Join 3,572 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


Land of the free
September 17, 2007 12:50 PM   Subscribe

Land of the free. So long as you don't wear unapproved pants. The racist angle kind of surprised me; I would think people would be outraged on the basic principle alone.
posted by Bovine Love (88 comments total) 1 user marked this as a favorite

 
A "crackdown"....LOL
posted by MtDewd at 12:53 PM on September 17, 2007 [5 favorites]


This is clearly racist. There were no jail-time possibilities back in the acid-washed days, despite the greater offense.
posted by bonecrusher at 12:55 PM on September 17, 2007 [2 favorites]


In other news, men seen wearing zoot suits outdoors will be cited for uppity behavior.
posted by brownpau at 12:57 PM on September 17, 2007 [5 favorites]


Previously.
posted by ND¢ at 1:01 PM on September 17, 2007


Un fucking believable. Making stupid laws ought to be a crime.
posted by odinsdream at 1:02 PM on September 17, 2007


"Swing low..."
posted by ColdChef at 1:05 PM on September 17, 2007


My pants are saggin, braided hair
suckers stare, but I don't care
my game ain't knowelgde my game's fear
I've no remorse so squares beware
posted by mattbucher at 1:05 PM on September 17, 2007


You can legislate against stupid fashions? Shit. Better hide my leisure suits.
posted by Astro Zombie at 1:07 PM on September 17, 2007


If it is bare ass they are trying to cut down on, it seems like that would already be covered by existing indecency laws.

Exposed boxers? They cover up more than most bathing suits. Seems like if boxers is what they find offensive they would ban womens thong bathing suits also.

If exposed boxers is the perceived problem, then everyone should start wearing "Take the stick out of your ass Annette Lartigue" shirts.
posted by Mr_Zero at 1:08 PM on September 17, 2007


When are we going to be issued our goddamn uniforms anyway? Goddamn government inefficien... *hole crashes through ceiling followed by fireman's pole and scores of begasmasked black-ops bearing a big duffel bag...*
posted by Pollomacho at 1:12 PM on September 17, 2007 [5 favorites]


The racist angle kind of surprised me

"Damn Kids With Their Baggy Pants" is a race, now?
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 1:13 PM on September 17, 2007


I'm torn. On the one hand it most probably is motivated by racism, on the other hand anyone who wears their trousers like that is a twat and deserves everything they get.
posted by Artw at 1:14 PM on September 17, 2007 [7 favorites]


not unprecedented...Zoot Suit Riots back in the 40's Sailors on leave would pick fights with the Zoot Suits, gang members, whom they thought were shirking their patriotic duties. Military authorities intervened by declaring that Los Angeles would be off-limits to all military personnel.
posted by Gungho at 1:14 PM on September 17, 2007 [1 favorite]


Judging by the way the kids waddle around my neighborhood, I think if they DID commit any actual wrongdoing, they'd at least be easy to catch.
posted by maryh at 1:16 PM on September 17, 2007 [4 favorites]


Gungho: I award you the "The More You Know!" star of the day for fantastic arcane knowledge.
posted by a robot made out of meat at 1:18 PM on September 17, 2007


anyone who wears their trousers like that is a twat and deserves everything they get.

Yeah, well while you are struggling to get your money out. These guys already have it out. So each to is own, slow, difficult money getter outer.
posted by Mr_Zero at 1:19 PM on September 17, 2007 [1 favorite]


Day-um, y'all. Between "Dancin' w/James Brown" yestiddy, the "Socially conscious rap," "Afro-punk" and this thang today, I had to stop and check my calendar to make sure it wasn't Black History Month. Holla!
posted by t2urner at 1:19 PM on September 17, 2007


Running away from cops, particularly up stairs, is a bitch in them big trousers. I predict the criminal element of the future will wear comfortable breathable knit leggings. With leather accents.
posted by tkchrist at 1:23 PM on September 17, 2007 [1 favorite]


I was in a shopping mall in downtown st. louis 14 years ago and the security guard was bouncing kids from the mall for wearing baggy pants. 14 years ago.

Conformity has always been big in America.
posted by srboisvert at 1:24 PM on September 17, 2007


Wow, I really mangled that.
posted by Mr_Zero at 1:25 PM on September 17, 2007


I love yelling "racist" at the drop of a hat as much as the next guy, but just FYI here's the Atlanta City Council. I count 11 black faces out of 16 members, which makes it unlikely that we're dealing with a Klavern voted bodily into public office. The C. T. Martin quoted in the article as wanting to prevent butt display from spreading to elementary schools is the distinguished-looking black gent in the navy suit and power tie, third from left in the lower row.

