This Is Why People Don't Come Forward

The Sandusky case has gone to the jury. I was looking for a different video when I stumbled upon this one. Holy crap. This woman is a danger to society. I appreciate wispy little Anderson Cooper sticking with his line of questioning and keeping just enough of an incredulous tone in his voice to get across that he thought she was nuts, while at the same time downplaying his disgust with her enough so that she would continue answering questions with her more than bizarre justified answers. This woman is exactly the sort of person who makes it terrifying for those who are sexually abused or assaulted to come forward and face their perpetrators. This woman is exactly the sort of person who allows these sort of horrible crimes to continue on and repeat themselves over and over because she is in too much denial to see the facts and to accept the truth. If you know this woman and you're ever sexually abused, don't expect her to help you. She will simply explain away all of the reasons why you're wrong and go about her business. Try not to throw anything at your monitor when you watch the video. If it doesn't play, try clicking here and watching it over at CNN.

Sphere: Related Content

Discomfort On St. Patrick's Day

From the files of "You have got to be effing kidding me", Subsection "We're doomed" we have this little gem from FOX News about an elementary school principal in Massachusetts who decided to rename St. Patrick's Day by calling it "O'Green Day". No, I'm not kidding.

It would seem that over at the Soule Road School located in Wilbraham, MA, the principal, a one Lisa Curtin, has completely lost her mind. I say that because she is the one responsible for all of the name changing. When asked about this asinine action, she said that she "...decided to change the name to ease discomfort that some students might have in celebrating St. Patrick's Day". Wait a minute? Discomfort? For elementary school students? I understand discomfort in adults. (Have you ever drank your way through multiple twelve packs and washed them down with various fifths of several different kinds of liquor whilst being unable to make your way to an restroom due to being crammed like a sardine against other drunken revelers at your neighborhood watering hole/dive bar? Now that's discomfort.)

What sort of "discomfort" could their possibly be from "celebrating" St. Patrick's Day when you're in elementary school? Or in any other school for that matter? Then again, this same woman changed the name of Valentine's Day to "Caring and Kindness Day," according to parents with children in the school." Caring and Kindness Day?! What the hell is that?! That's not the name of it! She doesn't just get to go around changing the name of a day for whatever reason? Is nothing sacred? What if she was worried about the kids who might feel "discomfort" on particular days of the week? Is she going to change those too? Is Monday going to end up being "Happy Week Start Cotton Candy Butterfly, Unicorn and Puppy Day"? I don't get this at all.

Fortunately, I'm not the only one. Parents think that it's ridiculous as well. Just to quote a few "I think it's ridiculous" and "It's really stupid." And yet it still happens. So freaking ridiculous. Tell me, did this all-enlightened principal think that it might be offensive to those who are Irish to change the name of the holiday? Of course not. One, because I doubt that would ever happen. And two, because people like this principal don't think like that. They just want everything to be neutral and have zero meaning behind it. I really wish that people had taken some time off from protesting against people that don't want women to have birth control and protested this for a little while. At least this would have been entertaining.

And that gets me to the real point of this whole thing. If you're soooooooo upset by the freaking name of something, why bother celebrating it at all? Isn't that offensive? Or wrong? (I'm really kind of grasping at straws here because I don't understand it at all. I could be missing an adjective.) Are people really that worried that someone might be offended by the name of a holiday? It's not even a very good holiday! Once you're out of the beer drinking stage and before you're in it, do you know what St. Patrick's Day looks like? Whatever day it's on! What is there to feel "discomfort" about on St. Patrick's Day?! How did that woman get to be principal?! So many questions. So few answers. Just doomed.

Sphere: Related Content

Hello, Slut?

I've been thinking about this whole Rush Limbaugh calling some chick who wants the government to pay for birth control a "slut". I don't know why I've been thinking about it. I just have. (Don't you judge me! What was the last thing you thought about?! Ah-HA! Now get your hand out of your pocket. God sees everything.) I just want to go over a couple of things about it.

