If I had the time, I could probably write a couple of entries a day on politicians with nothing better to do. Consider this story, entitled "Lawmaker Seeks to End Sexy Cheerleading":
AUSTIN, Texas (AP) -- The Friday night lights in Texas could soon be without bumpin' and grindin' cheerleaders. Legislation filed by Rep. Al Edwards would put an end to "sexually suggestive" performances at athletic events and other extracurricular competitions. [...]
Under Edwards' bill, if a school district knowingly permits such a performance, funds from the state would be reduced in an amount to be determined by the education commissioner.
Edwards said he filed the bill as a result of several instances of seeing such ribald performances in his district.
As if the spectacle of a dozen attractive teenage girls prancing around in tiny tiny skirts isn't at all sexually suggestive. No, it only becomes a problem when they move their hips in a certain way that a certain legislator doesn't like. Sheesh.
Notice that the title of the article points to why there are likely countless examples of such inanity: these guys are called "lawmakers". A carmaker is expected to make cars, a candlestick-maker is expected to make candlesticks, therefore a lawmaker is expected to make laws. And make laws they shall.
The other problem is that most people probably think like my mom. Not that I've talked to her about this particular issue, but I have a pretty good idea that her response would be along the lines of "Good. Teenage girls shouldn't be doing that". Sure, I can see that perhaps they shouldn't be doing that, which makes my mom's (imagined) position difficult to argue with.
But such a position misses the larger point, which is that it shouldn't be the government's job to keep people from doing every last thing they might not supposed to be doing. Furthermore, it's absurd that anyone could even consider basing state school aid on the shake of a teenage girl's hips (shall we someday base it on watery tarts?). And most disturbingly, it's a reminder of how much power politicians really do have over us: Al Edwardses all over the country can make something illegal simply because they do not like it. And people such as my mom will applaud and never feel the slippery slope they're sliding down.
(And what do you know? I side with a blogger who describes himself as a "Democrat in Bush Country". Not that I much care if 40-year-old men ogle 14-year-old girls on their spare time, but I do agree that the Texas (or any) Legislature has to have more pressing issues.)
(And by the way - as a Republican in New York City, I probably get infinitely more crap than you do :-)
(UPDATE: Oh, sure, someone else gets the Insta-lanche!)
Comments (5)
I don't know. The republicans in my area are all hillbillies with guns. I say that jokingly, but it is actually absolutely true.
Posted by Nate-n | March 18, 2005 2:49 PM
Posted on March 18, 2005 14:49
You're totally right; these guys have to have better things to do. I basically said the same thing yesterday about the Congress-and-baseball thing, and now, lo and behold, a similar example of time-wasting crops up practically in my own backyard.
Posted by Kev | March 18, 2005 7:54 PM
Posted on March 18, 2005 19:54
Awwww another liberal with his nose in his own diaper... Geez... I guess it would be OK if your daughter did the bump and grind and they was raped by some freak she had turned on... if you don't want to give away the goodies... don't display them in a way that indicates you do... be you 10 or 110... back to the playpen for you... night!!
Posted by Jim Wallace | March 19, 2005 12:38 PM
Posted on March 19, 2005 12:38
That's kind of a stupid argument. If my daughter did the bump and grind and then got raped? If my daughter (which would be intersting because I'm only 22) was raped it would be bad. It would be bad independent of what she had been doing or wearing. It's not a girl's fault that she gets raped, it's the rapist's fault.
It reminds me of a lady I once read who was opposed to selling alcohol because she was worried that an underage kid would get run over when a car pulled out of the parking lot of the liquor store too fast because the driver had just bought alcohol for a kid. That's a good reason for getting rid of cars, it has nothing to do with the selling alcohol.
The same with your argument that my fictional daughter might get raped because she is a cheerleader. More cops on the streets and better education for young girls about walking home alone at night stop rapes, not because she is a cheerleader.
Posted by Nate-N | March 21, 2005 4:39 PM
Posted on March 21, 2005 16:39
If you think I'm a liberal, then you either didn't read my post or you didn't comprehend it. Based on the fact that your argument is poorly written and makes no sense, I'm going with the latter.
Here's a quote from Ronald Reagan that shows where I'm coming from:
"Government is never more dangerous than when our desire to have it help us blinds us to its great power to harm us."
Posted by Peter | March 22, 2005 8:01 AM
Posted on March 22, 2005 08:01