Bedford School District Book Woes Re-ignite

Warning. Strong Sexual Content.

The Bedford Public School system is back in the news again.  Another book has popped up in the curriculum that is questioning the standards of the towns (cough-cough) educational experts. This time is it ‘Water For Elephants.”

This book appears to have some very interesting subject matter, which someone in the Bedford District finds suitable for students to read.  I’ll let you be the judge. (This is just a sample, and relates to the “warning” strong sexual content” portion.

p.81 "..a crudely drawn Olive Oil lies on a bed with her legs open, naked but for her shoes. She spreads herself with her fingers. Popeye appears in a thought bubble above her head, with a bulging erection that reaches to his chin. Wimpy, with an equally enormous erection, peers through the window".

p.133, scene with two women, "she fishes a skinny breast from her dress and lifts it to my mouth. She rubs it all over my face....Then I feel a mouth close around the head of my p*nis. I gasp....Oh God, oh God, she's sucking it. Sucking it for God's sake....Oh my God, I need to-".

Bottom of p.245, "Where exactly have you f*cked my wife?". p. 272-273, sex scene.

I have not read the book.   I cannot vouch for the page numbers or the content.  But I trust the source, and there seems to be plenty of outrage and duck and cover under way in Bedford.

So.  High School Reading Material or Penthouse letters?  Looks like both in Bedford New Hampshire.

Cross posted

Nickel And Dimed Is Out

Once you get past the misleading headline from this morning's Union Leader, 'Nickel and Dimed' Banned in Bedford, (it was not banned from Bedford, it was removed from the public school finance class curriculum) you will find that while the book is out, some of the stupidity remains.

Cara Procek, who abstained from the vote, is the town’s middle school curriculum coordinator.

“I think it’s important the committee doesn’t lose sight of the fact that this book went through the review process” and was approved, she said.

So what is she trying to say here?

Ms. Procek should be inferring that the review process is flawed, but I get the feeling based on her abstention that she is defending a process that chose the profanity riddled, anti-religious, socialist screed over every other option.

Makes you wonder why they rejected the other choices?  Not enough profanity.  No hatred for the greedy corporate culture.  No anti religious references.  Too much of that boring finance stuff?

Wait, here's a lovely book by a socialist hack, lets use that!

I have a solution.   The people of Bedford should start electing the curriculum committee like they would a budget or planning committee.  That should shake things up a bit.

Cross Posted