blogHOUSTON.net forum

For discussion of items posted to blogHOUSTON.net

You are not logged in.

#1 2005-03-03 09:36:55

Anne
Moderator
Registered: 2004-09-08
Posts: 3,833

Surely this will garner an Emmy

KPRC-2 is sure tackling the important issues.  A couple of weeks ago the station decided it was necessary to test the claims of the Hanky Panky thong panty, which describes itself as the "most comfortable panty ever made." 

Now KPRC has tackled the critical issue of strippers and the "3-foot rule."  KPRC sent undercover cameras to watch strippers...oh, I mean catch strippers breaking the law.

Houston Mayor Bill White said this is a never-ending battle.

"There's too many strip clubs. There's too much abuses that occur within them," he said. "I'm not for taking police off investigations or responding to calls for service, reducing our response time in order to shut down every strip joint and comply with the law. I think the law should be enforced."

Local 2 showed the undercover tape to Lt. Robert Manzo of the Houston Police Department. He said his department investigates complaints, but the people closest to the action rarely call.

"Obviously, you wouldn't expect the customer to call about the dancer violating the 3-foot rule. And that's another reason for us not to get hardly any complaints," Manzo said.

Maybe it's sweeps time.





Link to post: http://www.bloghouston.net/item/816

Offline

#2 2005-03-03 10:06:11

Laurence Simon
Is Full Of Crap
From: Houston, TX
Registered: 2004-10-17
Posts: 1,564
Website

Re: Surely this will garner an Emmy

When I saw the promo last night, the first thing I thought about was Wayne and his fire marshall sweeps pieces.

Thank you, local news. First, there were too many inspectors. Now there's not enough.

I say that any dancer who is on the runway for more than six minutes ought to be towed by SafeClear. Call it "SlutClear."

Offline

#3 2005-03-03 10:21:52

Marilynn
Member
From: Indio, CA
Registered: 2004-09-25
Posts: 47
Website

Re: Surely this will garner an Emmy

And -- wow! -- where did these people learn English??

White: "There's too many strip clubs. There's too much abuses that occur within them," he said.  <~~major agreement problems here (singular with singular and plural with plural): there is too many (is=s. -- many=pl); there is too much abuses -- ???? And he's the mayor?

Manzo: " ... And that's another reason for us not to get hardly any complaints," Manzo said.  <~~~"not get hardly" = double negative.

Holy moly -- and all that in one article!

Offline

#4 2005-03-03 10:42:32

Laurence Simon
Is Full Of Crap
From: Houston, TX
Registered: 2004-10-17
Posts: 1,564
Website

Re: Surely this will garner an Emmy

Too many strip clubs? Bull. When I last checked, we were still a capitalist society. There are as many strip clubs as the market will bear. Unless, at some point, City Council enacted some kind of subsidy for strip clubs I'm unaware of.

If anything, there are too many schools, churches, and other tax-exempt or state-funded institutions. Let 'em experience the power of The Free Market and they'll reach the proper equilibrium.

And far, far too many television stations pretending to offer "news." Let 'em bid on the spectrum they waste against cell phone operators, Wifi broadcasters, and other wireless application vendors. We'll see how many of them survive the competition with lean-and-mean information services instead of sitting fat, happy, and lazy on their government-subsidized transmission frequencies.

Offline

#5 2005-03-03 11:13:18

Dell
Member
Registered: 2005-01-05
Posts: 63

Re: Surely this will garner an Emmy

What we have too many of is, too many people making my decisions for me since apparently I am too dumb to make them for myself.

Get out of my life, I don't need saving.

Offline

#6 2005-03-03 13:52:41

Bill F
Member
From: Houston
Registered: 2005-01-07
Posts: 634

Re: Surely this will garner an Emmy

As soon as somebody can show me who the victim is in the "crime" of dancing within 3 feet of somebody while naked, I will start to agree with the people who push these kinds of laws.  Until then, I will look at the hypocracy of requiring strip clubs to be 1500 feet from schools, residences, and churches, while allowing businesses using hazardous materials to be within 500 feet of same, and just shake my head in disbelief.


