Amazing

Simply fucking amazing. From Gawker:

A few weeks ago, a member of the Park Slope Parents e-mail forum who’d encountered a stray piece of winterwear in the neighborhood posted a notice to the group titled “Found: boy’s hat.” … [S]ubscriber “Lisa” went public with her problems regarding the gender-specifying description of the hat. Wondering how such a categorization would feel to a spiky-hat-wearing girl, Lisa wrote, “It’s innocent little comments like this that I find the most hurtful.” A third member responded soon after, saying such political correctness drove her “up the wall,” and a heated discussion ensued. Lisa’s supporters questioned their opponents’ commitment to “the free interchange of ideas and questions” … while an opposing faction expressed facetious dismay that the original poster, who had described the hat as likely belonging to “an older child,” was not more considerate toward “younger children who happen to have large heads.” … [O]ne poster questioned the use of “hat,” asking if the object might be more sensitively labeled a “soft, porous bowl.”

Can you actually imagine a bunch of domesticated, middle to upper class leftist parents having a shit fest about someone genderfying a hat?

The best part is from the actual email chain:

Look — everyone stop ! ! !

It is my hat, OK? I’m a 42 year-old man and I like wearing little boy’s and girl’s hats, as long as they have little triangles on them. In fact I’m pretty much fixated on all kinds of triangles. Gosh, what a great shape. Three sides!

It’s my pathetic little obsession, and yes I’m seeing a shrink about it. OK? I’m sorry I dropped my little hat. I miss those triangles so.

Helene, can I have my hat back please and can everyone stop speculating that I might be a little boy or little girl? I’m sad now.

Ben

P.S. I’m good at math.

Amazing.

April 9, 2006

Jeff is at it again

CaseyJones4482: you boys sure do like falsifying the intensity of relationships!!

addendum, from jesse:

Holsom J: black is beautiful and tan is grand but white will always be the color of the big boss man

PBS

Kent: With our utter annihilation imminent, our federal government has snapped into action. We go live now via satellite to the floor of the United States congress.
Speaker: Then it is unanimous, we are going to approve the bill to evacuate the town of Springfield in the great state of —
Congressman: Wait a minute, I want to tack on a rider to that bill: $30 million of taxpayer money to support the perverted arts.
Speaker: All in favor of the amended Springfield-slash-pervert bill?
[everyone boos]
Speaker: Bill defeated. [bangs gavel]

Now, let’s all get together and pick a good time for our revolution. After work, before happy hour, if possible (YPM).

Subtle Open Discussion

Picked up by Tiny Revolution before I could articulate my feelings. Following the release of the Israel Lobby paper out of Harvard (with it being pulled from the Kennedy School of Government at Harvards website), articles were written with not so subtle tones to them in the Washington Post, the LA Times, the Boston Globe, etc.

The best Example of all Examples is the Washington Post article, called ‘Of Israel, Harvard, and David Duke’. This was put in the Sunday outlook section of the Post, which is supposed to be a more serious, discussion oriented weekly portion of the paper. So their interpretation of the allegations of influence held by the Israel Lobby? Why, a short article with 6 quotes, 2 positive and 4 negative. One of the positive: David Duke. I’m still waiting for the positive quotes from Pat Buchanan and OJ Simpson, so this topic can be succesfully buried with guilt by assocation.