Now, this Sandra Fluke woman is a 31-year old students at Georgetown Law School. So many news outlets are referring to her as a "college student". OK, technically that's true. A law school is a college. But come on! When you hear "college student", don't you think of someone in their early twenties? Typically? Of course you do. So she's hardly some chick who was just barely a teenager a couple of years ago. She's a grown ass woman. It's not like she's an 18-year old freshman or anything like that. On top of that, she appears to be some sort of feminist activist. I'm pretty sure that with a hobby like that one is going to be fairly thick skinned. I can't imagine how you'd do something like that if you're going to let what people say about you bother you all that much.


Regardless, Limbaugh calls her a slut and a prostitute because he equates having the government pay for birth control with someone being paid to have sex. Now, don't get me wrong. The government should not be providing birth control to people. If you want birth control, I suggest you buy it yourself. Condoms are fairly inexpensive. Then again, any form of birth control is inexpensive when you compare it to the cost of raising a child. Regardless, hit up Planned Parenthood if that's what you need. Don't be asking me and every other taxpayer to subsidize it. There are like a million other things I'd rather my tax money go for.

I'm totally off track. My point here is that President Barry actually called this chick on Friday to "see if she was OK". Good Lord, what a publicity stunt that was. Not to mention what a great idea! Who was the aide who ran breathlessly into the Oval Office? "Mr. President! Mr. President! I have an idea! You know that woman that Rush called a whore?! Slut. Whatever. How about you call that girl to check on her?! It'll make the 5 o'clock news right before the weekend! Here's her number! Thank you, Mr. President! I'll get out of your hair as soon as I catch my breath! But don't let me be in your way. Call now! See if she's OK!"


What a bunch of crap. Does he really think that a grown ass woman is just going to be falling apart because some rotund blowhard called her a 'slut'? Please. Hey, wait a minute. Didn't MSNBC's Ed Schultz call Laura Ingraham a slut? Let's see, what he said exactly was "Like this right-wing slut, what's her name, Laura Ingraham? Yeah, she's a talk slut." Yep, that's what he said all right. Did President Barry call Laura Ingraham and see if she was OK? No? How does that work? Oh, don't tell me it's because Sandra Fluke was "standing up" for a liberal cause and Laura Ingraham is a conservative foe of President Barry's? Wow. So politically motivated. Not to mention pathetic. Who cares?


Is President Barry going to start calling everyone who gets called a name by someone in public? Is this how soft we've really become? Man, if he called her because someone called her a slut, I should let him take a look at some of the email that I get in regard to this blog. He'd move in with me.

And on a side note, SleepTrain has pulled all of their advertising from Limbaugh's show. SleepTrain sells mattresses. (And darn good ones, too! They're a bit pricey, but you can't beat their quality! And same day delivery if you buy it before 2pm? Show me another business where they're going to do that for you! Wow. I'm either quite the shill for SleepTrain or I just have a really comfortable mattress.) Why do I feel like there is some sort of an opportunity here? I'm not sure exactly what it is or what it would entail, but somehow with the topic of birth control and sex and sluts, I'm pretty sure there's at the very least some sort of reprehensible commercial that could be derived from all of this nonsense. Ooooh! Saturday Night Live, do your thing! I'm begging you!

Sphere: Related Content

Dancing Contest Uproars

Holy crap, people are morons. Paste eatin', mouth breathin' morons. And not in a good way (like when you need someone to get rid of a lot of paste). I mean in the way that just makes me insane because it's so non-sensical. Here's the latest thing that's annoying me: People's reactions to the new cast of Dancing With The Stars. Specifically the issue of having Chaz Bono on there. (For those of you who have been under a rock for God only knows how long, Chaz Bono is the offspring of Cher and Sonny Bono (before he plowed himself into a tree whilst skiing, obviously). Chaz was born as a girl and named Chastity. She declared herself gay at some point, which really wasn't a shocker to anyone that had seen her. And then a few years ago, she had a sex-change and legally became Chaz. And while he's not fully biologically male (he had the top surgery, but has not yet had what I lovingly refer to as the addadicktomy), he is legally a male. Consider yourself caught up.) And thus, it begins.

