Reconsideration Committee Instructs Cindy to Reconsider Everything!

Boy did he ever!

It has been a banner evening over at Yokel headquarters as we turned the pages of today’s Reconsideration Committee report! What a treat we have for you, dear readers, as sanity once more wins out in our nice county!

For a long time now we’ve tried to tell Cindy and al. that they don’t understand what the word pornography means. (Here’s the link in which we tried to educate) What we came to see, as we perused this report, is not only were we unable to dissuade her of this erroneous definition, but she and her two minions took their misunderstanding to a whole new level. These books are apparently illegal because of their very poor understanding of the meaning of that word.

We have a real vocabulary problem here folks!

Before we get to some examples of the evaluation of these books, we need to share some more of the written and verbal testimony from both Cindy and current board member (!) Nancy Allen!

Let’s start with why Cindy doesn’t believe that she actually has to read the books:

How’d you like that logic! Let’s keep going….

Does she not know that everyone can read this? Love the characterization of middle schoolers as hormonal, irrational beasts based on one anecdote that we are 100% positive her granddaughter did not want her to make part of the public record!

She continues on her journey…..

UMMMMMMMMM.. This shouldn’t have become political? From the women who strives to make everything political?!
It sure as hell is!

Now, we aren’t just going to focus on Cindy’s misconstructions, as we also have evidence of current board member (!) Nancy Allen’s problems with definitions:

Child pornography!!!!! Remember that when you get to the evaluation section of our post.

Now, let’s talk about that Miller Test because that is the standard the hard working people who spent hours actually reading and discussing these books used to evaluate these books:

Now, scroll back up and see if Cindy’s interpretation matches. If you don’t want to, we’ll save you the time and say it absolutely doesn’t.

Now let’s look at a couple of examples from committee applying The Miller Test to the books Cindy found so offensive.

We read this one over and over and over again. And we laughed and laughed and laughed! The word “mate” really got to us.
Hide your kids!!!

Here’s another one we enjoyed:

“We did not see the above things in the book”!!!! What a colossal waste of everyone’s time this was!

So, the committee gave two recommendations:

And…

The one book they removed had a similar YA version, so the committee felt as though that book would suffice. But it looks like your Lady Yokels need to start reading Ellen Hopkins’ books!

Overall, a resounding victory for intellectual freedom and sanity. So how is our friend Cindy doing on her day of resounding defeat? NOT SO GOOD…..

Well, we know someone isn’t eating from that tree!

Also, FCPS is going to start allowing parents to prohibit their child from checking out books they don’t want them to read. Therefore, if this is really about protecting their children from themes they don’t believe they are ready for and not about marginalizing groups of people and opinions they find offensive, then this case is officially closed.

Don’t come back again!

3 thoughts on “Reconsideration Committee Instructs Cindy to Reconsider Everything!

  1. This colossal waste of time aside, FCPS’s adoption of an electronic method to allow parents to make decisions for their own children as to what they should and shouldn’t read is a sound, intelligent way to deal with this issue. Parents have every right to monitor their kids’ reading choices and habits, and this system should enable them to do that without stomping on OTHER parents’ ability to set their OWN rules for their OWN households. It leaves the ultimate decision with each individual parent — and this what the book-banners are most worried about, isn’t it?

    If the book-banners find fault with FCPS’s initiative in this regard, it’s a blatant tipoff that this was never really about “protecting children” after all, but simply about information control. Which would be par for the course for an organization that has quoted Hitler on its official websites.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a reply to Tony Soltero Cancel reply