"Common Sense" is not nearly as common as the name would tend to indicate...

Offline

#7 2005-03-03 15:52:00

rorschach
Member
From: Spring, Texas
Registered: 2005-01-05
Posts: 3,926
Website

Re: Surely this will garner an Emmy

The errant CONCEPT is that these women were FORCED into the business and are therefore SLAVES. MAYBE in a few that "employ" illegal asians or hispanics, but by and large, of the dancers I've met. all of them CHOSE the profession, enjoy it, and make a HELL of a LOT of money at it. And probably don't have sex any more often than your average person and they don't usually get paid to do so. Sure there are some who do get "side jobs" as it were. but again, most were by choice. and they make even more money in the process. I contend that with the exception of the slavery aspect which is only a subset of the prostitution trade and then only for the "low end" of the trade, prostitution is a victimless crime as well. Sure there are public health issues, but ALL sex has those risks. You are probably safer having protected sex with a high class prostitute than you are driving on houston freeways. I contend that it is the illegality of the sex trade that makes for the problems with the low end of the trade. The same is true for the illegality of drugs. If the drug dealer can't make money selling his stuff, the druggie won't have to steal from me to afford it. and the prostitute with a drug problem won't be as under the control of the abusive drug dealing pimp. If you make them legal you'll run all the criminals out of the trade.


http://redinktexas.blogspot.com/
"If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.”
Samuel Adams

Offline

#8 2005-03-03 16:29:25

Laurence Simon
Is Full Of Crap
From: Houston, TX
Registered: 2004-10-17
Posts: 1,564
Website

Re: Surely this will garner an Emmy

So let's say that the police actually *do* crack down on dancers coming in contact with patrons of the club.

Fine. The light's too low to easily identify a suspect if they're using a hidden camera. And if the police try to resort to DNA evidence of one kind or another, well, that can easily be ruled out due to the HPD Crime Lab's problems.

Offline

#9 2005-03-03 16:50:03

Bill F
Member
From: Houston
Registered: 2005-01-07
Posts: 634

Re: Surely this will garner an Emmy

I can understand people making morality based arguments against the existence of various SOBs, but I can't see the logic of the various specific regulations placed on the businesses.  What I mean is that if you have decided as a city council that it is morally acceptable to have topless women dancing in an establishment for the enjoyment of others in your city, what is the basis for deciding that 3 feet of separation is morally acceptable, but 2 feet or 6 inches is not?  For that matter, where is the moral foundation for prohibiting contact?  If the purpose is to prevent prostitution, but topless stimulation of the patron short of having sex is deemed morally acceptable, what is the basis for prohibiting contact? 

Similarly, if you have decided that SOBs have the right to operate within a city, what is the justification for saying that they are not acceptable within 1500 feet of churches, homes, and schools, (with no grandfathering allowed) while businesses that use chemicals that have Emergency Response evacuation distances of up to a mile are allowed to operate within 500 feet of the same places.  What is the specific hazard that makes 1500 feet an acceptable distance for an SOB, while 500 feet is not?  If 1500 feet is ok, why isn't 2000 feet better?  I just don't see the logic that goes into these specific little details.  Either you accept the morality of what goes on in there and allow them to operate in your city, or you decide that it is morally wrong, and outlaw them within your city.  Either way, these little nit-picking laws that straddle the fence just have no logical basis when compared to the moralistic arguments that typically spawn them.  All they serve to do is give the various vice squads a reason to hassle certain clubs while allowing others to operate how they please.

Similarly, anybody in Houston who has ever driven through the montrose area at night knows which women are prostitutes, where they work, and when they work.  If prostitution is illegal, we should round them up as we see them pick up customers and lock them up.  If we don't think such a crime is worth the constant attention of our thinly spread police force, then we should decriminalize it and allow them to do what they do legally.  What we do now mounts to legalized harassment, by driving by them in police cars a dozen times a night for months, nodding and winking at what they do, and them taking them to jail the next week for doing what we nodded and winked at for months.  All we do by criminalizing it is force them to place themselves under a pimp in order to have some level of protection that they would otherwise not have.  We all recognize that criminalizing it hasn't stopped it from happening, and we don't see it as a crime that is important enough to enforce, even though we know exactly when and where it happens and who does it.  So what moral high ground are we standing on by continuing to call it a crime?