If anything, it's classist - folks who wear suits to work vs. folks who wear baggy pants to not work. Fuller is very much on the side of the folks in the suits.
posted by jfuller at 1:26 PM on September 17, 2007


I fail to understand this at a practical level. Is the technical offense "exposed underwear"? If so, what is "underwear"? Is it the piece of clothing worn directly over the genitals? If I'm free-balling, does that mean my pants are technically underwear?

Seriously, how is this enforceable? It would have to be an "I know it when I see it" thing with no hard-and-fast rules. In other words, a raft of lawsuits waiting to happen.
posted by gurple at 1:31 PM on September 17, 2007 [1 favorite]


If I'm free-balling

Please. This is a family web site. We refer to that as "Loose Pickle" where I'm from.
posted by tkchrist at 1:35 PM on September 17, 2007 [5 favorites]


I fully and wholeheartedly support anyone's right to dress like some kind of fucking circus clown.
posted by BobFrapples at 1:37 PM on September 17, 2007 [10 favorites]


"Are they going to go after construction workers and plumbers, because their pants sag, too?" Murray asked. "They're stereotyping us."

true dat.
posted by Ironmouth at 1:43 PM on September 17, 2007


The penalty is stiffer in Delcambre, Louisiana, where in June the town council passed an ordinance that carries a fine of up to $500 or six months in jail for exposing underwear in public.

On a stupidity scale of 1 to 10, that's about 14.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 1:43 PM on September 17, 2007


maryh: Judging by the way the kids waddle around my neighborhood, I think if they DID commit any actual wrongdoing, they'd at least be easy to catch.

If my cop relatives are indicative of most police officers, they love the baggy pants trend for this very reason.
posted by Terminal Verbosity at 1:45 PM on September 17, 2007


Fuller is very much on the side of the folks in the suits.

A running dog lackey of the Armani-wearing classes, so to speak?
posted by PeterMcDermott at 1:46 PM on September 17, 2007


Seems like if boxers is what they find offensive they would ban womens thong bathing suits also.

Never mind bathing suits -- ban the bare, muffin-top midriff right now. That's a terrorist offence against masculine sensibilities that's going unpunished on a daily basis.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 1:51 PM on September 17, 2007


So, the joke about there being 'fashion police' is no longer 'a joke!'
posted by ericb at 1:52 PM on September 17, 2007 [1 favorite]


Take away their rights to baggy pants, and pretty soon these guys will be wearing manpris... NOBODY wants that.
posted by inigo2 at 1:52 PM on September 17, 2007


Dude standing in front of me at the grocery store lost his baggy pants a couple of weeks ago. I fully support the wearing of baggy lowslung pants because you can't buy that kind of comedy. If only it had been accompanied by a slide whistle, and maybe the security guy chasing him to the Benny
Hill tune.
posted by fleetmouse at 1:54 PM on September 17, 2007 [9 favorites]


I don't think the issue is seeing underwear.

You see more than mere "coin slots." Some of these kids you get a very clear indication as to how mindful and thourough their daily toilette habits are.
posted by tkchrist at 1:55 PM on September 17, 2007


Personally I think they should ban askew trucker hats first. Except for truckers.
posted by tkchrist at 1:58 PM on September 17, 2007


"Coin slots"?

Anyway, this is a waste of time and resources.
posted by elwoodwiles at 2:00 PM on September 17, 2007


"Coin slots"?

Think about it.
posted by tkchrist at 2:01 PM on September 17, 2007


posted by tkchrist I don't think the issue is seeing underwear. You see more than mere "coin slots." Some of these kids you get a very clear indication as to how mindful and thourough their daily toilette habits are.

How much time do you spend each day staring at young men's ass cracks, you pervert?
posted by fandango_matt at 2:02 PM on September 17, 2007


gurple: In other words, a raft of lawsuits waiting to happen.

