Censorship of books in the news again

In an article in the Chicago Tribune, a group of parents are complaining because one of the high schools that is close to where I currently live has the incoming freshman reading "The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian," by Sherman Alexie. The parents say that this book is too mature for their children. The book apparently has some rough language and their children should not be exposed to that kind of language in school. According to one parent, "I began reading, and I started to cross out sections that I didn't want him to read," she said. "Soon I thought, 'Wait, this is not appropriate; he is not reading this.' " So first you are censoring what you child reads and now you want the schools to censor what our children read. I understand and fully agree with parents reading what their children read, just as watching TV with your children is a great idea. This way you can discuss with your children things that you might feel are questionable or beyond their maturity or comprehension, but deciding your child should not read is not a good way to go, IMHO. This school said they picked this book after much consideration and looking at a list of books that were written for Young Adults. They also did a survey the previous year and discovered that many young men were not reading (I could have told you that without a survey, but still...), so they decided to use a book that had a young man as a protagonist to encourage the boys to read. The parents also saw the language in the book as racist. According to the demographic information I was able to find for this district, the student body is 96% white, I grew up in a similarly monocultural setting and trust me these kinds are already hearing and in some cases using racist language. Maybe they need a book that uses this same type of language where an adult could then address the racist language and discuss it openly with the students.

I have read several Sherman Alexie books and I have enjoyed most of them. He is an interesting writer who grew up on the Spokane Indian Reservation and so brings the reservation life and thoughts to his writings. His writing also tends to focus on Spokane or Coeur d'Alene Indians and this book is no exception. I have not read this book, but based upon his other writings, yes, there probably is some rough language. According to one review I read on Amazon, the "f" word is used frequently and masturbation is also discussed in the book. Most high schoolers have heard or use, frequently, words like fuck, motherfucker and fuckwad. They are also aware of masturbation and statistics show that most teenagers are probably masturbating. Is sexuality a sensitive issue in schools? Yes. Does that mean we should exclude books just because it is in the book? NO.I do not know, but I can't help but wonder when one of the major complaints is racist language would the same complaints appear if the protagonist was Caucasian. The other book that comes to mind is Catcher in the Rye, which always seems to be on the banned books lists. But in this community would the same outrage have occurred?

Finally, and my biggest issue with the whole parents who are complaining, is that there is an alternative book that you can have your child read if you are not comfortable with the Alexie book. So, if you do not want your child to read "The Absolutely True... ",then don't. Have them read the other book and go away happy that you shielded your child from a book that may open their eyes and may give you chances to talk with your child. Oh, and the other book is about a group of teens who steal rafting equipment to go rafting down the Grand Canyon. So, now according to your own logic, you're encouraging your child to be a thief.

Rental Dogs

Apparently you can now time share a dog. In this arrangement you get to have a dog for four days a month for a few hours. This way you do not have the actual responsibility of having a dog, but you get to take them for walks. This is for the person who is so on the go that they do not have time for a dog.

Now I appreciate that there are people in this world who do not have the time or space for a dog and in my place currently, I may be one of them that does not truly have the space for a bigger dog like I have, but really if you do not have the time or space than fine, but rent-a-dog is a horrible idea. Dogs are animals that want love and affection. They are pack animals, so they like to be able to run with the same pack. Now most dogs will accept new people and even possibly new animals into the pack with some work, but always shifting packs is a bad idea. These are not commodities or possessions to be traded and given away. This is like having a rental child. You do not have a child just to take them to the playground, just like you do not have a dog just to take them on walks. You have animals and children for the camaraderie and affection that you can share. You also accept a dog into your home and you have to be responsible for their needs and not just four times a month, every day. There are too many dogs that need homes and now some people just do not want the responsibility, so they rent a dog. If you really do not have the room or time to take care of a dog in your home, than volunteer at a shelter once or twice a month or four times a month. There are plenty of animals at shelters that need your love and affection too.

And besides the point, you do not have a dog for the walks, cleaning up their excrement is not my idea of fun. You have a dog to play with them and to enjoy having a companion. This is another sign of the coming apocalypse and the decline into pure materialism in this country and now abroad.