I first saw a clip of Hoda Kotb (who needs to buy a vowel or something) talking with the nearly insufferable Kathie Lee Gifford on the equally insufferable Today show about Chaz. Kathie Lee said, "Chaz is going to have a female partner." And Yoda Hoda says (rather uncomfortably), "Yes. That's what's going to happen. So it's going to be interesting!" And then they both giggle like idiotic schoolgirls. Good Lord.

Why is that so funny, exactly? Considering that he's a man, baby (say that in an Austin Powers accent and it's a lot funnier), who would you have him dance with? Another man? Well, that would be just strange! Not to mention, wrong. Then again, maybe they're the same type of people that thought that Portia diRossi (should she have actually done the show) should have been paired up with another woman! How ridiculous does that sound?! Very. Very ridiculous. And idiotic. And anything but sane and reasonable.

And speaking of sane and reasonable, that's exactly what some folks are not being over this Chaz Bono announcement. See, I went over to the ABC website to see what folks had to say. Here are some excerpts:

From minnerl: "I believe Chastity Bono, is and always will be a woman. You cannot change what God designed. I will not watch the show now that she is on it. I will definitely skip this season."

From 49TRGll62: "My family and I will be boycotting DWTS this season. My kids love the show but I will not let them watch it this year. I AM TIRED OF THE MEDIA TRYING TO PRETEND THAT PEOPLE WANT TO EXPOSE THEIR YOUNG CHILDREN TO THIS LIFESTYLE! Young children do not even fully understand what it means to be straight yet. Some people still believe in morality and YES, it is something wrong with that lifestyle."

From patjoe55: "What do you think?I won't be watching this season either, as I also cannot agree with the homosexual agenda. I used to enjoy the show, all except for Bruno and his remarks and gyrating all over the place, especially toward the gay dancers. And lately, they are putting more and more gay people on, maybe for Bruno's benefit. No, thank you."


Jesus, where do I start. Here's what I want to ask these people: How have you felt about some of the people that have been on this show in the past who haven't been gay or transgendered, but have had an abhorrent lifestyle? Let's review:

Pamela Anderson: Let's be honest here, she's hot as hell. But she's posed for Playboy, makes a living off of her super hot body, was married to Tommy Lee (Lord only knows what that lifestyle was like) and has used drugs to the point where she contracted hepatitis C. Not exactly a role model, I wouldn't think. (But God, is she hot.)
Mike "The Situation" Sorrentino: Makes a living by getting drunk as can be every night (from what I can tell from the limited, yet torturous amount of time that I've logged with Jersey Shore) and bangs everything in sight that has a vagina. Abercrombie & Fitch offered to pay him money if he would STOP wearing their brand! What does that tell you about the boy?!
Kendra Wilkinson: For cryin' out loud! You people have a problem with Chaz Bono but not with Kendra?! She was whoring herself out to the ancient Hugh Hefner as one of his three girlfriends. And she marketed her own sex tapes! Oh, yeah. That's real family friendly there. Sure.

And let's not forget that also appearing in the upcoming season will be Ron Artest. Allow me to remind these holier-than-thou types that Ron Artest has been known to be an abhorrent human being. From being charged with everything from starving his dogs to jumping into the stands and starting a brawl that resulted in a year long suspension from the NBA. He's not exactly the most non-controversial chap out there. (Granted, he seems to be getting his act together, but I'm not totally convinced. The man wants to change his name to Metta World Peace. That should speak for itself.) Need I go on? (OK, maybe I do just a little bit. Kim Kardashian for cryin' out loud! She's famous because of her ass that was seen my millions on the Internet because of a sex tape!)


So, look. Just relax about the Chaz Bono thing. If you like to watch dancing contests, then watch. If you don't like to watch dancing contests, then don't. But if you're going to judge, at least be freaking consistent about what you're judging people on. Wow. Just wow. You morons.

