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

Wed Feb 9 07:26:23 PST 2005

Saundra writes: "Mind you, I've not seen a single objectionable display of 
female breasts."  To my chagrin, neither have I.  And I've been trying.      

                                          Carl Westberg Jr.

>From: "Saundra Lund" <sslund at adelphia.net>
>To: "'Joan Opyr'" <auntiestablishment at hotmail.com>,   "'Vision2020 Moscow'" 
><vision2020 at moscow.com>
>CC: "'Pat Kraut'" <pkraut at moscow.com>
>Subject: RE: [Vision2020] Re: Well, It ain't plumbing
>Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2005 00:55:22 -0800
>
>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
>
>
>
>
>_____________________________________________________
>  List services made available by First Step Internet,
>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>                http://www.fsr.net
>           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