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.
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.
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.