Sphere: Related Content

Demon In The White House

I rarely use this blog to spew the word "hate". Oh, sure. I proclaim my dislike, my abhorrence, my loathing, my despising, my fed-up-ness and a few other things, but I rarely use the word hate. I feel myself getting closer, however. Especially when the topic of Rush Limbaugh and whatever comes out of his ridiculous mouth comes up.

See, according to the fine folks over yonder at Politico, yesterday on his radio show (which is listened to by a frighteningly large number of people who seem to really enjoy and agree with what he has to say) he made reference to some pictures of President Barry that had been posted on The Drudge Report website. What he said was idiotic at best. He said, "...folks, these pictures, they look demonic. And I don't say this lightly. There are a couple pictures, and the eyes, I'm not saying anything here, but just look. It is strange that these pictures would be released...It's very, very, very strange. An American president has never had facial expressions like this. At least we've never seen photos of an American president with facial expressions like this. "

What. The. What. Seriously? Demonic? What is that supposed to mean? Was he referencing a Harris Poll taken earlier this year which indicated that 24% of Republicans believed that President Barry was the Antichrist? Or is he just grasping at any straw that he can to try and bring down more Democrats (which will inevitably happen) in the upcoming election? Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that there aren't plenty of Democrats who do deserve to be booted out of whatever office they're in. There are. There are a lot of Republicans who need to get the boot as well. But what is Rush Limbaugh's rationale for saying something so incredibly asinine? I guess only he knows.

First of all, President Barry has got to be the most photographed President in history. He's on TV every freaking day. And when he's on vacation, we (the public) are inundated with photos of him eating ice cream the entire time! I don't care that he eats ice cream! Why do I need 57 different photos from 36 different angles and 12 commentators giving me the low down on what flavor he chose? I don't remember it being like this with other Presidents. Did we have a million photographs of Bush flying all over the place all the time? It doesn't seem like we did. (Then again, Bush would have never been accused of looking demonic because he always looked so damned clueless that that's all anyone could ever focus on.)

The point here is that when you're having your photo taken all the time by a bazillion different outlets, the chances increase that you're going to have a few that are not so flattering. That doesn't mean you're demonic or possessed or anything. And it certainly doesn't mean that Rush Limbaugh should be trying to rile up the inexplicable masses that listen to his drivel every day.

My second point was that since when are everyone's facial expressions all the same? Or since when can they all fit into the same category? I'm pretty sure that Rush probably has some expressions that aren't seen anywhere else on this earth. (That's a good thing, in case you were wondering.) It's just a ridiculous thing to say. I wish that someone with so much radio time and (I hate to say it) so much power to sway the opinions of the meeker and weaker among us would use his pulpit for something useful instead of fear mongering. That's all. (And by the way, is he going to tell us that the photo of him doesn't look a little demonic? Geez, at least President Barry isn't spewing smoke out of his orifices. Though that would be a million dollar shot if anyone were to come up with one. I'll give you that.)

Sphere: Related Content

There Are Not Always Two Sides

Do both "sides" of an issue always need to be presented when covering a story in a journalistic or media realm? Like when you're covering a bunch of recent suicides by teenagers who were bullied because they were gay. Do you really need to run the opinion of folks who are anti-gay? I'm not so sure that you do. The Washington Post, surprisingly, felt a little differently.

For some reason, on National Coming Out Day (for whatever that is worth, as it would have been bad on any day), The Washington Post felt the need to run an editorial from a one Tony Perkins (not of Psycho fame). Mr. Perkins is the president of the Family Research Council and seems to be very against those who are gay. Naturally, his editorial, while not condoning any of the bullying that goes on, made it clear that he felt that "...homosexual activist groups like GLSEN (the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network) are exploiting these tragedies to push their agenda of demanding not only tolerance of homosexual individuals, but active affirmation of homosexual conduct and their efforts to redefine the family." Uhh, OK?

I'm kind of not even sure what that means. I don't know that it can be considered "exploiting a tragedy" to send the message that people need to be tolerant of other people. That seems like a message that doesn't have a whole lot of exploitation in it. So, even though gay kids are getting bullied to the point where they off themselves, we still shouldn't send the message that being gay is all right. That seems...um...idiotic.

