Urban Pants

By -
OK, I just don't get the gig with the fad among inner-city youngins for wearing one's pants so that the waistband is down around one's privates. I'm pretty fashion tolerant, but this strikes me as using a piece of clothing in a nonsensical way, similar to wearing shoes on your ears or a hat stuffed up your ass.

And most puzzling of all are the street dealers who adopt the style. I mean, if you had a job that involved periodically fleeing the cops, wouldn't you want to dress so that you didn't have a waistband around your thighs?

Comments

  1. Anonymous8:56 AM

    Yo Vanilla, one my homies, Kurt Vee, rapped 'bout one Harrison Bergeron, 'stead of da State compelling da home boyz to wear shackles to slow 'em down, dey be voluntary. Same ting goin awn wif da phat peoples wearin da Nike shit, give em a relative performance boost.

    Ain you never figured out dat da loud rap comin from da headphones is akin to gettin all da brothahs outfitted wif cowbells?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous7:57 AM

    Gene, they should definitely go metal and wear leather pants. You should stop by ASC, too. It could use your influence.

    Bill/urib/billy-jay

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more