Now just so you know, Ms. Burnett is a hero of mine. But, there is a side of her that is not so funny, and in an effort of full disclosure - I should tell you about it. First, she sued the National Enquirer for libel in 1981, and in 2007, she sued the producers of Family Guy for copyright violations. So, we're not - gonna - do - anything - or say anything - or even look funny - that would cause Carol Burnett, to want to sue me. Nobody move, and nobody gets hurt. But I did want to use Carol Burnett as an example, satirically, without any intention of defaming her or having you, the listener, devalue her image or celebrity in anyway. Jeez, is that enough scared lawyer talk?

 

    Ok, here's the punchline - you know how at the end of all of her shows how she tugged her ear to let her grandmother know that everything was ok, well in today's society that would only be interpreted as one thing.....gang signs.

 

    From the Obama's fist bump to the NFL making an attempt to crack down on players making gang signs, every one has become absolutely paranoid about our non-verbal communication.

 

    Its fair to say that your ass may ultimately get your ass in trouble. There must be something in the water, there must be a cool breeze passing through the country because this past week, in Flint, Michigan and Paterson, New Jersey proposals have butted into the public sphere, or should I say they've cracked open into our consciousness, because under proposals in Flint and Paterson, there are attempts to make it illegal to have droopy drawers.

 

     In Flint, Interim Police Chief David Dicks has indicated that he plans on arresting individuals whose pants expose their underwear or butts. "Some people call it a fad," Dicks told the Detroit Free Press this week while patrolling the streets of Flint. "But I believe it's a national nuisance. It is indecent and thus it is indecent exposure, which has been on the books for years."

 

    With all that's going on those crime ridden cities, politicians and law enforcement folks are making it illegal for individuals to let their pants sag. In Flint, if you show a little tushie, you could be punished for up to 93-days in jail and/or up to $500 in fines. So apparently, every issue related to crime in Flint and Paterson have been completely resolved and they've now become the fasion police. There is absolutely no indication, study, paper, essay, evaluation, treatise, or investigation that would corroborate Chief Dicks assertion that raising the belt level of teenage trousers would lower the crime level in Flint,Michigan or any other city. There is no indication that droopy drawers have anything to do with gang membership or any other criminal intention. 

 

    In a lot of these neighborhoods, and the kids aren't going to tell you about it, but these are hand-me-down jeans passed from older brother to younger brother or younger sister. I know, I worked there.

 

    This is not a legal issue. This is a taste issue. Of course, in some neighborhoods you'll see more crack than Amy Winehouse's medicine cabinet. I don't like it at all, either. But I do not feel that the police have any right to tell people how to dress. Look if the kid is running around intentionally naked and causing a disruption that's one thing - but I don't think that this is the case. I think these are kids that are letting their drawers sag to get attention - in no different a fashion as a mohawk would be in a different setting. Ultimately, the fact that this is suddenly only an inner-city problem and not a suburban problem says more about law enforcement in inner cities than it does about anything else. This is something that can be fixed very simply with a belt either applied liberally to the waistband or to the behind. At the end of the day, this is not an issue for the police but one of parenting.

    

    Maybe we can get corporate America to help out. I'm sure all of these inner city kids would be completely happy if Haines or Fruit of the Loom just came out with boxers that, well, looked like jeans. And I'm sure, that somewhere in a warehouse, there are boxes and boxes of Mork from Ork suspenders just laying around from the late seventies unsold, and all it takes is one Kanye or P.Diddy track - and those things are hotter than big ass rims on a Cadallac.

 

  Maybe its about fear. Fear of the unknown, fear of things that are absurd. But, I'm really not afraid of a kid with baggy pants mugging me - heck, what's he going to do afterward run? He'll be ass over feet within two steps. Shop-lifting? Are we really as ignorant to think that kids with baggy pants are going to be shop lifters? Well, if I ever owned a store, and a kid comes in and shoves one of my product down the front of his pants or down the back and tries to steal it....well, I don't really want that product back anyway. That's what insurance is for.

 

     There are laws that are going to be applied to poor African-American or caucasian teens. I want this law applied equally to all people in the community. I'm talking to you, Mr. Plumber-Butt. I can't tell you how many times my old landlord used to shoot the moon every time my sink stopped up. I just wanted to drop an ice-cube down that Grand Canyon. It was like a car-accident - I didn't want to look but that crevace was just enormous. Nasty, nasty memory. But on the either end of the spectrum, we wouldn't want to all be complete chauvinists, either - because I can't tell you how many young women let me see the dental floss that they're wearing for underwear, and as a married man, let me just say, that is so wrong. Young, available women showing off their butts like that. Just really, really wrong.

 

    Maybe Officer Dicks just has a thing for young male butts. Maybe he has a thing for young inner-city males rear ends. Maybe he's going for a promotion. Of course, it would strain the credibility of this very podcast if I were to say that if he were promoted he'd be Inspector Dicks, so lets just hope he gets demoted back down to Private Dicks.

 

    These kids have a 1st Amendment right toward self-expression. If they want to look like a bumbling idiot, they're allowed to. If they want to look like they have a dirty diaper, they're allowed to. If a girl thinks a boy looks more attractive because his chariot swings lower than the next guy, I say, Really?

 

    For better or worse, its about communication, and I don't want to go all Bill Cosby here, but these kids are communicating horribly - but I really believe for better or worse, they have a right to expose their BVD's as long as they watch their Ps and Qs - as much as I don't like it.

 

    Like I said, its a matter of taste and a matter of degree. As much as I personally don't want to see it - I don't know how this became a priority or how its enforced. I can't even imagine a trial involving this. What Judge in their right mind is going to want to listen to an officer talking about a kid's butt. But, heh, at the end of the day, when you're talking about putting a person in jail for a 93 days, there is ultimatly going to be a trial and even more of a waste of municipal resources. Maybe there is a bright-line test. Boxers and briefs ok, but at the end of the day - just say no to crack.

 

    Oh wow, Carol Burnett would be so disappointed in me that I just spent the last few minutes of your life talking about the social-political ramifications of butts. Actually, I'm kind of ashamed of myself, too. Just say no to crack. Horrible.