brucemaples dot com

Ever heard this line about some bill or another? "It's just common sense -- why can't these idiots in (Washington / Frankfort / Metro Council / the PTA board) see that?"

I bet you've not only heard it, you've probably said it. Me too. But here's the problem: ideas that seem so easy, so common-sense when said to a friend, sometimes become very difficult to write into a good law.

From Jake over at Page One, here's the latest example -- an example that the Family Foundation says is "just common sense":

Strippers should have at least something on.

So you've got this idea that you think is so common-sense that it should be self-evident to everyone. In this case, it's the idea that strippers in strip clubs should not be allowed to be totally naked. It's bad for society, bad for the strippers, bad for the customers, and if they're naked the next thing would be sex with the patrons, and then we're into prostitution, and we all agree that's a bad idea, right? So, the way to stop that is to require (I guess) G-strings at all times.

Without getting into the merits of the basic argument, I'd like to focus on the problem of making this into law.

How do you write it? Do you specify the G-string solution? If so, what exactly IS a G-string? Does it include a piece of cloth, and if so, how big? Do we worry about the size of the cloth, or what it covers? Do you actually write that into law?

Or, does the law simply say something like "strippers must not be totally nude"? As Jake notes,

... one astute reader wants to know if “something on” could be satisfied by wearing Saran Wrap or a headband.

Then there's the problem of enforcement. Do you have law enforcement personnel checking strippers to make sure they comply? How -- tape measure?

This is a perfect example of an idea that the Family Foundation says is "just common sense," but that would be a nightmare to write, to amend, and to enforce. In the end, the legislation would cause more problems than the original issue.

You want to outlaw strippers, as I'm sure the Family Foundation wants to do? Then fine -- go after that as your legislative goal. But don't ask legislators to spend precious time on something as ephemeral as this.

It's just common sense.

::

(UPDATE) -- After I wrote this, I decided to do some more digging into both the bill and the Family Foundation's thinking about it. And I discovered two very shocking things:

1. The bill is actually worse than even my snark above.
2. I actually agree with part of the FF's logic. (But only part -- more below.)

First of all, the bill. You can find it here and read it for yourself, but let me quote just one of the more, uhm, interesting grafs in the bill (yes, I copied this right out of the bill):

(f) "Semi-nude" or "state of semi-nudity" means the showing of the female breast below a horizontal line across the top of the areola and extending across the width of the breast at that point, or the showing of the male or female buttocks. This definition shall include the lower portion of the cleavage of the female breast but shall not include any portion of the cleavage of the female breast exhibited by a dress, blouse, shirt, leotard, bikini, or similar wearing apparel provided the areola is not exposed in whole or part;

Really? I mean, really? Who's going to measure that? Who's going to determine where the "lower portion of the cleavage" starts? This is just nuts. (Oops.)

As for the Family Foundation, when you read their material on the bill, they seem less worried about the nudity issue and more concerned about sexual contact between strippers and patrons. They might have a point there -- I don't know, since I know next to nothing about strip clubs and what goes on there.

However, by supporting an incredibly bad piece of legislation, they wind up losing any credibility they might gain with the other issue. They need to work with legislators to craft a better bill, not keep pushing for something impossible to write and impossible to enforce.

Ultimately, the real piece of "common sense" we learn is this:

Supporting bad legislation to achieve a good end just doesn't make sense.