Amidst the craziness we’ve seen in the past few weeks, a small town in Maryland is finally fed up with the worst freaking thing that humanity has endured.  Worse than World War II, the Inquisition, the last Jim Carey movie, and the Ice Age?

Worse than all of those combined.

…or you’ll do what, exactly?

This is my review of Great Divide Chocolate Cherry Yeti Imperial Stout.


Even if this citizen was not wearing pants, it doesn’t necessarily mean this person was out naked checking the mail.  It also doesn’t help the state law on the matter is rather vague:

MARYLAND

* § 11-107. Indecent exposure.
A person convicted of indecent exposure is guilty of a misdemeanor and is subject to imprisonment not exceeding 3 years or a fine not exceeding $1,000 or both.

It doesn’t help the article is short on details either; it doesn’t even specify the supposed offender’s gender.  From what is written there, one can infer the offender never left his or her personal property.  Given how others in the town of 7000 only seem to “hear” of this person rather than “see” it’s likely none of them are actually inhibited from living their lives in any way by somebody checking the mail without pants.  Being naked and doing nothing else illegal/immoral doesn’t really offend anybody any more than Jim Carey’s last movie, and I am not about to call the jackboots on him for that any of the abominations on this list. The solution is the same for both.

But we know what they’ll say if we let people walk around without clothes they’ll say something like:

What if a registered sex offender gets naked and starts choking out Mr. Floppy at your kid’s school, you silly pendejo?

If he’s a registered sex offender, he shouldn’t be at a school in the first place.

Different states handle this issue in different ways.  Many allow some amount of nudity, particularly topless women for purposes of protesting, and some go so far as to allow women to be topless in places where men would otherwise be allowed.

Sadly though, this won’t go away.  Per the shall we say, austere scholar Antonin Scalia:

Our society prohibits, and all human societies have prohibited, certain activities not because they harm others but because they are considered, in the traditional phrase, “contra bonos mores,” i. e., immoral. In American society, such prohibitions have included, for example, sadomasochism, cockfighting, bestiality, suicide, drug use, prostitution, and sodomy. While there may be great diversity of view on whether various of these prohibitions should exist (though I have found few ready to abandon, in principle, all of them) there is no doubt that, absent specific constitutional protection for the conduct involved, the Constitution does not prohibit them simply because they regulate “morality.” See Bowersv. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186, 196 (1986) (upholding prohibition of private homosexual sodomy enacted solely on “the presumed belief of a majority of the electorate in [the jurisdiction] that homosexual sodomy is immoral and unacceptable”). See also Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton, 413 U.S. 49, 68, n. 15 (1973); Dronenburg v. Zech, 239 U. S. App. D. C. 229, 238, and n. 6, 741 F. 2d 1388, 1397, and n. 6 (1984) (opinion of Bork, J.). The purpose of the Indiana statute, as both its text and the manner of its enforcement demonstrate, is to enforce the traditional moral belief that people should not expose their private parts indiscriminately, regardless of whether those who see them are disedified.

Thanks, asshole.

 

Its nice to drinking beer again, and this one is STEVE SMITH APPROVED.  Its Great Divide’s classic Yeti Stout with a faint twist of sour cherry.  How faint?  Very.  You have to let it warm up for a bit before you can find it.  Great Divide Chocolate Cherry Yeti:  4.5/5