You really think the "violators" have money for lawyers?
posted by desjardins at 2:04 PM on September 17, 2007


The beauty to me is that there are girls out there who think it's hot, or guys wouldn't continue to do it. I need one of them to explain to me what it is that makes keeping a hand on your pants while you walk so they don't fall down hot.
posted by flarbuse at 2:04 PM on September 17, 2007


When I was teaching karate to teenagers some the kids started coming in with super baggy pants and extra extra large t-shirts. You know what I found out? They baby-pinned the t-shirts, underwear, and pants all together like some sort of ad hoc jump suit.

I used to make them work out in their street clothes and watch them fall around like drunk Oompah Loopahs.
posted by tkchrist at 2:06 PM on September 17, 2007 [2 favorites]


How much time do you spend each day staring at young men's ass cracks, you pervert?

Staring? I'm sniffing.
posted by tkchrist at 2:07 PM on September 17, 2007 [1 favorite]


Correction: Oompah LOOMpahs.
posted by tkchrist at 2:09 PM on September 17, 2007


farbuse: The beauty to me is that there are girls out there who think it's hot, or guys wouldn't continue to do it.

One of the things I have observed is that a lot of guys dress strictly for the approval of other guys (note all observations are entirely casual [not causal] and may be wildly wrong). The correlation between this behavior and homophobia seems to be really high; the more homophobic, the more they seem to want to have other guys approve. Sort of like typical jock behavior. I suppose, in someways, it isn't different from how they always sell women clothes, etc.
posted by Bovine Love at 2:11 PM on September 17, 2007


James Howard Kunstler's awesomely classist rant on the fashion of young American men: "Pants that are ambiguously neither long or short, worn with XX-large T shirts, tend to make grown men look like babies. Babies have short legs and large torsos compared to grown men. They also make big awkward gestures and touch their sex organs a lot. Add a sideways hat and unlaced sneakers and you have the complete kindergarten rig. Why a 20-year-old male would want to look five years old is another interesting question, but it may have a lot to do with the developmental failures of boys raised in households without fathers. They simply don't know how to be men. They only know how to behave like five year old boys. They even give themselves nursery school nicknames. But they are men, and what could be more menacing than the paradox of a child bent on homicide."
posted by billysumday at 2:13 PM on September 17, 2007 [8 favorites]


*bangs head against wall*
posted by papakwanz at 2:18 PM on September 17, 2007


Staring? I'm sniffing.

The Sweet Smell Of… Men's Sweat? -- Gene Variation May Explain Why People Like Or Detest The Smell Of Men's Sweat.
posted by ericb at 2:25 PM on September 17, 2007


Don't do that, papakwanz, you'll shake the pants loose.
posted by NationalKato at 2:29 PM on September 17, 2007


farbuse: The beauty to me is that there are girls out there who think it's hot, or guys wouldn't continue to do it.

To me it is clearly about looking like a tough bad-ass thug. The baggy clothing look is nearly almost accompanied by a saunter which Tom Wolfe called the "pimp roll". (see Bonfire of the Vanities). There's a social hierarchy going on where the toughest kids are at the top; that's why they get the girls.
posted by PercussivePaul at 2:31 PM on September 17, 2007


I'm sorry, but if your boxers are showing? Boxers a basically shorts, I've worn them to work out at the gym, I mean I'm a girl, but I don't see what difference that makes. I could understand if people's entire asses were hanging out (of course I have been guilty of this before in my jeans, what can I say it's hard to find that perfect pair), but this is just ridiculous. And while I hate to scream this, it is racist, but really more than anything its sexist. If showing your underwear is now illegal, half the girls in SoCal under the age of 40 should be arrested for flashing their thongs on a daily basis.
posted by whoaali at 2:31 PM on September 17, 2007


And while I hate to scream this, it is racist, but really more than anything its sexist.

It's also ageist, and ass-ist, not to mention whitemencantjumpist. And possibly Islmaophobic.
posted by Krrrlson at 2:38 PM on September 17, 2007 [1 favorite]


"Pants that are ambiguously neither long or short, worn with XX-large T shirts, tend to make grown men look like babies.

Actually, there are two things-- first, the X-Large shirt hides any chubby rolls on might be developing. Next, the white-shirt-and-jeans uniform means that anyone reported to the police described as wearing "a white t-shirt and jeans" has instant anonymity. Wearing that uniform is a form of participating in "stop snitching" because in doing so, you're providing cover for anyone in trouble with the police.
posted by deanc at 2:41 PM on September 17, 2007 [1 favorite]


I don't know about any of the other youth groups described in the article, but as far as skateboarders go, it's more of a safety thing that purely fashion. I don't know if kids starting nowadays know this, but the point of the baggy pants was to slow down a board that was headed towards one particularly "sensitive" area on men.

