather.
As far as either of them ever seeing a "colored only" drinking fountain,
never happened.
By the way, anyone familiar with Jim Crow in the Deep South knows that the long-gone fountains were labeled "colored only", not "colord."
2007-09-24 @ 20:30
Comment from: Judge Smails [Visitor]
Yes, Alex, these individuals identify so closely with their "group" that they feel as if any travail that group has suffered at any point in history, they have suffered also. It reminds me of what some 16-year-old little brat said to me when I gave a speech once in Toronto. To wit: "There was a time when I couldn't drink out of the same water fountain as you."
Then you have Maxine Waters, who said that 400 years ago she was brought here as a slave. Sheesh, if only.
Then you have Maxine Waters, who said that 400 years ago she was brought here as a slave. Sheesh, if only.
2007-09-24 @ 23:55
Comment from: Brooklyn [Visitor]
There you have it, on a golf and related topics blog, we learn from Alex, the enforcers of Jim Crow established standards for signage! Were you on the committee Alex? I'll bet your mentor, Judge, was committee chair, he's quite the wordsmith (read one of my favorites above "apogee of western civilization"). When did you guys meet, before or after the ceremonial lighting of the cross?
Yep, you two are Class-1A Clowns!!
Yep, you two are Class-1A Clowns!!
2007-09-25 @ 07:47
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
Brooklyn,
You have made references to the "constitution." Which constitution might that be?
I have studied the Constitution of the United States thoroughly, and nowhere in it do I find any article protecting the right of young men to dress like slovenly clowns.
Maybe you radical leftists have your own "Liberal Constitution" just as you have your own alternate universe.
Perhaps article on the divine right of exposing one's butt crack is right there next to the other dogmas of the ultra-left: The right of liberals to keep arms from law-abiding citizens, the right to deprive life to unborn babies, the right to blast obscene rap from a boombox, and the right of a gang of six predators to beat, pummel, and stomp a single youth into a bloody pulp. Heretofore this "right" was known as aggravated assault, but now due to the recent and unanimous acceptance by the liberal left, the Jackson-Sharpton amendment is now part of the liberal constitution, as is the right of street hoodlums to refer to women as "b-----s and ho's".
You have made references to the "constitution." Which constitution might that be?
I have studied the Constitution of the United States thoroughly, and nowhere in it do I find any article protecting the right of young men to dress like slovenly clowns.
Maybe you radical leftists have your own "Liberal Constitution" just as you have your own alternate universe.
Perhaps article on the divine right of exposing one's butt crack is right there next to the other dogmas of the ultra-left: The right of liberals to keep arms from law-abiding citizens, the right to deprive life to unborn babies, the right to blast obscene rap from a boombox, and the right of a gang of six predators to beat, pummel, and stomp a single youth into a bloody pulp. Heretofore this "right" was known as aggravated assault, but now due to the recent and unanimous acceptance by the liberal left, the Jackson-Sharpton amendment is now part of the liberal constitution, as is the right of street hoodlums to refer to women as "b-----s and ho's".
2007-09-25 @ 08:06
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
Judge Smails,
A few years ago in the city of Chicago, one particularly logistically challenged speaker was ranting about how no fewer than two hundred million black Africans had perished during the so-called "midle passage", crossing the Atlantic to the slave ports of Charleston and Savannah.
Since it has been fairly well established that only around five million slaves were brought to the new world by ship, and that only about five hundred thousand of these came to the present US, the slave trade, if the two hundred million figure was to believed, had to be the most unprofitable and unsuccessful venture in history. After all, the slaves had been purchased from tribal chieftans with various tool, firearms, etc.
Since the rally was for the purpose of demanding reparations for the injustice of slavery, several speakers went to the rostrum to vent their rage. One rotund woman elicited the wildest applause when she bellowed that all her ancestors either perished at sea in the dreaded ocean crossing or were lynched by their masters.
That ample female may yet become a member of Congress, ala Maxine Waters.
A few years ago in the city of Chicago, one particularly logistically challenged speaker was ranting about how no fewer than two hundred million black Africans had perished during the so-called "midle passage", crossing the Atlantic to the slave ports of Charleston and Savannah.
Since it has been fairly well established that only around five million slaves were brought to the new world by ship, and that only about five hundred thousand of these came to the present US, the slave trade, if the two hundred million figure was to believed, had to be the most unprofitable and unsuccessful venture in history. After all, the slaves had been purchased from tribal chieftans with various tool, firearms, etc.
Since the rally was for the purpose of demanding reparations for the injustice of slavery, several speakers went to the rostrum to vent their rage. One rotund woman elicited the wildest applause when she bellowed that all her ancestors either perished at sea in the dreaded ocean crossing or were lynched by their masters.
That ample female may yet become a member of Congress, ala Maxine Waters.
2007-09-25 @ 08:25
Your blog is exactly why golf never grows. God forbid we should allow something new or different. Maybe we should just send Anthony Kim back to the hood now.
