[Vision2020] Re: Well, It ain't plumbing

Wed Feb 9 00:55:22 PST 2005

Ah, thank you, Auntie Establishment, for your ever-entertaining  words.

However, I want to reassure you and Pat Kraut -- who I'm sure was aghast to be
included with the likes of us other "Intoleristas" and who abhors those most
unappealing butt-cracks (assuming that's part of what she refers to as private
parts -- Pat, please correct me if I'm wrong here) right along with us -- that
butt-cracks are ***illegal*** in Moscow.

I kid you not!  The display -- intentional or not -- of butt-cracks in Moscow
has been illegal since 2002.  As far as I'm concerned, that was the *only*
potentially positive aspect of Moscow Ordinance 2002-13, the so-called "public
nudity" ordinance that really was nothing more than an attempt to criminalize
female breasts.  Yes, yes, I know . . . there are some in our community who fear
that the revelation of female breasts will drive otherwise "faithful" males into
a sexual frenzy.  And, I'm sure it will come as no surprise to many here that I
find that argument pure hogwash -- men are just as capable as controlling their
instincts as females.  If I'm not driven to attack the (few) males with
"irresistible" pecs, I'm willing to grant that the males in our community are
capable of the same self-control.

(And, of course, that fails to take into account those with "alternative" sexual
preferences in our community.  But, since the law also failed to consider that
vital segment of our community, I'll leave that to others to address.)

Yes, it's true:  butt-cracks are illegal in Moscow.  For those who doubt me,
please see:
http://www.ci.moscow.id.us/citycode/TITLE10/chapter1.pdf
Sec 1-16.

Why, oh why, then, do I still have nightmares of butt-cracks???  Well, I'll tell
you:  it's because while there's a law on the books against such displays, this
seems to be a part of the law our "protectors" in blue haven't chosen to
enforce.  Naturally -- God forbid we should glimpse a female breast, but those
most unattractive butt-cracks are *still* visible!  I know of a few women who
have been told that they are showing too much cleavage, but those most
unattractive butt-cracks are still out there, tormenting us all.  This time of
year, I know it's hard to conceive, but I was subjected to all-too-many
offensive butt-cracks before the weather turned frigid.  Heck -- I'm sorry to
tell you that even with the weather cold, I've continued to see butt-cracks!

Mind you, I've not seen a single objectionable display of female breasts.
However, I continue to be tormented by offensive displays of butt-cracks.

Can we all say "selective enforcement"?

I guess I've been ignorant my entire life -- no one whose seen my breasts has
ever been compelled to mayhem or infidelity.  When the weather gets a bit (OK, a
whole lot) warmer, perhaps I should test the power of my breasts: do they have
the power to cause otherwise normal males (or females) to abandon values?
Somehow, I doubt that would be the effect  ;-)

But, why are we continuing to see those most unattractive butt-cracks???   I
mean, there's a law against them!  Sheesh -- the only potential positive of that
repressive sexist (and unconstitutional) law, and we're still seeing
butt-cracks?!?!?!

Maybe I should break out my camera?  No, on second though, that would break my
camera!

I ***urge*** all who continue to see those illegal butt-cracks in Moscow to call
our "protectors"!  Report all sightings -- I'm serious:  had sufficient
attention been paid to those offensive butt-cracks, then they'd be as scarce as
the female breasts that were determined to be so detrimental to "our" community.
Funny -- while female breasts were viewed to be "harmful" to our community, the
disappearance of same hasn't helped anything, has it?

