cant sleep. must blog. a ten minute freestyle post in two verses.

readysetgo.

I.

clothing designers have a lot in common with gun manufacturers. yeah, i said it. tshirts and tech nines, if you will. it makes perfect sense. because either product can be used correctly or incorrectly, and people usually dont know the difference until someone gets hurt.

for example, smith and wesson wants as many people to buy as many guns as possible from them. at the end of the day, neither smith nor wesson gives two shits what those people do with those guns. the company will always claim ignorance and deny deny deny responsibility for any wrongdoing til the day they die. plausible in some cases, beyond a reasonable doubt in others.

II.

designers and other rulers of the fashion world hold the exact same position. lacoste claims no responsibility to the completely idiotic use of their idiotic embroidered animal logo. go ahead, misguided fourteen year old frat boy imposter, wear your hundred dollar pastel polo shirt with the dirtiest underwear length shorts you can find. throw your collar up. throw your croakies and let em fight with the collar, even though you never take your sunglasses off. the saddest part of this tragic opera is that big fashion rakes in their dollars while racking up their victims.

when pressed, both industries will hide behind the bill of rights. incorrectly, of course. the second amendment is prefaced by the phrase "a well armed militia, being necessary to the defense of the nation..." well, i dont know where you have been for the last hundred years, charlton heston, but a well armed unorganized, untrained domestic force of citizens is no longer necessary to the defense of the nation. consider your amendment null and void and, on another note, just cuz you made a movie about ancient times doesnt mean you have to live in them.
fashion victims will cite the first amendment's provisions for freedom of expression as their right to fund the unending river of high fashion blood money. this too is a bastardization of our Constitution. choosing clothing without the least bit of understanding or thought of what is 'stylish' or what is 'fashionable,' or the complete lack of creative contribution to these concepts disqualify the fashion victim's selections as ideas or theories or thought that could be protected. what you, the fashion victim, "express" in your clothing falls somewhere between headbutting a beach at high tide and screaming fire in a crowded movie theater.

strange bedfellows indeed.