Want to make more money? Want this great game to grow? Move with the kids. Put golf clubs in their hands instread of clubs and forget about what they are wearing.
Want to make more money? Want this great game to grow? Move with the kids. Put golf clubs in their hands instread of clubs and forget about what they are wearing.
2007-09-25 @ 10:58
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
Steven,
Did you actually write "--golf never grows--"? Where are you from? Golf has been growing steadily throughout the US for years.
If you're implying that a bunch of slouching, sullen gang members have any interest in playing golf, you've got to be joking.
Did you actually write "--golf never grows--"? Where are you from? Golf has been growing steadily throughout the US for years.
If you're implying that a bunch of slouching, sullen gang members have any interest in playing golf, you've got to be joking.
2007-09-25 @ 11:37
Comment from: Judge Smails [Visitor]
Steve,
Your statement was preposterous. We have just emerged from a golf boom that saw the game truly come to flower. It has stalled a bit finally after about 15 years, but, hey, nothing grows forever. The tennis boom of the early and mid-seventies ended as well.
Your statement was preposterous. We have just emerged from a golf boom that saw the game truly come to flower. It has stalled a bit finally after about 15 years, but, hey, nothing grows forever. The tennis boom of the early and mid-seventies ended as well.
2007-09-25 @ 13:23
Comment from: Judge Smails [Visitor]
Alex,
The first person I heard cite that 200 million figure was Major Owens, an angry black congressman from here in NY; he uttered this nonsense on the floor of the House. It must escape these geniuses that this figure exceeds the whole population of Africa during that period. In fact, there were less than 100 million people in Africa from 1800 to 1850. For that matter, the continent's population was under 200 million as late as 1950; it was approximately 198 million that year.
The first person I heard cite that 200 million figure was Major Owens, an angry black congressman from here in NY; he uttered this nonsense on the floor of the House. It must escape these geniuses that this figure exceeds the whole population of Africa during that period. In fact, there were less than 100 million people in Africa from 1800 to 1850. For that matter, the continent's population was under 200 million as late as 1950; it was approximately 198 million that year.
2007-09-25 @ 13:34
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
Judge,
Yes, old Major is quite a piece of work.
I had long thought that the Congressional Black Caucus had a mortal lock on crazies in Congress, what with the Major, Maxine, and the undisputed champion loonie, Georgia's own Cynthia McKinney.
You've got to admit that those three are quite a trifecta.
But now, I am relieved that there is nothing prejudicial about this phenomenon.
Last summer, I had the distinct displeasure of having to listen to a speech by Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.)
If there is a bigger crackpot in the upper chamber, I've never heard of him or her.
Incidentally, the plump lady at the reparations rally, apparently miffed at the fact that since all her ancestors had died centuries before and thus she didn't exist, finished her diatribe with "I want my money now!" She was quite entertaining.
Yes, old Major is quite a piece of work.
I had long thought that the Congressional Black Caucus had a mortal lock on crazies in Congress, what with the Major, Maxine, and the undisputed champion loonie, Georgia's own Cynthia McKinney.
You've got to admit that those three are quite a trifecta.
But now, I am relieved that there is nothing prejudicial about this phenomenon.
Last summer, I had the distinct displeasure of having to listen to a speech by Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.)
If there is a bigger crackpot in the upper chamber, I've never heard of him or her.
Incidentally, the plump lady at the reparations rally, apparently miffed at the fact that since all her ancestors had died centuries before and thus she didn't exist, finished her diatribe with "I want my money now!" She was quite entertaining.
2007-09-25 @ 14:54
Comment from: Judge Smails [Visitor]
What gives me great pleasure, Alex, is that while liberalism has been on the march since our loss of sanity, reparations is one thing we won't see. So, corpulent ladies can squeal all they want, but they'll have no more success getting money that way than they would through selling their ample bodies.
As for these crackpots, I would say there is something prejudicial about their profile: they're all Demonrats.
As for these crackpots, I would say there is something prejudicial about their profile: they're all Demonrats.
2007-09-25 @ 16:15
Comment from: Kiel Christianson [Visitor]
"Colored" drinking fountain
http://www.madisonavenuejournal.com/images/mlk1.jpg
http://www.madisonavenuejournal.com/images/mlk1.jpg
2007-09-26 @ 11:15
Can we all just .... get back to golf?
2007-09-28 @ 11:31
Comment from: Jorient [Visitor]
I think you guys missed the point somewhere. I thought we were talking about the liberal Chris Baldwin, the writer of this godawful article. You guys must understand that journalists are highly undereducated people and are not prepared nor qualified to comment on culture. If they were, they would not be liberals and also would not tolerate bare buttocks on the streets...black or white!
2007-10-14 @ 13:47
Comment feed for this postComments are closed for this post.
Ron Mon:
Jason Scott Deegan:
The Accidental Golfer:
Brandon Tucker:
Recent comments