While passing through the dehumanizing maw of a TSA screening checkpoint at JFK airport recently, we overheard one TSA worker say to the other, "I've been stuck in this fu*king hellhole for eight fu*king years." Our faith in the TSA's renowned professionalism was instantly shattered—and our ear hairs badly singed by the profanity—but perhaps we're just lucky we didn't get a cup of scalding coffee thrown in our faces. Such was the fate endured by Steven Trivett, an off-duty TSA officer (and armed pilot) who confronted some foul-mouthed TSA screeners at JFK airport at the ungodly hour of 5 a.m. on March 28th.
TSA Follies: Salty Security Screener Slings Scalding Sanka After Scolding!
Judge: "Furburger," "Blow Job" OK In Sex Ed Classroom
The New York State Department of Education syllabus says that a teacher instructing students about STDs and sex should encourage children to use words they understand. "If students use different terms," the syllabus says, "make sure they understand the relationship between both sets of terms." So during a class on HIV one day in 2008, Staten Island health teacher Faith Kramer did just that, writing down the clinical words for sexual organs, sexual acts and bodily fluids on the chalkboard, then asking the eighth grade students what language they used to talk about such matters. That's when the trouble started.
For The NYTimes, "Douche" Is Okay, But "Fat Chick" Isn't?
In an article that seems to blur the NY Times' own decency standards, the paper of record examines how the word "douche" has evolved from a personal hygiene product into a popular TV pejorative. We're not particularly concerned with the journalistic merits of the piece — we'll leave that to the seasoned Times critics over at nytpick who claim the paper shouldn't have gotten its numbers on TV vulgarity from a Conservative anti-cussing group. But we were shocked to see the paper print the word "douche" five times in a page-one piece, when just last week it censored the words "fat chick" in an article about an online alibi by indirectly quoting a Facebook status update. Not to say that the Times' much-ballyhooed decency standards are a good thing, but consistency certainly is.