The first time you screwed up a kickflip, you'd be damn glad you had something to prevent a big wooden board from hitting you at full speed.

On a more serious note, isn't this whole thing completely unconstitutional?
posted by aubin at 2:42 PM on September 17, 2007


> If showing your underwear is now illegal, half the girls in SoCal under the age of 40 should be
> arrested for flashing their thongs on a daily basis.

We'll let it pass if they're under 20 and underweight. Anyone else--straight to the slammer, wearing state-supplied tarps.
posted by jfuller at 2:45 PM on September 17, 2007 [1 favorite]


Why fix the problem when you can throw money at the symptoms instead?
posted by blue_beetle at 2:54 PM on September 17, 2007


Also illegal: standing on my lawn. You kids pull up your pants, and get off of it. Thanks.
posted by ninjew at 2:59 PM on September 17, 2007 [1 favorite]


The truly great thing about this law though, is now wearing baggy pants is not just a passing fad, it's a political statement, a way to rebel against the man. There will be petitions, we can all show our solidarity by wearing our pants as low as possible, and screw the underwear. It's gonna be great.
posted by whoaali at 3:03 PM on September 17, 2007 [1 favorite]


So if baggy pants are so wrong, why do I always get shit for walking around in my speedo?
posted by kingfisher, his musclebound cat at 3:14 PM on September 17, 2007 [1 favorite]


Eh, the skater kids I knew were different. They wore their Jncos and the like across the hips, with belts so they wouldn't go lower, and the pant legs were big because it was easier to stuff protective gear under them. If worn over fitted pants, the knee pads and suchlike would slide until they were no longer protecting where they needed to. Plus, it was fun to load Jeff The Stoner up with six cans of Coke and a bag of already-popped microwave popcorn and go to the movies.

That said.. I don't get this whole prison-inmate, belt-below-the-crotch, super baggy "sagging" or whatever thing. Maybe I'm too old, or too white, or too obsessed with ensuring my pants do NOT come off by themselves. (The only way that will happen is if I find myself suddenly standing next to Christian Bale -- then they'll go rocketing off my body at the speed of light.) I laugh at it, though. Oh, how I laugh. I giggle and sometimes I point, and it's not because the wearers of the pants are black, or because they're from a subculture different to mine, it's because their pants are falling off on purpose. Depantsing is never not funny, and when it's intention is to look cool -- hell, that's funnier.

My cop friends agree with Terminal Verbosity's, by the way. It is much easier to catch someone whose belt is clamped around their upper thighs.
posted by cmyk at 3:15 PM on September 17, 2007


Hmm. I've only seen a couple of kids wearing baggy pants like that, such that they were basically walking around in underwear, and having to pull their pants up constantly to maintain the look. Not really showing the kind of convenience that Mark Wise (quoted in the article) is espousing.

So why this wouldn't be covered by normal public indecency laws is beyond me; after all, if I walked around with my pants around my ankles, I'd get arrested, wouldn't I, even if I pulled my pants back up as the cop approached?

And yeah, whoaali, it's firmly in the "now that we know this bothers you, we're gonna KEEP ON DOING IT but even moreso" camp. Maybe if they outlaw short hair and bow ties, the kids will adopt that look and everyone will be happy. Certainly they'll stop claiming it's racial profiling.

Oh, wait, no they won't.
posted by davejay at 3:18 PM on September 17, 2007


Hey, it's easier to conceal a weapon if your pants are baggy, yes? And if you're constantly grabbing at your pants to keep them up, you're less likely to attract attention when you go for that weapon, yes?

So this being fashionable in prison doesn't surprise me in the least.
posted by davejay at 3:20 PM on September 17, 2007


The truly great thing about this law though, is now wearing baggy pants is not just a passing fad, it's a political statement, a way to rebel against the man. There will be petitions, we can all show our solidarity by wearing our pants as low as possible, and screw the underwear. It's gonna be great.