"Common Sense" is not nearly as common as the name would tend to indicate...

Offline

#10 2005-03-03 18:27:44

rorschach
Member
From: Spring, Texas
Registered: 2005-01-05
Posts: 3,926
Website

Re: Surely this will garner an Emmy

Sorry, it is the libertarian in me coming out here, but just who is it hurting for them to be out there willingly plying thier trade? hell, give them a tax number and collect sales tax on it just like any other service industry! if the city needs money THIS is one way sure to make it for them. Same for drugs. (course that is a federal issue) if it is made legal, you'll shut down all the narcotrafficers, the thieves stealing to afford them, the pimps using drugs to keep thier prostitutes in line, and all the other businesses legal and not profiting from a law that is essentially unenforcable. That does not mean that you make it legal for 14 year olds to buy it. As things stand, 14 year olds can buy drugs easier than they can buy beer. Just how exactly is that preventing 14 year olds from doing drugs? If anything it is steering them away from alcohol and straight to crack and smack.

The arbitrary distances are just that, ARBITRARY. Some idiot pulled a number out of his butt and didn't even bother wiping the crap off of it before encoding it into law. And likely as not the difference can be attributed to different butts at different times. As simple as that. No rhyme, no reason, just an arbitrary number.


http://redinktexas.blogspot.com/
"If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.”
Samuel Adams

Offline

#11 2005-03-03 22:00:19

Bill F
Member
From: Houston
Registered: 2005-01-07
Posts: 634

Re: Surely this will garner an Emmy

Unfortunately in the case of Houston, the distance was NOT arbitrary.  It is pretty clear that somebody took a map with the locations of every Houston topless bar and the nearby schools, residences, and churches, and then drew a circle at the distance needed to force as many as possible to move from their current location (and hopefully close down).

I personally don't have a problem with topless bars or no topless bars (only been to them 3 times, all for bachelor parties).  I think they are harmless for the most part, and don't create a "hazard" requiring a 1500 ft separation.  I also at heart don't believe the city really has a place regulating what goes on inside them as tightly as they do.  But if the city leaders elected by the residents decide that topless bars are somehow crosswise with the morals of the city, then they should outlaw them.  Instead, they are trying to slowly strangle them with rules like 1500 ft location restrictions and 3 foot no-contact rules, etc.  The are pussyfooting around between their constituents who find the bars morally repugnant, and their constituents who enjoy going there.  And in the process, they are losing the only grounds on which they have chosen to regulate them. 

I constantly crack up when I think about the rules for all nude clubs.  The premise is that the girls are somehow ok taking off their panties if the bar doesn't profit off of alcohol sold there.  So they sell ice and glasses instead and that makes it morally ok?  There is no other authority under which the cities regulate these clubs than "local moral standards".  So how can they say it is morally wrong for women to be topless... but suddenly it is ok if they are 3 feet from a patron (wrong at 2 feet, ok at 3 feet?)?  Or it is morally wrong for a woman to be totally nude...but suddenly it is ok if the club doesn't sell alcohol?  They give up the concept of enforcing morals by slapping silly little restrictions on it.  Either it is morally wrong and they are against it, or it isn't morally wrong and they accept it.  Trying to dance arund in the middle is just silly.


"Common Sense" is not nearly as common as the name would tend to indicate...

Offline

#12 2005-03-04 09:08:14

Dell
Member
Registered: 2005-01-05
Posts: 63

Re: Surely this will garner an Emmy

Mayor White and some of the City Council "nannies" can put these clubs out of business but like it or not, they will never get another Super Bowl or All Star Game.
This shouldn't be the criteria but you can believe MLB and the NFL know why some of the big-spenders come to town

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB