- Posted by Christopher Estep on December 11, 2007
The Atlanta Public Schools just passed a measure that banned saggy pants. If you look at the picture that accompanied the article (left) you'll see exactly why someone might want to do such a thing.
While it's obvious to anyone who is sane how this could affect learning, it was necessary to give an explanation for the benefit of those who aren't so sane (usually referred to as liberals or academics):
"When you come to school, and your body parts are showing, it's not a very good learning environment," said Atlanta School Board Member Brenda Muhammad.
See? Seems pretty obvious, doesn't it? Don't agree too quickly! Remember, I said that academics are included in the "insane" that I referred to above.
You see, unlike the rational thinking that such styles are worn for shock value to draw attention to themselves and irritate the establishment (as has always been the case with teens and fashion), some of the literati have a different theory:
"It doesn't make sense to focus only on this idea that kids need to be prepared for the workforce," said Georgia State sociology professor Dr. Adia Harvey-Wingfield. "Without also paying attention to the economy, the jobs that are available, and in the public school system, paying attention to the issues in the public school system that rectification as well."
Notice the straw-man there? The sociologist socialist refers to the economy and jobs as being obviously bad and a foregone conclusion. She then builds on that false premise to say that it is this alleged bad economy that is causing baggy pants. And the unwritten allusion is, of course, that it's Bush's fault. No, Dr. Hyphenated didn't say that specifically.
Digest that for a moment. Go think about that and then come back. You really need to cogitate on what the sociologist socialist said. I'll wait.
Are you back? Good.
Even if the economy were bad, what sane person could conclude that it would cause kids to pull their pants down?! Nobody! And nowhere in the article does the sociologist socialist justify that conclusion, except to in effect say that "it's easier to make people pull their pants up than fix the economy and find jobs".
Wow! Good conclusion, genius!!! I hope you're not still paying for your student loans because you got gypped! In hopes of getting a degree as prestigious as yours, here is a list of other things that are harder than making kids pull their pants up:
- Getting a job at your school as a conservative.
- Graduating from a private school
- Watching Katie Couric try to do the news without gagging.
- Read Huffington Post without laughing.
- Getting your students to stop saying "looser" when they mean "loser"
- Finding a liberal that doesn't hate the military
- Disproving that the Democratic Party adheres to classical communism
- Getting Bill Clinton to admit he ever lied
- Finding a consistent position the Democrats have held for more than 2 years other than "It's Bush's Fault"
Yes, Doc. All of these things are harder than making high school students pull up their pants. Every single one. But you know what else is harder than getting students to pull up their pants? Apparently, it's learning grammar at Johns Hopkins:
"It's a lot easier to say 'we can legislate what kids are wearing - we can legislate fashion,' than it is to say 'what are we gonna do about the economy - what are we gonna do about jobs - what are we gonna do about the workplace.' It's much easier to say kids have gotta pull their pants up, and only focus on that short term issue," Harvey-Wingfield said.
I don't know, Doc. What I'd like to know is "what are we gonna [sic] do" about semi-literate socialist professors pontificating about liberal causes that have nothing to do with what is being discussed? I only wish that Georgia State's board would demand that their faculty "have gotta [sic]" have a decent grasp of the English language before spouting off. I'm not even going to start on your rambling run-on sentence fragment above in your first quote. But then, maybe you really are a victim, but of affirmative action. It's your pick. You're either an AA poster-child or you're just stupid.
But in all seriousness, I don't know who is more to blame for this tripe attempting to pass for news, Harvey or 11 Alive. On one hand, you have Doc Harvey (who sings the praises of the Black Panther Party in her spare time) offering up this nonsequitur in order to apparently push her "blacks are institutionally oppressed" agenda without even the barest suggestion of how in this reality or any alternate reality, the economy makes teens pull down their pants. On the other hand, you have 11 Alive giving her time without even saying, "what in the world are you talking about and from how far out in left field did you have to go to come up with that one?"
Since liberals are clearly brain-damaged (because I just can't believe they are intentionally that obtuse), I'll explain it in terms that even a pro-abortion, race-baiting academic could understand:
Kids wear their pants baggy to get attention and irritate adults as a form of rebellion. It's been going on longer than we've both been alive. In the 50's it was leather, ducktails, and Elvis. In the 60's it was long hair & tie-dye (with the help of LSD). It's the way it's always been in the real world (i.e. outside of college campuses) and if you'd venture away from your myopic view of history (psst! all history isn't black history) you'd realize that. It's the way kids are. They will push as far as you let them push until someone (in this case, the school board) draws a line. You don't have children yet so you don't know that. It's easy to sit up their in your ebony tower making silly proclamations, but here in the real world we have to actually deal with problems personally instead of scraping our bony little fingers at the people who actually work for a living.
11Alive.com - Sagging Pants School Measure Passed
