You already know about The Higher Power of Lucky and how it uses a big bad word on page one, thereby sneaking nastiness into the minds of impressionable youth. So all I'm doing here is pointing you to some of the best responses to the kerfuffle.
Here's the NYTimes' silly report on it.
Roger Sutton notes that parents aren't always the best folks to monitor kids' reading.
Scott Westerfield is sorry he wasn't informed of the scrotum-sneaking children’s literature conspiracies.
Justine Larbalestier is sceptical of the claim that children's authors are trying to offend us.
Monica Edinger gives us a teacher's viewpoint on what kinds of things are hard to read aloud, and why.
J.L. Bell feels lucky, and has a lot more links.
And, for the record, the librarian quoted at the end of the NYTimes piece as saying that “But you won’t find men’s genitalia in quality literature . . . At least not for children” saves herself a tiny bit with that final qualification, but still misses the boat: the genitalia in question belong to a dog.