But what is more idiotic is how The Washington Post handled being called on the matter of running his editorial on National Coming Out Day. According to the huffy folks over at The Huffington Post, GLAAD made mention via Twitter (good Lord...) of The Washington Post's giving editorial space to Mr. Perkins on that particular day. (By the way, I don't have so much of a problem with The Post allowing the editorial to begin with, but it didn't really have anything to do with bullying. If they wanted to allow him space to voice his opinion, that's fine, but I'm thinking that it probably should have been on the topic at hand and not just what Mr. Perkins wanted to address.)

For some reason, The Washington Post decided to respond in an odd fashion. They Twittered back (good Lord...) with this:

They're working to cover both sides? Of...bullying? No, wait. That can't be it. They're working to cover both sides of...teen suicide? No, wait. That can't be it, either. They're working to cover both sides of...oh, for cryin' out loud, I give up! I don't know that there are two sides of the subject of kids who get bullied might off themselves. I think that's a pretty one-sided discussion. Sure, there are two sides to the whole being gay in the first place debate. I get that. But that isn't what they were talking about. They were talking about gay teens being bullied to the point where they did themselves in. There aren't two sides to that and giving an open forum to someone to talk about what he believes are the evils of homosexuality under the guise of it being the "other side" is simply insane.

Why couldn't Mr. Perkins simply focused on the evils of bullying and how, since it's irrational to think that we're ever going to be able to put a stop to it, we can help kids from becoming so despondent over it that they want to die? Why couldn't he have gone with that angle? Why the continued attack upon those who are homosexual? The point was the bullying. Can he not get off of his anti-gay soapbox for just one day? Seriously? Please.

Sphere: Related Content

She's Not Me

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Sphere: Related Content

At Least He's In Jail For Something

It was fifteen years ago yesterday that OJ Simpson was inexplicably (completely without splick) found not guilty in the deaths of two people that he so obviously seemed to have killed. Let's revisit that insane miscarriage of justice by watching the video of the verdict below. While I am glad that the man now languishes in a jail cell somewhere in Nevada, he couldn't have been put there soon enough if you're asking me.

Sphere: Related Content

A Whale of an Idea

Perhaps you've heard about the unfortunate death of the trainer at SeaWorld, a one Dawn Brancheau, after she was grabbed from her poolside platform and thrashed around in the water by a killer whale named Tilikum. I'm not trying to sound insensitive or anything, but it's not like we couldn't have seen this coming, especially since Tilikum has been involved in the deaths of at least two other people over the past 20-ish years (even though one of those deaths was totally the fault of the human involved). It's right there in his name. Killer whale. It's not like he was going around calling himself Benign Whale or anything like that. Killer whale. Seems like a no brainer.

What I'm finding extremely entertaining is the various responses after this tragic (yet predictable) event. Man on the street interviews are always good for amusement. I heard one guy say that the "whole system needs to be revamped". The whole system of what exactly? Keeping 12,000 pound creatures in the equivalent of a bathtub and making them do wacky stunts which end up soaking enthralled participants who love nothing more than to watch a tricky orca? That system? Um, OK. I suppose.

The huffy folks over at The Huffington Post alerted us to the fact that following Ms. Brancheau's death, Shamu's Twitter account was shut down. Wait. What now?

Correct. Shamu, the big ol' killer whale that has become the synonymous poster name/child for captive and made to perform orcas, is no longer posting to his Twitter account. ::: sigh ::: Good Lord, people. Did you really think that it was the damned whale that was tweeting?! What kind of person is it who follows Shamu on Twitter? Or ANY animal for that matter? It's not the actual animal who is updating! You know that, right? Right?! Oh, never mind.

But here's the one that I just love, love, love beyond belief. Ready? Again from The Huffington Post, here's the headline: American Family Association: Stone To Death Killer Whale Who Killer Trainer. What the what?

