I don't need pockets so why wear pants?

This past Sunday was #nopants day 2012. From 2-4 P.M. on January 4th the 4,5 and 6 trains were filled with pantless, and shamless, riders. After 6 p.m. there was a #nopants party for the derobed.

Entry payment: the bearing of skin.  Sounds dirty? Well it's not. This was not a stunt created or acted out by a crazy rebellious generation, but by a variation of generations, all coming together to take off their pants. 

While sitting next to a women who was reading her book while her husband stood in front of me wearing his favorite pair of boxer shorts, Knicks boxer shorts. They were in their late fifties, early sixties. I asked the huband what was the point of not wearing pants? The purpose they were trying to acheive? He replied saying there was no purpose.

"I have this small gym bag, so I don't need my pockets," the man with the Knick's boxers said, "It's just no pants." 

His wife also had a small purse and reading a self-help book for organization.

I realized this act, or movement, or whatever we want to call it, was not as big of a deal or purposeful act. It was just a carefree thing to do. The over analysis of the mass of people taking off their pants and walking around their undies was just that: an over analysis.

These people of all ages were just being care free, being a part of something they believe is interesting and speaks to their own character and care-free personality. 

What I felt the masses of underwear was telling the rest of New York was to lighten up.

Politics Highschool

Welcome to U.S. Politics High School. We have the funny guy everybody loves, Barack Obama; the absurdly fake cheerleader Sarah Palin; the jock with three different girlfriends, Mitt Romney; Newt Gingrich, the guy who can’t graduate and the always entertaining conspiracy theorist that makes a lot of sense, Ron Paul. And that’s only to name a few

While seeming premature to consider these politicians and their medium comparable to a high school format, the candidates seem to act otherwise. Basically, a lot of name calling seems to go on, instead of focusing on the important issues such as LGBT Rights or the 99%.

But no, during debates and interviews they choose to focus on Barack Obama’s White House Christmas card, and how “bizarre” it is. And how many wives Romney has had and is currently trying to divorce. And calling Ron Paul crazy because of his theorist ideas, instead of calling him crazy for usually being the only “no” vote for legislations that could have passed, and needed to pass.

Maybe the candidates and politicians need to be commenting, and stating why or why-not, on the various positions that the American people are really interested in. One of the biggest issues of 2012 will surely be the LGBT community’s rights, and according to Michele Bachmann, these issues are not important during interviews, and etc.

On Jan. 3, CNN Reporter Soledad O’Brien said to Bachmann: ”Your stance on homosexuality: I want to read a little bit of what you said, you said, at the Educators Conference in 2004, ‘Gays live a very sad life,’ and that ‘it’s part of Satan’ And that’s a quote. You’ve taken a lot of flak for that. Do you pull back on any of that?”

Bachmann’s response was that this was a “bizarre” question, and that they should be focusing on other things, like the election. This was before her resignation on Jan. 4.

If these questions are not in regard to the election and are not what the people should be focusing on, then what should we, the people, be focusing on?