Saundra Lund
Moscow, ID

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do
nothing.
-Edmund Burke

-----Original Message-----
From: vision2020-bounces at moscow.com [mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com] On
Behalf Of Joan Opyr
Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2005 11:04 PM
To: Vision2020 Moscow
Subject: [Vision2020] Re: Well, It ain't plumbing

As is well-known from Auntie Establishment's biography (as posted on my
website), I find the public display of butt-cracks an egregious offense to good
taste, good looks, and good social order.  I'm not bothered, however, by the
display of underwear.  Show your boxer shorts all you like!  Let's get a glimpse
of that Victoria's Secret brassiere!  Underwear is great!  Underwear is good!
Even when it's displayed as outerwear.  To this, I say, so what?  No doubt when
that Republican coot in Virginia sits down, the tops of his cheap, black nylon
socks are on full display to all and sundry, as is a two-inch stretch of the
blinding white leg above.  I know these sanctimonious Southern gent-types and
their proclivity for wearing ill-fitting polyester trousers; I grew up with
them, and I blame them in part for my poor eyesight.  I was blinded at an early
age by the gratuitous summertime display of their lily-white legs in paisley
Bermuda shorts.

No, I don't mind underwear.  What I don't want to see are:

1) Your butt-crack.
2) Your pot-belly.
3) Your long nasal hairs.
4) Any long hairs that might be protruding from your ears.  And, 
5) You balding men out there who are unable to love yourselves as you are.  Get
thee to a therapist and then to a good hairdresser.  Why?  Because I don't want
to see your long, fooling-no-one, thick-tendril comb-overs anymore.  Just stop
it.  Do what the smart gay men do -- get all of your remaining hair cut very,
very short.  This has the queer (if you'll excuse the expression) effect of
making you look like you have more hair, not less.  No kidding.

So, no, Dave, I won't be generating a petition in Idaho re: underwear.
Unfortunately, I despair of ever being able to enact any of my various
prejudices into law.  Butt-cracks will continue to smile at me vertically from
low-cut jeans; pot-bellied men will take off their shirts in the summer heat.
Nose hairs will sprout from nostrils like kudzu from a Southern ditch.  And bald
men will continue to let the hair grow over (and out of) their ears until it
turns into squid-like tentacles that they can pull over their naked scalps and
plaster into place with God-knows-what kind of terrifying hair paste.

Why, why, why?!  Only God and Vitalis know the answer.

Joan Opyr/Auntie Establishment
www.auntie-establishment.com

	----- Original Message -----
	From: David M. Budge
	Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2005 9:05 PM
	To: Vision2020 Moscow; Joan Opyr
	Subject: Well, It ain't plumbing

	...but it's a start.  

	Joan,

	Time to start a petition?

	Dave Budge

	Underwear Police? Virginians May Be Fined For Low-Cut Pants

	People Would Face $50 Fine

	POSTED: 7:14 am EST February 8, 2005
	RICHMOND, Va. -- A Norfolk, Va., legislator says the droopy-drawers bill
may be his legacy. 

  SURVEY	
Should a state have the right to fine people whose underwear show above their
pants? 
Yes, it's indecent.
No, that would be a violation of Americans' freedoms.
No, it would be too difficult to enforce. Who decides what's indecent?

Results <http://www.wnbc.com/print/4174793/detail.html#>  | Disclaimer
<http://www.wnbc.com/print/4174793/detail.html#> 
	The Virginia House of Delegates has tentatively approved a bill to crack
down on people who wear low-riding pants. 
________________________________

		Discussion:Fined For Low-Cut Pants?
<http://forums.ibsys.com/viewmessages.cfm?sitekey=ny&Forum=79&Topic=11533>  

________________________________

	Freshman Norfolk Delegate Algie Howell Jr. introduced the bill at the
urging of constituents who are offended by the exposed underwear. 

	Howell said, "That's why they're called undergarments. They're supposed
to be worn under something else." Delegates approved a measure that would allow
police to assess a $50 fine on anyone who exposes their below-waist underpants
in a "lewd or indecent manner." Howell said that since he introduced it last
month, he's been deluged with calls and e-mails about the issue, mostly
positive. Howell told The Virginian-Pilot that he kept hearing from customers in
his barber shop that something needed to be done about young people who wear
their pants around their knees, exposing their underwear. When a House
subcommittee took up the matter, the response was sympathetic yet skeptical
because of legal issues. It's going to the House floor for a vote.

________________________________

Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com