Correct. The American Family Association a "...religious right group, is urging that Tillikum (Tilly), the killer whale that killed a trainer at SeaWorld Orlando, be put down, preferably by stoning." They want to...to...stone the whale? Wh...why....why is that? Well, because the Bible says they should. It does? Apparently so.

They seem to be relying on a passage from Exodus 21:28 which reads "Says the ancient civil code of Israel, "When an ox gores a man or woman to death, the ox shall be stoned, and its flesh shall not be eaten, but the owner shall not be liable." But...but...but that's talking about an OX. This was a whale. A whale. Not an ox. But for some reason, the AFA equates an ox and a whale. I can't imagine why, as they are clearly nothing alike.

This seemingly whack-a-do group goes on to say that "...the Scripture soberly warns, if one of your animals kills a second time because you didn't kill it after it claimed its first human victim, this time you die right along with your animal." Wait. Who dies right along with the animal? Who in the heck owns the killer whale? SeaWorld? Does that mean all of the employees get stoned as well? No, wait, that wouldn't make sense. What about stock? Does SeaWorld have stock? Are the stockholders going to get pelted in that instance? Seems a bit extreme. I mean, if we're going to start stoning people in this country, can't we start with those Wall Street fellows? You know, just to try it out and all.

The AFA backs up that assertion by citing Exodus 21:29 which says something to the effect of "the ox shall be stoned, and its owner also shall be put to death." Basically, the theory is that if your ox is out and kills someone and you don't stone your ox and then it goes out and does it again, you're just as liable as the ox is. Theoretically, that makes sense, but only right up until you get to the "also shall be put to death" part. That's a bit extreme. Usually.

But let me just ask this: Let's say that we were to go along with the kooky beliefs of the AFA and we now need to stone this whale to death. What, exactly, are we supposed to stone him with? Wouldn't it just be easier to drain the tank? You'd need boulders or something of the equivalent in order to stone a killer whale, wouldn't you? And that would involve some sort of crane and/or derrick, I'd imagine. Perhaps a trebuchet/catapult. This is starting to sound really old-timey. Like the days of King Arthur or something. If it only weren't for the fact that we were talking about doing all of this to a killer whale, it wouldn't be so ridiculous!

Look, you can't kill the whale. It's not the whale's fault. The whale was doing what it does and what it does is be a whale. I'm going to have to assume that the term "killer" wasn't just some catchy moniker that someone came up with for no reason. It's named that for a reason. It wasn't a secret. It's not like the trainer didn't know that it was a killer whale. They didn't tell her "You'll be working with this animal here. It's a (mumble, mumble) whale!" I look at it this way: Three people (one of which was to blame) killed in twenty years? Seems like the people are getting off easy in this situation. It kind of seems like I'd think it would have been more given the circumstances and all. I'm just sayin'. Something to think about. Something other than stoning the whale to death, you morons.

Sphere: Related Content

A Parent Strikes Again

Today's post follows in the steps of yesterday's post in which we discovered how one parent (one who is likely a moron and who also likely just enjoys stirring things up) can cause the entire system to grind to a halt. We discovered how if just ONE person is "offended" by something or thinks that there is something wrong with something that the way that the complainer and the complainee think is the best way to handle it is to completely overreact and remove the "offending" item from the access of everyone, even those who are not offended. That's what we discovered. And it was through that discovery that we learned that there are just some pain in the ass people out there who want to up-end the system under the guise of "being offended". Today is another one of those stories. Please don't let that keep you from reading. It's just as idiotic as yesterday's, I promise.

Our post today takes us to Culpeper County Public Schools in (surprise) Culpeper, Virginia. It's there that we learn via the Star Exponent that the Anne Frank diary entitled "The Diary of a Young Girl: The Definitive Edition"...will no longer be assigned to CCPS students". That is according to a one Jim Allen who is the school system's director of instruction. Great. So we're banning The Diary of Anne Frank now? Why is this? Oh, right. Because of the vagina passage. Wait. The what now?