Actually, I've always sort of wondered if the low pants, aside from the no-belt prison thing, were a way of almost mooning the world.
posted by rmless at 3:22 PM on September 17, 2007


This certainly is racist against white suburban teens who wish to emulate how black millionaire rappers portray fictional urban lifestyles on short segments of musically themed television. They’re rebelling. You wouldn’t understand.
posted by Smedleyman at 3:25 PM on September 17, 2007 [4 favorites]


I just love that baggy-pants-wearers have voluntarily adopted the male form of the hobble skirt.

(And watching one of these guys run to catch a bus? Comedy gold!)
posted by rtha at 3:26 PM on September 17, 2007


The utility of a concealed weapon is closely tied to your ability to unconceal it when the time comes. Tossing it into a circus tent that you happen to have tied around your waist will certainly hide it, but if you plan for a knife fight starts out with the phrase, “Hang on a minute!” while you have your arms elbow deep down your trousers, you should consider other means of conflict resolution.
posted by Kid Charlemagne at 3:39 PM on September 17, 2007 [4 favorites]


I still don't understand why people are so offended if all you see is their boxers, which are nothing more than shorts. I mean i can't remember ever seeing any guys who actually asses were hanging out, usually their boxers are hiked up pretty damn high, so that our weak hearts aren't subjected to even a hint of youthful ass crack.

Honestly who has the time to police other people's clothes? Who the hell cares? Let them wear baggy pants!
posted by whoaali at 3:39 PM on September 17, 2007


You know, I was out flying this lead balloon, and the strangest thing happened.
posted by dazed_one at 3:42 PM on September 17, 2007


So why this wouldn't be covered by normal public indecency laws is beyond me; after all, if I walked around with my pants around my ankles, I'd get arrested, wouldn't I, even if I pulled my pants back up as the cop approached?

Hmmmm.
posted by ryoshu at 3:42 PM on September 17, 2007


Boxers? Yes, I think they should be arrested, absolutely, before they do any more damage to each others faces.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 3:57 PM on September 17, 2007


whoaali: Boxers a basically shorts, I've worn them to work out at the gym, I mean I'm a girl, but I don't see what difference that makes.

The difference is that you don't have a penis that could flop on out of the fly. And presumably you wore other underwear under those boxers, which made them cotton shorts, not underwear.

Kirth Gerson: On a stupidity scale of 1 to 10, that's about 14.

I see you've been to Delcambre! (Their stupidity meter would in fact be on 14 most of time, if they could count that high.)
posted by LooseFilter at 4:11 PM on September 17, 2007


So if baggy pants are so wrong, why do I always get shit for walking around in my speedo?

Err, because...
posted by ericb at 4:22 PM on September 17, 2007 [1 favorite]


whoaali: Boxers a basically shorts, I've worn them to work out at the gym, I mean I'm a girl, but I don't see what difference that makes.

The difference is that you don't have a penis that could flop on out of the fly. And presumably you wore other underwear under those boxers, which made them cotton shorts, not underwear.


Ok has anyone ever seen or heard of the above happening? I mean ever? Also they usually are sagged in the back and are up higher in the front.

Tangent: What I have seen that is very disturbing however, is a plenty of guys wearing soccer shorts, with boxers underneath. On the surface, perfectly innocuous, until someone puts their legs up and things unexpectedly flop out, oh dear god, and they never notice.
posted by whoaali at 4:25 PM on September 17, 2007


The difference is that you don't have a penis that could flop on out of the fly.

Are you suggesting whoaali is a eunuch? Them's fighting words.

On the surface, perfectly innocuous, until someone puts their legs up and things unexpectedly flop out

Good God yes. I'd rather witness acres of exposed asscrack than see even one more dangling scrotal sac.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 4:43 PM on September 17, 2007


Kunstler is such a crank that I find his claims that he hopes society doesn't collapse when Peak Oil hits to be unconvincing. He may starve to death like the rest of us, but he'll be laughing as everyone with baggy pants gets too emaciated to be able to keep them up on their waists.
posted by The Card Cheat at 4:54 PM on September 17, 2007


Fight back!
posted by jbickers at 5:01 PM on September 17, 2007


The difference is that you don't have a penis that could flop on out of the fly. And presumably you wore other underwear under those boxers, which made them cotton shorts, not underwear.

Ok has anyone ever seen or heard of the above happening? I mean ever? Also they usually are sagged in the back and are up higher in the front.


