50 Shades Of Elderly

Remember the three old ladies that hilariously reviewed Kim Kardashian's sex tape with some D-list rapper? Well, they're back again in the same hilarious fashion as they review the inexplicable literary hit, 50 Shades of Grey.  I'm not going to give away the farm here, but my favorite part is when (and this isn't for the kids, folks) the one lady asks what a "buttplug" is.  I don't know of any other object whose name is more synonymous with the use and purpose of the object.  OK, maybe something like an airplane or a trash can.  It's right there in the name.  It does what it says that it does.  I can understand not understanding it, but it's not that hard to figure out what it is, is it?  Anyway, here's their review.  And I've gotta say, they make some pretty good points.

Sphere: Related Content

Fifty Shades Of Surprises

Remember back when I 'reviewed' Fifty Shades of Grey, the women's erotic novel (one of three!) that is sweeping the nation? Well, Saturday Night Live did a parody commercial of that book and the whole phenomenon that has developed over it. It's absolutely hilarious. It's probably not appropriate to watch around small children (unless you really want to have a discussion about what the "microphone" really is). It might not be safe to watch at work, but it was on network TV (albeit at 11:30 at night on a Saturday), so I'll just let you make that decision. But safe for work or not does in no way detract from the fact that it's hilarious. And probably true. Behold! (If it doesn't play, try clicking here.)

Sphere: Related Content

My First Book Review (Sorta)

Are you familiar with the hottest book in America right now called Fifty Shades of Grey?  It's apparently some sort of erotica novel that has really become quite the hit.  (By the way, "erotica" is the politically correct term for "smut".) Now, I'm not really one to read erotica because it's always so cheesy.  And really, do I care about the story anyway?  If there's sex involved, I don't want to read about other people doing it.  I'd actually prefer that I was a little more involved than that.  But that's just me and it is apparently not the scores of (mostly) women who are lapping this stuff up.  Regardless, I figured I should investigate. 

Let be just be clear about one thing:  I did not buy this book and I did not read it cover to cover.  I merely wandered into a bookstore, picked one up and browsed my way through it. My first thoughts were "What a bunch of crap."  Those were also my middle and end thoughts as well.  From what I can tell, it's pretty much all the same stuff, just in different rooms.   Every page I flipped to they were having sex.  The story is told from a woman's perspective which pretty much explains why there is a bunch of details about what is in the room and stuff like that.  Men don't care about crap like that.  Men want sex.  But I guess women want details about the sorts of sheets that they're going to be doing it on?  (Not any women that I know, by the way.  But I guess other women?)

"I have scissors here.  He holds them up for me to see.  "I can cut you out of this in a moment."  I try to pull my wrists apart, testing my bonds, and as I do the plastic bites into my flesh.  It's sore, but if I relax my wrists, they're fine.  The tie is not cutting into my skin.  "Come with me."  He takes my hand and leads me over to the four poster bed.  I notice now that it has dark red sheets on it and a shackle at each corner.  He leans me down and whispers in my ear, "I want more.  Much more."  My heart starts pounding again.  Oh boy.  "But I'll make this quick.  You're tired.  Hold onto the post."  I have frowned.  Not on the bed?  I find I can part my hands and I grasp the ornately carved wooden post.  "Lower," he orders. "Don't let go.  If you do, I'll spank you.  Understand?"  "Yes, sir."  "Good."  He stands behind me and grasps my hips."  I think that I'm going to stop there.  I'm pretty sure that you can figure out what happens next. 

You know how you can tell that it was written by a woman?  She goes on to describe the bed and the sheets and what's in the room.  I know I'm a woman, but who the hell cares?  Guys don't give a crap about what's in the room.  Guys only care about who's in the room.  As long as there's a chick there, they're good.  And as long as there's a chick there, they're not going to be able to tell you about what was in the room anyway.  I could be filled with gold and if you asked the guy about it afterwards, he'd be like, "What?"  I mean that in the nicest possible way.  Men and women are different.  And I think that we can all learn a little bit from each other.  In this case, it's not important if there is an ornately carved wooden post when you're about to have sex. 

Let's look at another part that clearly exemplifies this being erotica for women:  He said, "What's wrong?  Everything OK?"  "Oh, I was just reading about another measles case."  "Oh, no."  "Yeah.  Fourth case this month.  If only people would get their kids vaccinated."  She shakes her head sadly then smiles."  What the hell is that all about? So they're having conversations about other people not being good enough parents before they have sex?  THAT'S what women want?  Good Lord, ladies.  (Here, let me elaborate a little bit as if this actually happened in real life.  "She shakes her head sadly and smiles.  He nodded as if he was actually listening or paying attention and said, "Yeah."  He read in her inflections that he should probably say "Yeah."  He wasn't really following it.  He just wanted the sex.") 

 

Here's another random passage that I opened up to:  "We finish.  I rise and put my sweat pants back on."  I think that is just hilarious.  And nice job trying to mainstream the sexing up of sweat pants.  But this goes back to this being strictly for women.  (MOST women.  Not me.  Not you.  Just them.)  NO men's erotica (if there even is such a thing) would have the woman wearing sweat pants.  Ever.  No, the men's erotica would have her in a bikini and high heels all of the time because that's what she is most comfortable watching sports in. 

The LA Times reviews this tome and says "Women who consider themselves modest are passing what is essentially a bondage book along to friends and family members with a wink. Grandmothers are discussing the book at family dinners."  Sweet Jesus, I certainly hope that isn't true. I don't want my grandma bringing up bondage at the dinner table.  (And not just because she's been dead since 1985, either.  I don't want anyone's grandma talking about this stuff.)  Can you imagine?  Use your old lady voice and try saying "I do enjoy getting tied up" and see how you feel about it then!  This is probably just wrong in so many ways.  I'm glad that people are reading, though.  So there's that.  Gotta start somewhere, I guess.

Sphere: Related Content

Anti-Elfs on Shelfs

Are you familiar with Elf on the Shelf? Apparently it's huge. Not the elf itself, the concept. You can click on the link above if you want to know more, but essentially, it works like this: You buy this book that comes with this elf doll. Then you read the book to your kids and put the elf on, you guessed it, a shelf. But the fun doesn't stop there! No, every night when your kids are asleep, you're supposed to move the elf somewhere else. Then your kids get to get up in the morning and see that the elf has moved and just be all excited with glee and joy or something like that. I guess it sounds kind of cute. Sort of charming, perhaps. There's something that really appeals to kids about leaving something in one place when they go to bed and then finding it "magically" moved or gone when they wake up. I remember thinking it was the coolest thing when I'd get up on Christmas morning to find that the cookies that I left out for Santa were gone. I don't know why I dug that so much, but I really did. (I'm not much different now. It doesn't take much to entertain me. Ooh! Shiny!)

Even if I had kids, I don't know if I could pull off Elf on the Shelf. Sure, it seems easy enough, but I have the feeling that I'd suck at it. In fact, I know how I can sum up how it would probably turn out for me. I can link you to a blog called People I Want to Punch in the Throat. The chick that writes over there is funny. (NOT funnier than me, however. Don't get any ideas about defecting. I'm the funny one and you read this! Just wanted to make that clear.) Give her a read. Get the full story on the Elf on the Shelf. Let me know what you think. I'm still not getting an elf, though.

Sphere: Related Content

Buh-Bye, Borders

It's over for Borders Books. Done. Finished. They are out of business. And in a lot of ways, it really doesn't surprise me. Every Borders that I ever went into was a complete disaster. And their staff? A bunch of not helpful hipsters is what I ran into more often than not. And this little snotty sign that some of them wrote and posted at a soon to be defunct store would seem to be indicative of just that. I don't know if Borders ever really stood a chance (what with the Kindle and the Nook and the entire World Wide Web to contend with), but when your hired help has this attitude, it isn't going to help much. (Click to enlarge if you don't have a bionic eye and can't read it.)

Sphere: Related Content

A Memorial Day Book Recommendation

In the United States, Monday is Memorial Day. And if you're looking for something to read that could mark the occasion, might I suggest "War" by Sebastian Junger. It's just come out in paperback and it's a pretty easy read. It's about the war in Afghanistan. And as the review over at The New York Times explains, "...he uses the platoon (the second of Battle Company, part of the 173rd Airborne Brigade) as a kind of laboratory to examine the human condition as it evolved under the extraordinary circumstances in which these soldiers fought and lived. And what a laboratory it is." What it does not do is "...attempt to explain the strategy behind the American war in Afghanistan, or the politics of Afghanistan, or even the people of the Korangal Valley". I really appreciated that because it's such a fustercluck over there that it's pointless to even try and explain anything at this point. The book is good. And reading something is a pretty good way to celebrate Memorial Day if you're asking me. We need to know what those soldiers go through and even though we can't know exactly, reading things like Sebastian Junger's "War" at least help us keep things in perspective. And that's always a good thing.

Sphere: Related Content

There's Nothing Wrong With Books

I should explain something about the clip I've included below. See, I'm trying really hard not to hate the kid in the video. And I'm guessing that your first inclination will be to hate the kid in the video. After all, that was my first inclination, so I can't imagine why yours would be any different. But the kid is only three. Three years old. And really, I completely blame the parents for how this kid has turned out so far. I know, I know. It seems judgmental. It probably is in its own way. But there's really nothing wrong with a little judgment in certain situations. This is one of those situations.

What we have is a small child unwrapping gifts last Christmas while the proud parents who are responsible for raising this child to get to this point are watching and videoing their precious little snowflake. The child was, well, surprised at one gift that he opened. He apparently had some preconceived notions about what Christmas is/was all about (and those notions don't include books). Those notions being that it's all about him and what he gets and he had better like it otherwise, you're going to hear about it. And the parents are going to just laugh and laugh and laugh as to make sure that this sort of behavior is encouraged in the future. Let's take a look, shall we?

See what I mean? I really want to dislike the kid, but I have a hard time because he's only three, for cryin' out loud. I have absolutely no problem what so ever disliking the parents, however. Laugh it up a little bit more there, Mom. Make sure your kid knows how cute you find it for him to be ungrateful. And you too, Dad. Make sure your kid sees you laughing over there so that he can throw a fit every time he doesn't like something.

Look, I realize that the kid is three. But I also realize that he shouldn't be turning up his nose at a gift. If he is old enough to understand that he is going to get presents on Christmas, then he is old enough to have the concept of gratitude instilled within him. He is at least old enough for a little talk about how much Santa likes books and how much Santa wants kids to like books and that those books from Santa are very special. Something. I don't think he needs a full blown lecture. He's three and it's Christmas morning. But I do think that he doesn't need an audience of laughing parents. He knew that they thought it was hilarious and he just went with it. I'm sure that reaction is going to go over real well if he ever has his friends over for a birthday party and one of them, God forbid, gives him a book. I'm sure that his little friend will love being screamed at by the kid telling him that books aren't for birthdays.

Knock it off, parents. Do your job (it's right there in your name) and parent your child.

Sphere: Related Content

Another Sort Of Pop-Up

Look, all I'm saying is that if you're reading your kid a pop-up book and you happen upon an image like the one of the elephant below, maybe you just turn the page real quick and move on before your kid starts asking too many questions about the elephant's...um....trunk. Yeah. That's it. His trunk.

Sphere: Related Content

Snooki Gets A Book Deal

From the fine, fine folks over there at BuzzFeed, here we have a Venn diagram showing "The thing no one considered when they decided to give Snooki a book deal." Couldn't have drawn it better myself. But, then again, I can't draw. So, well done!

Sphere: Related Content

33 Years And 9 Feet Of Colon

It's finally here! That day when, almost 33 years after the death of Elvis Presley, you can learn new and exciting details about his colon! That's right! His colon! Shall we proceed? How 'bout we do so with caution, OK? OK, then.

According to the folks over there at the NY Daily News, the King's own personal physician, a one Dr. George Nichopoulos (known to many as Dr. Nick and also known as "the guy who would and did prescribe any medication that Elvis ever wanted"), has a new theory about what caused the death of Elvis Presley that fine July morning when he collapsed whilst straining at stool. (You know what? If I'm ever famous and even if I'm not, I'm going to do my damnedest to live a lifestyle that will not ultimately end in my keeling over whilst straining at stool. It's not a very dignified way to go. And it certainly can't be pleasant for the poor soul who happens upon your lifeless carcass in that position.)

Now, if you're wondering why, after 33 years, this guy is suddenly coming out with his new "theory", perhaps it would clear the air a little bit if I mentioned that he has written a book (shocking, I know!) called "The King and Dr. Nick". Catchy. I wonder what it could possibly be about? Oh, that's right. It's all about making money. Isn't that what all of the books like this one are about?

The cause of Elvis's death was said to be influenced by the number of drugs that he was ingesting at the time. (According to Wikipedia (so take it for what it's worth), in regard to what role Dr. Nick had played in Elvis's drug habit, "In the first eight months of 1977 alone, he had [prescribed] more than 10,000 doses of sedatives, amphetamines and narcotics: all in Elvis's name.") Well, the drugs and the massive heart attack that was had whilst the King was on his throne. But if you listen to Dr. Nick, that throne was where Elvis had a lot of problems.

"We weren't sure [of the exact cause of death] so I continued to do some research...I had some doctors call me from different places and different med schools that were doing research on constipation and different problems you can get into with it." Uh-huh. Problems with constipation. OK...so....that is what killed him? Chronic constipation?!

You got it. You want details? Because Dr. Nick will give them to you. He claims that "Elvis' colon was 5 to 6 inches in diameter, nearly twice the size of the average person. It was also 8 to 9 feet long, compared with the normal 4 to 5 feet." Oh, my God. WHAT?!

Five to SIX inches in DIAMETER? Holy crap! (Pun probably intended.) And eight to NINE feet LONG? That hose that comes out of the back of the dryer is only four inches wide and usually about six feet long. You're telling me that Elvis's COLON was wider and longer than a dryer vent hose?! Good Lord, man. That can't be good for anyone! And clearly, it wasn't.

Dr. Nick also says, "We didn't realize until the autopsy that his constipation was as bad...We found stool in his colon which had been there for four or five months because of the poor motility of the bowel." Oh, EWW!! So, he had, like, compacted and fossilized feces going on in there?! How did they know that the stuff was four or five months old?! Is there some sort of carbon dating process for crap?

Look, I'm having a hard time believing any of this. First of all, would it really take 33 years for Dr. Nick to put together this theory? Granted, he doesn't seem like he was the greatest doctor in the world or anything, so that possibility is rather valid, I suppose. But I'm thinking that if Elvis had the equivalent of an elephant intestine growing inside of him, it would have been fairly obvious at the time of the autopsy. I'm guessing that Dr. Nick is pretty darned hard up for cash and needed to come up with something that he thought would sell a lot of books or something in order to make a buck or two. I just wish he could have made up something other than an eight foot colon with four to five months of compacted body waste in it, is all. And seriously, who, exactly, is buying this book to begin with? Who is publishing it? What is wrong with you people?

Sphere: Related Content

Deal With It

Finally! A corporate response to an "incident" that I can finally get behind! I can only hope that more will follow. After all, it IS rather illogical to think that someone would have intentionally meant for a recipe to include "ground black people", right? Right. Wait. What?

Correct. According to the huffy folks over there at The Huffington Post, Penguin Group Australia published a cookbook called Pasta Bible. That's right. A bible for pasta. Anyway, there was a recipe in it for that dish that we've all had a hankerin' to cook at one point or another (or perhaps, not), something called spelt tagliatelle with sardines and prosciutto. Tagliatelle is just a fancy-shmancy name for long, flat pasta. (Oh, how I long for the days when "noodles" would have been just fine.) Anyway, the recipe was was supposed to call for salt and freshly ground black pepper. Yeah. It read "salt and freshly ground black people". Oh. Awkward.

Now, if this had been Carl's Jr. or Burger King or any other corporate entity here in the US, they would have done what they always do and would have immediately caved to any sort of "complaints" about the issue. They would have removed every single book from the shelf and issued a ridiculously long apology that would have encompassed everything from the misprint to slavery itself. Then I would have had to see people on fallen-so-far-from-grace-CNN talking about how traumatized that they were and I would have had to listen to them demand an explanation. An explanation other than "Ooops", of course.

But not Penguin Group Australia. Their head of publishing, a one Bob Sessions, "...acknowledged the proofreader for the Pasta Bible should have picked up the error, but called it nothing more than a "silly mistake." I think I love Bob.

But here's the best part! He said, "We're mortified that this has become an issue of any kind and why anyone would be offended, we don't know." Yeah, I DO love Bob. He continued with, "We've said to bookstores that if anyone is small-minded enough to complain about this ... silly mistake, we will happily replace (the book) for them." Marry me.

Finally. Finally someone has some sense about these things. Finally someone just came out and said that they can't imagine why someone would be offended over something that was clearly not intended to offend. I love that he labeled them "small minded", though I would have been ecstatic if he had called them morons or softheads. I'm good with small minded, though.

But what about the books that are already on the shelves? Surely, they must be recalling those as quickly as possible, right? Not so fast. According to the article, "The reprint will cost Penguin 20,000 Australian dollars ($18,500), but books already in stores will not be recalled because doing so would be "extremely hard." Awesome. So, basically, deal with it.

This is what I want more of. I want to hear more often that folks shouldn't be getting upset or "offended" over something that is clearly a mistake. And since people are so damned whiny these days, I'd really like it if more corporations would take this approach. Just deal with it. You'll be fine.

Sphere: Related Content

Porn For The Blind

You know, I don't always think about what other people don't have or what other people can't have. Take folks who are blind, for example. I'm well aware of their lack of sight, but some of the other things that they can't enjoy must have not been all that evident to me. Like porn. How do the blind enjoy porn? Maybe they couldn't before Lisa J. Murphy came around, but they certainly can now. Kind of.

Ms. Murphy is the author/artist of Tactile Mind, "a book of nude photographs for the blind/visually impaired". From what I can tell, it's a book of raised images accompanied by Braille descriptions of said raised images. Now, I'm not blind, so I really don't know if this is something that would be desired or that would, probably more importantly, even work. And believe me, I'm vaguely familiar with porn. But I don't think that I'm familiar with this kind of porn. I don't know. You tell me. Below are some images from the website that I linked to above. All images were used with neither permission, nor malice. That being said, let's continue.

Here we have Woman In A Disco Pose. It is described as being "A tactile picture of a naked woman dancing. She wears only a detailed mask of paper and cardboard, and a belt of paper stars around her waist. One arm points to the sky." Um, yes. Yes, I can...I can see that. I just don't know why. See, the porn that I'm vaguely familiar with doesn't have masks of paper and cardboard and there is a noticeable absence of paper star belts as well. I don't get it.

Then there is the Naked Pink Elephant, described as being "A tactile picture of a woman dressed as a pink elephant. She wears a cardboard & paper mask, a chest plate with holes for her breasts, and paper "feet" tie around her wrists with ribbon. Her vagina is shaved, and her pregnant belly is small." Wait. What the what?! Again with the cardboard mask. Why is that? Is there some cardboard fetish that is specific to the blind that I am unaware of? I'm beginning to get the impression that there is!

The book doesn't contain just images of women. No, there are images of men as well. Like this one called Bad Bunny. As you can see, it's the typical sort of naked male porn that one would find in the sighted world, what with "A tactile picture of a naked man dressed as a bunny rabbit. He wears a paper bag mask, maxi pads across his chest, and a toilet paper roll with cotton balls around his penis. Paper hearts decorate the background." Good thing that those paper hearts got included to soften the whole thing up a little bit, right? Uh, your guess is as good as mine. Why...why...why does this exist?

If you can tell me what that exists, perhaps you can also tell me why this exists. It is entitled Woman With A Strap On and it is depicted as "A tactile picture of a naked woman kneeling, wearing a toilet roll attached by hosiery to her groin area. On her face is a mask with egg carton eyes." Huh. Also known around here as "Thursday night".

Then there's the Satanic Ram. It is "A tactile picture of a naked voluptuous woman dressed as a satanic ram. She wears a long cardboard mask of spires, a beard and an inverted cross. Her pubic hair forms a triangle between her legs." Right. Because nothing says "good porn" like a woman with a beard. Sure. That's real normal.

Not to be outdone by Satan, there is the Frog Prince. It's your typical frog prince. It's just what you think of when you hear the words "frog prince". It's "A tactile picture of a man dressed as a frog prince. He wears a cardboard mask with attached crown, holds a cardboard magic wand and is covered in paper spots. Paper cut-out hands cover his own, and his circumcised penis is visible." See? Just like in the fairy tales.

But let's just wrap this up with the Love Robot. Because robots are awesome! Right?! Sure! And what's better than robot porn?! (OK, fine. LOTS of things are better than robot porn! That question was mostly rhetorical! Keep reading!) "A tactile picture of a naked man dressed as a robot. He has a square mask, square box feet, and holds a cardboard gun with a heart on it. A small paper control panel is on his chest, and his penis and testicle are visible." Again with the masks! And the hearts! And wait! Testicle? Singular? Where's the other one! In the sighted world, our porn has TWO testicles! There are no hearts on things! Especially on guns! Feet are not boxes! There are no cardboard masks! What is going on here?! How is this porn?!?!

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