I had the same reaction. What vagina passage? See, apparently there are two versions of The Diary of Anne Frank. There's the version where she's hiding out in an attic with her family for almost two years (you know, trying to avoid being taken to a concentration camp by the Nazis and all) and then there's the version where she's hiding out in an attic with her family for almost two years, trying to avoid the same fate as described above. The thing is that in the second version, there are apparently some "...sexually suggestive references". Uh-huh. The girl was 13, right? And there were only SOME sexually suggestive references? OK. And that's a problem?

It shouldn't be. It shouldn't be a problem. But guess what? It was a problem. For A parent. That's right. For ONE parent it was a problem. The problem was what was touted in several news stories that I read about this as "the vagina passage". Now, these publications don't have a problem printing the phrase "vagina passage" no matter how ridiculous it sounds. But do you think that any of them could actually print what the "vagina passage" was? No. Apparently not. Thank goodness for some thing called The Raw Story (which dubs their publication as "an alternative news nexus") that actually saw fit to include what was so freaking offensive to A parent. (It's a good thing that they found it via Valerie Strauss at The Answer Sheet otherwise we might never have known.

Ahem! The offending "vagina passage": "There are little folds of skin all over the place, you can hardly find it. The little hole underneath is so terribly small that I simply can't imagine how a man can get in there, let alone how a whole baby can get out!" That's it?

Wait a minute. That's it? That is "the vagina passage"? What is wrong with that, exactly? That seems like a perfectly reasonable for a thirteen year old to think and to write. I totally remember wondering how that whole birth thing was possible (as it is akin to shoving a pot roast through one's nostril). There's nary a hint of anything fictitious in that statement. It's just as she describes. I have no qualms with it.

But here's the thing: Let's say I was a moron and I did have a qualm with it. We could even say that I had qualms. Why is it that I can't just ask if my kid can read the less "seedy" version? Why is it that I have to go in there and say that I don't want this book taught at all to any of the children? By the way, I'm using the term "children" extremely loosely here as we are talking about eighth graders in this situation. Yes! Eighth graders! Some moron has a problem out there with their eighth grader reading a passage which very vaguely and extremely tamely describes a vagina and the functions that one may or may not believe that it has the capacity to perform!

What is it about our society that if one person complains, everyone has to be affected? I don't get that. But that's what happened. According to the article linked above in the Star Exponent "Citing a parent’s concern over the sexual nature of the vagina passage in the definitive edition, Allen said school officials immediately chose to pull this version and use an alternative copy." Please note the usage of the term "A parent". I'm not kidding, nor exaggerating, when I say that it was because of ONE complaint. ONE.

The article continues with the aforementioned Mr. Allen stating, “What we have asked is that this particular edition will not be taught...I’m happy when parents get involved with these things because it lets me know that they are really looking and have their kids’ best interest (in mind). And that’s where good parenting and good teaching comes in." Hey, I'm happy when parents get involved as well. I'm not happy when parents interfere with the rest of the learning potential of the rest of the class. But I agree that when parents are looking into what their kids are doing, the (assumedly) have their kid's best interest in mind. But I'm going to have to disagree that this sort of a reaction could be defined as "good parenting" OR "good teaching" because I don't think that it's either one.

I'm curious as to what the response of this particular school would have been if there hadn't been another alternative to this book that was essentially the same book (only with less referencing of said vaginas and all). Would they have just banned the book altogether? That seems rash. After all, this is a book about a thirteen year old girl who ultimately dies at the hands of the Nazis in a concentration camp. It's not like it's light reading material at all. If anything, I'd like to thing that the "vagina passage" kind of lightened things up a little bit. But I'm apparently the only one who would like to think anything like that of the sort. Morons.

This has got to stop. We cannot keep altering the course of the masses because one individual complains. This is not setting a good precedence AT ALL. Man, I wish I had a kid in public school so that I could just try being a pain in the ass and see what I could get away with. Maybe then I'd start to understand the thinking patterns of these school administrators that simply cave with every "offended" parent that presents an issue before them. Because as it stands now, I don't understand a thing about it other than it's completely moronic and is going to doom us eventually. And probably sooner rather than later.

Sphere: Related Content