As a fashion statement, pink is a hot color this spring, but at Merrillville High School in Indiana, it also has become a hot-button issue.
District Supt. Tony Lux distributed a letter to students Wednesday in which he “discouraged” them from wearing pink because of concerns that it has gang and rap music overtones.
Although Lux said dressing in pink could be “suspicious behavior,” he emphasized the color wasn’t banned. […]
[The next day] Ten boys who showed up decked out in matching pink shirts and pink shoelaces were asked to change, [Principle Mark] Sperling said.
I wonder if there are gangs laughing themselves silly because they successful spread the rumour that they like to wear pink.
P.S. I really just wanted to see for myself that the biggest problem in the blogosphere, Spoon’s non-working trackback page, was really fixed or he was just pulling a Kerry (“I fixed the trackbacks by breaking them”).
Here’s another instance of Senator Kerry being for something by voting against it, this time the Kyoto Treaty:
The vote on the Byrd-Hagel resolution [against the Kyoto Treaty] took place prior to the conclusion of the Kyoto agreement, and before any of the flexibility mechanisms were established. The resolution was written so broadly that even strong supporters of the Kyoto Protocol, such as senators Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn.) and John Kerry (D-Mass.) voted for it. In doing so, Sen. Kerry said: “It is clear that one of the chief sponsors of this resolution, Senator Byrd . . . agrees … that the prospect of human-induced global warming as an accepted thesis with adverse consequences for all is here, and it is real…. Senator Lieberman, Senator Chafee and I would have worded some things differently… [but] I have come to the conclusion that these words are not a treaty killer.” [emphasis added]
OK…so have your basic waffle (“I supported the Kyoto Treaty by voting for an resolution against it”) and a meta-level waffle (“I agreed that the Kyoto Treaty was a bad treaty but I don’t want to rule out adopting it”). That’s impressive, even for Kerry.
Via James Lileks, although I had to hunt down the original source.
[source]
here’s an unsympathetic assessment of media coverage of Fallujah, from military blog The Mudville Gazette. Best catch is this bit from news media discussion of their own coverage:
“War is a horrible thing. It is about killing,” ABC News “Nightline” Executive Producer Leroy Sievers said in an unusual message to the program’s e-mail subscribers discussing the issues posed by Wednesday’s killings. “If we try to avoid showing pictures of bodies, if we make it too clean, then maybe we make it too easy to go to war again.”
So shaping the war debate, and hampering future military efforts, is the central focus of decisions about news coverage. Nice to see them admit it. […]
Yes, terrorism is, in a very real sense, a creature of the mass media. But what strikes me is that after 9/11 they didn’t want to show graphic images of dead Americans for fear that it would make Americans want to go to war. Now they are proud of showing graphic images of dead Americans in the hopes that it will discourage Americans from going to war.
Now that they’ve admitted that they’re not neutral on this stuff, you have to wonder what side they’re on.
Actually, I’m in favor of them showing the pictures. If such images make the citizenry want to surrender then we’ve already lost. If we’re still Americans, then the attitude will be more like the attitude to those pictures of the WTC attack photos.