Yes it has happened, and in front of a large group of witnesses. Thankfully any video/photographic evidence would be illegal to distribute, due to my age at the time.

and no, my pants weren't baggy. more a case of the too-short-shorts.
posted by nomisxid at 5:05 PM on September 17, 2007


In one sense you have to sort of admire the delicate balancing act that it takes to wear these things. I have, only once thank God, seen the wearer stumble and the whole show come tumbling down- not a pretty sight, and no doubt embarrassing for him. Surprising that living on the edge like that could be considered comfortable- I'd be a mess of anxiety all day.

More interesting than that, however, is the urge for studied sloppiness. Compared, I mean, to the much mentioned zoot suit, or the modern equivalent. Let's face it, none of these loping kids can by any stretch of the imagination be called sharp, and that's a shame. Time was the rebels took the time and trouble and expense of stepping out with a bit of flair. The kids in their overweight siblings clothing- the best I can console myself with is, they'll grow out of it.
posted by IndigoJones at 5:18 PM on September 17, 2007


I wonder if it’s still ok to wear my kilt?
Of course, I tend to wear compression shorts under them (big thighs) but they look like underwear...in fact, by definition they are underwear.
posted by Smedleyman at 5:19 PM on September 17, 2007



"Ok has anyone ever seen or heard of the above happening? I mean ever?"

this would be why I never wear boxers. They don't actually protect Mr Happy and the twins because the boxers bunch up and the flap "yawns" open and then you have skin on zipper action.
posted by Megafly at 5:23 PM on September 17, 2007


Ok, but all jokes aside, the baggy baggy pants and the big boxers are always accompanied by a ridiculously oversized shirt.

And no one is defending their fashion. I mean its horrendous, it truly is, but I'm not going to let my style snobbery outlaw other people's fashion choices. God knows if my mother had been allowed to dictate my clothes, I would be dressed in a tartan skirt and sweater set every day of my life, as I went off to the nunnery. Luckily my fabulousness prevailed. But these kids are young, they are expressing themselves, they are rebelling in an incredibly innocuous way, let's leave them the alone.
posted by whoaali at 5:34 PM on September 17, 2007


It does seem ridiculously impossible to wear if you were actually committing crime and needed mobility. Perhaps outlawing it is actually an effort to bolster this um, "sagging" trend [which I thought was pretty much over?] so that the crooks are easier to catch?
posted by Maias at 7:15 PM on September 17, 2007


Don't you want the criminal element to be wearing baggy pants? The criminals will be a lot less menacing if they're tripping over their own damn pants.
posted by jonp72 at 9:06 PM on September 17, 2007


isn't it about time for someone to come up with something else to be rebellious with?

back when i was growing up it was 5 years max for any style of rebel dress and then it was something else

kids today - no damned imagination
posted by pyramid termite at 9:27 PM on September 17, 2007


Good God yes. I'd rather witness acres of exposed asscrack than see even one more dangling scrotal sac.

I call sacism! Shame on you.
posted by Scoo at 9:54 PM on September 17, 2007


IndigoJones: Time was the rebels took the time and trouble and expense of stepping out with a bit of flair.

I think, perhaps, that it is flair, just not in the some context that you live. I expect that they consider your kind of flair to be very stuffy. It would be a serious error (IMO) to think that the look does not come at considerable effort.
posted by Bovine Love at 10:19 PM on September 17, 2007


tkchrist: When I was teaching karate to teenagers some the kids started coming in with super baggy pants and extra extra large t-shirts. You know what I found out? They baby-pinned the t-shirts, underwear, and pants all together like some sort of ad hoc jump suit.

Wow, there's something so deeply insecure and yet just plain fussy about that, I almost feel for the li'l lemmings. Baby pins! Really, you have to frequent fabric stores to even find those things these days.
posted by maryh at 11:10 PM on September 17, 2007


Pollomacho, love the Brazil reference!
posted by krash2fast at 1:20 AM on September 18, 2007


Why don't they go to the ultimate prison fashion accessory - ankle restraints?
posted by Kirth Gerson at 4:53 AM on September 18, 2007


Kunstler is such a crank that I find his claims that he hopes society doesn't collapse when Peak Oil hits to be unconvincing.

Whenever I read Kunstler, I start to hope that society will collapse just so I can imagine the smile on that guy's face as he starves with the rest of us.

It's a sick, sad world.
posted by octobersurprise at 6:03 AM on September 18, 2007


« Older A run on the bank:...   |   Using a $20,000 CCD camera and... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments