Always Wear Sunscreen

Stories like this one make me want to strangle someone.  What we have here is a couple of kids who were at school and they went on a field trip.  They were outside for five hours, but the children were not allowed to put on sunscreen.  Why not?  Because according to either the "school policy" or the "statewide law" (it's a little unclear as to which means of asshattery was involved her) "...teachers are not allowed to apply sunscreen to students and students can only apply it to themselves if they have a doctor's note."  What the actual eff is going on over there? 

According to the Huffington Post, a one Jesse Michener of Washington had two of her children come home from a school field day with sunburns that were so bad that they "hurt to look at".  After seeing pictures of the kids, I'm going to have to agree with that assessment.  Behold!

.

The kid on the left looks just miserable.  Not that the kid on the right has fared any better.  But holy canoli, is that a bright red sunburn she's got there.  Ms. Michener has documented this incident on her blog, "Life. Photographed." She says that after contacting the principal and asking why her children were not provided with sunscreen for the outing, the response "...centered around the the school inability to administer what they considered a prescription/medication (sunscreen) for liability reasons."  And this is where my head starts to explode.  See, if you buy something in the store and you don't need a (wait for it) prescription in order to purchase it, then it is by definition NOT a "prescription".  And since when is sunscreen considered to be a "medication"?!  It's sunscreen, for cryin' out loud!  But wait!  There's more! 

 

In the telling of this tale of administrative idiocy, she mentions that during said field trip, "...their teacher used sunscreen in her presence and that it was 'just for her'."  Oh, so the teacher knew enough to put sunscreen on herself, but wouldn't put any on the children for fear of some sort of liability repercussion?!  You have got to be kidding me?  How much of a sheeple is that teacher?  Good Lord.  Follow the policy to the letter of the law or else!  Never mind whether or not it's an asinine rule that will do more harm that good!  That's what it says, so God forbid if you actually do some thinking on your own and do something about it!  Nope, just let those kids get massive sunburns and then you can sleep well at night knowing that you followed the ridiculous rule because that's what you are supposed to do!  Good job, moron.

Now, maybe you're sitting over there and I haven't quite incensed you just enough yet.  Maybe you're sitting there thinking, "Well, if they couldn't wear sunscreen, they should at least have worn a hat to keep the sun off of their faces."  You'd think that, wouldn't you?  But guess what?  No, really.  Go ahead and guess!  I'll wait.  Did you guess?  OK, if you guessed that hats are not allowed at school even on field trip days, step forward and claim your prize!  That's right.  They don't allow hats and they don't allow kids to use sunscreen unless they have a prescription and put it on themselves.  (Have you ever seen a little kid put on sunscreen?  Let's just say that they're not very good at it.  You know why?  Because they're little kids!  They're not good at much!  They haven't been around very long!)

As you can imagine, this received quite a bit of attention, mostly from Ms. Michener being angry as hell that she had stupid people in charge of her children during the day.  She actually received a call from the Director of Elementary Education in Tacoma Public Schools. According to her blog, "...a new law – just on the books since June 7 – allowed for districts to make their own distinctions about what is and isn’t allowed at school with regard to sunscreen and other over-the-counter medications."  And while all of that is fine and good, let's just back up a little bit.  At some point, I'm guessing that more than one person came up with the previous policy.  And more than one person had to have said, "Yeah, I think that's a good idea.  I think it's good that the kids need a prescription from a doctor in order to put on over the counter sunscreen.  And if they're out in the sun for an extended period of time and they don't have a prescription, I think it's a fabulous idea that they not be allowed to use any.  I completely agree with this policy.  Let's implement it immediately!"  And they DID.  Who ARE those people?  They need to be removed from their jobs because they are so concerned with "liability" that they can't DO their jobs effectively.  What sort of liability could their be with sunscreen?  Is the kid going to be too slippery for a little while?  I don't get it. 

People that are in positions of authority and decision making who only go by the rules in the book should not be in those positions.  It goes without saying that if something is going to be run by the rules in a book, then why bother having the person there in the first place?  Just follow the rules and things will be fine.  There's no need for personal intervention.  It's all right there in the book.  We are fast becoming an over-regulated society which is void of people who are able to think for themselves and on their own.  Couple that with a bunch of morons who make non-sensical rules and regulations in the first place and it's a recipe for the sort of disaster that Ms. Michener's small children got to experience first hand.  Doomed, I tell you.  We're doomed. 

Sphere: Related Content

Seems About Right

A bunch of self-proclaimed atheists were arrested yesterday for trying to blow up a bridge in Ohio.  I don't know exactly what their point was, but I don't care because I have my own point here.  And that point is this:  Whenever you hear about stuff like this, don't you get a mental image of what the sorts of people who would want to blow up a bridge would look like?  And then when you finally see the pictures of them, isn't it almost always just about what you expected?  This case is no different.  I took one look at these doofuses (doofi?) and thought, "Yeah, that seems about right." Here are the pictures of the guys who were arrested.  You tell me if you come across one that you see and are shocked that he'd try to blow up a bridge, OK?  Let's begin. 

 This guy is a little Unabomer-y.  Thus, not surprising.

 

This guy looks like he could be cajoled into just about anything, including bridge blowing up.  Nothing shocking here. 

This guy sports the large ear gauges.  Never a good sign.  

Are you going to try to tell me that this guy does not look crazy enough to blow up a bridge?  I didn't think so.  I'm just surprised he hasn't blown up something before now.

And here's the last one.  I wouldn't be surprised if he was voted "Most Likely To Blow Up A Bridge" in high school. 

And here's a group shot with all of the geniuses (genii?) together.  And seriously, they look so inept as a group that you'd almost think that one of them might have been able to figure it out before they ended up doing something so stupid that they'd inevitably be caught at it.  You'd almost think that.  Almost.  Not entirely, however.  Nope. 

Sphere: Related Content

How Could They Not Know?

This, my equally cynical friends, this is why we're doomed! What we have here is a bunch of tweets, compiled off of the Twitter, from several different individuals who have one thing in common. ALL of these folks did NOT know that the Titanic was a REAL BOAT! How, how, how is that possible? At the end of the movie, they showed pictures of the Titanic on the ocean floor! These doofuses (or is it doofi?) didn't catch on?! On top of that, it's been ten years since we were forced to endure this sappy movie with a horrible ending. (The worst part? At the end when Jack is in the water and Rose is on that door and she says "I'll never let go." It wasn't thirty seconds and you know what she did? She let go! He didn't have much of a chance to begin with, but that was just rude. She JUST said it!) You mean to tell me that in those TEN years, these folks never got wind of the Titanic being an actual boat that actually sank and actually caused the horrific deaths of over a thousand people? NEVER?! I don't understand. And neither do these people. Behold. Sadly, sadly, behold.

Sphere: Related Content

He Has A Point

First of all, I am not a Rick Santorum fan. I think that he's a little too gung-ho on too many Christian fundamental issues and I really don't think that those sorts of things should have much of a part in determining American policies and politics. Besides, it just opens the door for other sorts of fundamental religious groups to start acting like nutjobs. And they do it so well that the very thought kind of frightens me. But back to Mr. Santorum. Even though I think that he's kind of a tool, I think that I did find something that him and I might agree on. Actually, it's more of a theoretical agreement if anything, but it does lend credence to the fact that you would really be surprised at the things that you have in common with people that you don't particularly care for.

Here's the thing: According to USA Today, Mr. Santorum was doing a little town hall meeting in Concord, New Hampshire and he got booed by a bunch of college students when he brought up what I feel is a realistic and logical argument. Now, Mr. Santorum is against same-sex marriage, also known as a gayrriage. (Well, known here as a gayrriage.) And one of the students said to him, "How you justify your belief based on these morals you have about all men being created equal when two men who want to marry the person that they love ..." That is when Rick interrupted and asked, "What about three men?" Needless to say, this wasn't well received among the oh-so-worldly (in their own minds) college students, who began booing him.

The woman who had posed the original question responded with the equivalent "I know you are but what am I?" Or maybe "I'm rubber and you're glue." She answered, "That's not what I'm talking about." It might not be what you're talking about, but it is something that is going to need to be addressed at some point as I don't see how you can argue that gayrriage is OK, but plural marriage is not. If you're going to take what is known as a 'traditional marriage' and start making an addendum to it, you're going to have to take other things into consideration. And I don't really see how, on a basic level, you would be able to deny plural marriage to people if you're going to allow gayrriage for people. If you think that this isn't a reasonable discussion to have, then you're simply being intellectually dishonest.

Mr. Santorum went on to say "Reason says that if you think it's OK for two, you have to differentiate with me why it's not OK for three." I agree. The students did not. They booed him. But he still was able to add, "Let's just have a discussion about what that means. If she reflects the values that marriage can be for anybody or any group of people, as many as is necessary, any two people or any three or four, marriage really means whatever you want it to mean." From what I can tell from the article (which really did an extremely poor job of summing up how the discussion actually went after Rick asked his question), the discussion went nowhere and the students booed Rick as he left. Good Lord, people.

I respect the man for wanting to have a reasonable discussion about this issue. What I don't respect are a bunch of self-righteous college students who think that they have everything all figured out, but aren't even willing to engage in a reasonable discussion about a subject that they are so blindly passionate in favor of that they won't even entertain the possibility that there is more to it than they think. Don't get me wrong. I'm not opposed to gay marriage. And I don't really think that I'm opposed to polygamy either. (Regular polygamy, that is. None of that FLDS nonsense.) I think it's a bit weird (I can barely manage ONE relationship at a time, let alone several) and it's definitely not for me, but I'm not quite certain that it's hurting anything. But I do think that the polygamy question is one that has to be answered, as I don't see it being any fundamentally different than a gayrriage. And I was really disappointed that I don't know how those students feel about polygamy and, if they're against it, their reasoning for that position. Very disappointed indeed.

Sphere: Related Content

Roll The Clip

Remember the two idiots from yesterday? The one who had cocaine up his butt and the other one who ate it out of his butt and died? Yeah. Those idiots. Well, I found video of them when they were in the back of the police car! It appears to be before the ingenious cocaine-in-ass-eating plan was hatched. And the moron who was carrying the coke up his butt is just a wuss. His voice is all high pitched like a little girl's. (And that's offensive to little girls because I have the feeling that they would have been able to man up more than that dude did.) It's kind of hard to hear exactly what they're saying. I think his grill gets in the way of proper enunciation or something. Also, I'm pretty sure that he starts to cry at one point. Now, if you're hoping to actually see the one guy turn the other guy's backside into a drug laden buffet, you're going to be sorely disappointed. And I can pretty much guarantee that you're not going to be overly surprised, either. Now, if it had shown the actual part where the actual cocaine ingestion takes place, then you would have been surprised. But this is just stupid in action. Enjoy! (If the link doesn't work, click here.)

Sphere: Related Content

That's NOT What Happened!

Have I mentioned how much I despise the media? I do. They suck out loud at times. And the incident I'm about to describe is one of those times.

Keith Olbermann was suspended from MSNBC yesterday. No great loss. I can't stand the guy. But, then again, I can't stand any of those folks who are so one-sided I wonder how they just don't tip right on over in the morning. Olbermann is particularly obnoxious, though. But that's not the point. The point is why he was suspended. And either I'm totally misunderstanding why he was suspended or everyone in the media is blatantly leaving that reason out. And I don't get it.

I'll start with The Huffington Post. Their article starts out: "MSNBC has suspended star anchor Keith Olbermann following the news that he had donated to three Democratic candidates this election cycle." OK. Now over to the LA Times blog which tells us (in an extremely pithy fashion which I appreciate) "Keith Olbermann was suspended because he donated a total of $7,200 to three political candidates who had been on his program or supported by his comments." All right, sir. And even from the New York Freaking Times which begins their article with: "Keith Olbermann, the pre-eminent liberal voice on American television, was suspended Friday after his employer, MSNBC, discovered that he made campaign contributions to three Democrats last month." Do you get it? Do you understand why he was suspended? You do? Trust me. You don't.

All three of those examples that I cited are fairly reputable (to say the least) sources of news. That's what makes me so angry. They're leaving out a key part! And it's the part for why he was really suspended! That's the thing! He wasn't suspended for making the donations! Did you get that impression from any of those sources above? Even an organization called FAIR, which stands for "Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting" got it wrong when they reported "MSNBC host Keith Olbermann has been placed on indefinite suspension without pay in the wake of a Politico report (11/5/10) that revealed Olbermann had donated $7,200 to three Democratic candidates, in violation of NBC's standards barring employees from making political contributions." That's not correct!

What they're all leaving out is that Olbermann was suspended because, according to the president of MSNBC, a one Phil Griffin, "I became aware of Keith's political contributions late last night. Mindful of NBC News policy and standards, I have suspended him indefinitely without pay." And the freaking policy to which he is referring to does NOT bar employees from making political contributions. No, it requires them to obtain prior approval from NBC News executives before doing so.

Do you see the difference? The way that it is being reported makes it sound (because that's how it sounds) like he was suspended because he donated. No. That's not it! He was suspended because he didn't obtain the approval that was required. There's a difference! Am I the only one who sees that? Why is it not being reported that way? Either way, are we supposed to feel sorry for Keith Olbermann? I can't imagine ever feeling that way toward the man. But that aside, what the hell is going on here?!

And it's not just one news source. It's EVERY news source. ALL of them are reporting that he was suspended for making political donations and ALL of them leave off the part about him doing so without obtaining approval. Why are they doing that? It's maddening is what it is. Do I think that he needed to be suspended indefinitely without pay for doing it? Look, it's not exactly like he's a strict news reporter. He's chock full of opinion! That being said, I think it's a bit harsh, but that's not the point. The point is that the media sucks! And on this one, they suck SO bad that I am almost (almost) completely speechless.

We're so doomed. This is a pretty basic concept to try and report correctly, yet everyone has it wrong. If the media can't get this right, how are we supposed to trust them to explain and report on things more complicated than why some jackass got suspended? We can't be expected to do that at all. And it saddens me. Back to you

Sphere: Related Content

How Not To Smuggle Drugs Into Prison

A father should be willing to do anything for his son, shouldn't he? Theoretically? Probably. But I'm pretty sure that there's a line even with the father-son relationship. Pretty sure. I'm not a father and I don't have a son, but if I did have a son, I think that he'd have to go without his black tar heroin in prison if it meant that I (as the hypothetical father) would have to smuggle it into the prison shoved up my arse and then remove it to transfer it to my son via an open-mouthed kiss. Wait. What?

That's the story out of Colorado that we learn from CBS8 in San Diego. Go figure. It would seem that a one 29-year old Donald Curtis Denney was serving time in a Colorado prison for robberies that he committed in San Diego in 2006. Now, you might wonder how this man could have gone so astray in his life, but when you hear about his father, it will all be crystal clear.

See, the father and the son spent two years coming up with an ingenious plan to smuggle some black tar heroin into the prison. (I don't know what makes that any different from regular heroin or if it is what is in the highest demand in prisons these days, but they felt the need to mention it, so I'm guessing there is some sort of a significance to it.) Two years. Two years to come up with this plan. I'm so shocked that it was thwarted. I don't know. Maybe they would have gotten away with it if they hadn't been planning their idiotic (and extremely disgusting) scheme during phone conversations which, because the son was in prison, were monitored. That's right. They could have just walked up to the authorities and told them of their plan and saved themselves a whole lot of time.

Aside from that, you'd think that after two years of planning, you're going to come up with something at least halfway decent. Not in this case. Nooooo. After two years, the best that these guys could come up with AND what they ended up agreeing upon was for the dad to shove a golf ball sized piece of this black tar heroin up his arse and get it into the prison that way. How is that going to help anyone when it still has to be transferred from anus to prisoner? It's not like they didn't think of that! Come on! Give them a little credit! They planned for the dad to take it out of his rectal region, put it in his mouth and then give his son a big ol' open mouthed kiss and transfer it that way. Oh. God.

Two years?! What in the hell were the plans that they decided against? What wasn't as brilliant as the plan that they settled upon?! What? Were other ideas just too disgusting or something? I like to think of the arse as an "out only" instrument. Only out! ONLY. OUT. But this guy thought otherwise. Not only did he think otherwise, he saw nothing wrong with taking what does come out (after it had been inserted in) and putting it in his mouth. What in the world is wrong with some people?

I have absolutely no idea how the guy planned to get it from Point A(rse) to Point B(ehind tongue). I also have absolutely no idea why CBS8 decided that it would be a good idea to interview the father's neighbor. Said the neighbor, a one Mike V., "I felt so disgusted and would never imagine taking something out of my butt and putting it in my mouth in the first place, but to kiss my own child -- it wouldn't happen." Well said. Then again, the open-mouthed kissing of an adult child would be the least of my concerns. My main concern would be the fecal covered object in someone's mouth, really. But Mike seems more concerned about the kissing. To each their own, I suppose, but that would be secondary.

All was foiled when they did a body cavity search on Mr. Denney when he went to visit his son. That's what happens when you make stupid-ass plans over phone lines that are being monitored (you know, because you're in prison) and then go through with them. Yep. That's exactly what happens. And in case you're wondering, Mr. Denney, Sr. looks just exactly how you'd expect him to look. Behold!

Good Lord. It's like Popeye on crack. Don't do drugs, kids! And for God's sake, don't put them up your arse and then in your mouth and then go around kissing someone in prison in an attempt to transfer said drugs. Just don't.

Sphere: Related Content

California Budget Busters

Look, there are a lot of great things about living in the People's Gay-Public of Drugifornia (also known as California), but I've gotta tell you, there are a lot of not so great things about living here. It's really borderline sucky to live here if you're asking me. And I'm doing just fine. The walled off compound protects me from the morons of society quite nicely, thank you. Employment isn't an issue and neither is revenue. But unfortunately, employment and revenue are an issue for the state.

The current unemployment rate in California is hovering somewhere around 12.3% and the state is also expected to be running a deficit which is somewhere right around $15 billion. (Yep, billion. With a B.) And that's "deficit". As in "not enough money". So with that knowledge, what has the California Senate decided to do? Well, according to the SF Gate they "...passed a measure to create a state-run, single-payer health system." Wait. They what now?

Correct. The California Senate voted 22-14 to pass this thing. Only one Democrat had the sanity to vote against this measure. That Democrat would be a one Sen. Lou Correa, D-Santa Ana. You can vote for him next time. The rest of the Democrats? Yeah, you're going to want to be NOT voting for them. The Republicans? They can stay. Lou can stay. Everyone else? Out. Out!

Now, this might not sound like such a big deal. I mean, after all, a state-run, single-payer health system sounds like a good idea, doesn't it? Sure it does. And when you get back from Xanadu, let me know how it works there because it certainly isn't a viable option in this utopia that the Senators appear to be trying to create.

Let's just run over the basic basics of the state of California's fiscal issues, shall we? I'll be brief. That will be easy to do because there really isn't a lot to talk about, seeing as how the state is running that deficit of about $15 billion (still with a B). According to the Legislative Analyst's Office (the ol' LAO) California stands to make in revenue somewhere in the neighborhood of $82.5 billion. Sure, that sounds like a lot, but when you consider that it's around $5 billion less than a couple of years ago, you're going to kind of get the idea that revenue, well, it ain't what it used to be.

But here's the kicker: This utopian health care plan "All state residents would be provided health care and people could buy private health care to cover services not offered through the state plan." Um....what?

Everyone gets health care?! Score! Oh, wait. Maybe not. After all, this has just passed through the California Senate. The Governator has vetoed things like this before, so can I take it to mean that he's going to veto this as well? I should certainly hope so because, again according to the SF Gate, "It is anticipated to cost about $200 billion a year."

::: blink ::: ::: blink :::

It's going to cost what? $200 billion? A YEAR?! But...but....the state only takes IN about $82 billion a year. See....see....that....that....that's NOT ENOUGH! What in the world is wrong with those morons?!

I want an explanation from every single one of those morons who voted for this. What could their rationale possibly be?! Oh, that it sounds good?! It's because of all of the "sound good" and "feel good" programs that they're constantly passing legislation on that the state is in the fiscal toilet that it swirls around in daily! This isn't news! The state handed out IOUs last summer, for cryin' out loud! They're not kidding! The state is broke!!

You people in the California Senate have a lot of nerve, I'll tell you that. Every single one of you who voted for this garbage clearly have about as many brains as the state has surplus cash. That is to say NONE! Nice waste of time. Nice job wasting everyone's time and money to pass something that the Governator is sure to veto. Nice job accomplishing nothing. You morons.

It's $200 billion dollars! And that's just for this health care fantasy that they passed! It's not like there isn't the rest of the budget to continue to fund! You remember the rest of the budget, don't you? It's that thing that isn't fully funded as it is! Now just tack on another $200 billion to that. Oh, sure. Let me know how that works out, will you? I'll be over here, making the walls on my walled off compound even higher. After this show of stupidity, I'm considering adding a dome. We're so doomed.

Sphere: Related Content

Define "Dictionary"

We have really come off the rails this time. I mean really. Really really. Really.

Let's go down to southern California to the Menifee Union School District in southwest Riverside County. And while we're there, let's stop by the fourth grade and fifth grade classrooms at Oak Meadows Elementary School. And while we're there, let's look up some words in Merriam Webster's 10th Collegiate Edition Dictionary. Oh, wait. We can't. They've been removed from the classrooms because A parent complained. Wait. What?

Correct. It would seem that, according to the LA Times, "...a parent complained to the school principal about what she believed was explicit sexual content in the dictionary." Explicit sexual content? Let's break that down, shall we? The dictionary defines words. It doesn't beat around the bush. Therefore, it tends to be explicit. Whether it be a definition of a duck (a duck) or a rock (a rock) or a tree (a tree), it tends to be explicit. And explicit or not, if it's a word, it needs to be defined. Hence it's inclusion in the dictionary.

"The books were ordered off the shelves until a committee could determine if they were "age appropriate" for fourth- and fifth-graders." If they were age appropriate? For people who...read? What age does one have to be before their language is deemed to be appropriate? What the heck is that all about? ONE parent complains and ALL of the dictionaries get removed?! When did that start happening? When did the opinion of ONE person suddenly have the potential to affect EVERYONE around them? (And in this case, apparently only one completely asinine person to boot!)

"The move immediately set off cries of censorship among many, including the president of the local school board, who warned that banning one book would inevitably lead to the banning of more and more." Let's forget about censorship for a moment because censorship is really the last thing that I'm worried about at the moment. What I'm concerned about is stupidity and this is one of the stupidest things that I've ever heard. Let's forget about censorship for a moment and let's instead focus on how ridiculous it is to remove a freaking dictionary because there are words in there that are explicit! Focusing? Are you?! Good! Then you see my point! Now, what was the problem exactly?

The word and the definition of said word that is in question here is "oral sex". Now, I don't know about you, but I don't know how you're going to define "oral sex" without it containing a fair amount of explicit detail. See, that's because you're going to have to use the word "genitals" or an acceptable substitute. (And by "acceptable" I mean something that you could put in the dictionary and allow said dictionary to retain it's credibility. Therefore, terms like cootchie, hoo-ha, and wee-wee would be immediately disqualified from consideration.) And technically, the term "oral sex" in and of itself is rather explicit. You've got the "sex" part of it which could be considered explicit and you've got all of the oralling going on with it which makes it even more explicit. It's hard for me to see a way around that one, frankly. And you know, you're also going to have to include some sort of reference to the oral portions of the human anatomy making contact with said genitalia without a funny nickname. Tell me how that's going to happen without explicit detail. Oh, that's right. It's not.

Now, I thought I had a hard copy of the "devil's book" (aka Merriam-Webster's Dictionary), but I was wrong, so I've had to rely on the online version in order to further assess this lunacy. If you check Merriam Webster's online and look up the definition of "oral sex", this is the definition you'll see: "oral stimulation of the genitals". Yes, we know. (Theoretically.)

::: blink ::: ::: blink :::

That's IT?!?! THAT is the explicit definition that A parent wigged out about and demanded that the dictionary be pulled from the classrooms?! Is this parent aware of some of the other words that are in said dictionary?! What about penis? I'm pretty sure that vagina is included in there! You know, the words that were referenced by the "oral sex" definition? You know, words that you could look up to get a clearer view of what we're talking about, though I doubt that from the oral sex position that you're really going to have a very clear view of anything, really. (Yes, that was a joke. Carry on.) They cross reference cunnilingus (not one who is clever with words) and fellatio (not an off shoot of the word "fellow") for crying out loud!

For the love of anything that is sane in this world, if someone could explain to me how society got to the point where if one person is annoyed by the slightest little thing that the entire system is thrown out of whack whilst that moron is accommodated? How?! How did it come to this?!

Look, the purpose of a dictionary is so that all of the words can be included. It's not a give and a take quite so much. It's pretty much an all or nothing thing here. You can have all of the words and call it a dictionary or you can have some of the words and call it a pile of words. Your choice. Actually, no. Wait a minute. It isn't your choice. It's no one's choice! It's a damned dictionary and that's all there is to it! You can't go changing the dictionary! It's not POSSIBLE! What is wrong with people (person)?

I cannot believe that because one fringe lunatic couldn't handle the term "oral sex" in a dictionary (not in their Bible, though that would be news!) for God's sake, that now (and I'm quoting) "The school is now promising to begin a thorough scouring of the dictionary for other offensive entries." Because of course they have nothing better to do, seeing as how all of the children are learning the most that they can and are getting the best education possible already.

::: blink ::: ::: blink :::

Good Lord, we're doomed.

"It's hard to sit and read the dictionary (Why, yes! It is! That's why people don't do it! You moron.), but we'll be looking to find other things of graphic nature." Let me save them some time! You're going to find other things of graphic nature! You don't have to READ very much! You can just flip right to them! Let me help you! Penis is probably in there. Don't forget vagina. Amygdala should go just because it sounds hilarious. (The same goes for urethra.) Get rid of vulva (the body part, not the car. Oh, wait, that's Volvo, never mind). And while you're at it, axe the prostate, will you? You should find some testicles in there (not literally, for cryin' out loud!). Breasts must definitely go (and I will miss them). Anus? Gone! Uterus? I'm not using mine, get rid of it too! Clitoris? Until we can agree on a pronunciation, it's gone as well! (Man, if whomever that parent was is reading this right now, I'm guessing that they probably had a heart attack somewhere right around 'anus'. But again, not literally.)

Did this parent never look up words when they were younger just so that they could laugh? If not, then I'm guessing that they were not part of a very large group known as "freaking everyone!" And after the school gets done reading the dictionary, then what? Are they going to black out those entries? Good luck. Ever read a dictionary? They're printed on that paper that's just a step up from the thickness that they use for the Bible. It's very thin. There's no way that you can just run a Sharpie over your penis (not many reasons why you'd want to, really) without it blacking out the other side as well.

So do you want to know what they came up with? You know, what to do after all of the scouring? Here's the solution: "The dictionary will go back to the classroom but the parents will be given the option to determine if they want their kids to have access to that dictionary...Students will take permission slips home and parents who don't want them to use Webster's 10th Collegiate Edition can opt for alternative dictionaries." What now?

An alternative dictionary? What the heck is that? An incomplete list of words? Why yes! Yes! That's exactly what it is! There is no word on what this alternative dictionary will consist of or which one will be used. But are they serious? They're going to send home permission slips in case parents don't want their children to have access to the dictionary? I'm pretty sure that if that sort of permission slip was sent home with me when I was in school that my parents would have pulled me out of that school. They would have assumed that the lunatics are running the asylum and they would have yanked me out of there before having to read through any more inanity. (Man, I wish that they had done that when I was in high school and with my chemistry class. You know, sent home a note asking if I was allowed access to my chemistry book. I would have forged that sucker so fast. I hated chemistry.) By the way, if you're wondering what the California Department of Education (you know, the department that funds the blasted schools) had to say about it, they "...said it had no authority over what Menifee does with its dictionaries because they are not considered instructional materials." I want to cry.

It's not an instructional material? It's a dictionary! It's a reference material! How is a reference material not an instructional material? Ever remember asking your teacher how you spell something or what something means when you were in school? What did your teacher tell you? That's right. She/He told you to look it up in the dictionary. I don't know how that is not an instructional material, but apparently it isn't.

I cannot believe that this got any farther than the individual who took the complaint. Oh, how I wish I had been that individual. I think my response would have gone something along the lines of, "Uh-huh. I see. Well, Mr. or Mrs. Jackass, the point of the dictionary is that is has all of the words in it. See, because otherwise it would just be called Merriam-Webster's Partial List of Words. And who is going to want to read that, really. No one. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have non-lunatics to see. Thank you for stopping by."

Look, I'll work my way up to something that could actually be said, all right? In the meantime can you crazy people please get over yourselves? And if you can't, will you at least accept some help from the sane? Good Lord, things are off the rails these days.

Sphere: Related Content