Tuesday, January 30, 2007

Ban "R-Rated" Books From Schools?

This essay, in a Detroit newspaper, deals with an issue that we here at AS IF! have returned to again and again: the question of "age-appropriate." The writer argues that books with profanity or sex are like R-rated movies and, as such, should never be allowed in the classroom. The writer is specifically questioning the use of The Freedom Writers Diary, the subject of a recent movie about troubled kids.

Let's listen in, shall we?
School boards have an important responsibility to their communities to make sure that the curriculum is appropriate for students. Just as showing an R-rated movie would not be appropriate in the classroom, it is right to question using an R-rated book.

There is no rating system for books. Often teachers will pick books based on awards from organizations like the American Library Association. "The Freedom Writers Diary" did win recognition as a Notable Book from the national library association -- but for adult readers. This organization recognizes that literary value does not mean a book is appropriate for a high school classroom.

Parents trust that teachers and administrators have set solid standards for what is appropriate for our communities' children learning process. This is not always the case. As a parent, who wants to find out after the fact that their child has been reading about drug abuse, oral sex or other issues in school?

It has become common practice to offer an alternative to controversial books used in public schools. But for some books, it makes more sense to use the alternative to teach the desired lesson rather than the inappropriate book.

It is the job of the schools to decide what children are exposed to in the classroom, especially since they are not adults and are not mature enough to judge what is truly worth learning at taxpayer expense. There are a plethora of curriculum choices and not all can be selected. By this definition, schools censor all the time and usually without protest.
Generally speaking, the writer is correct: we all want kids exposed to the "best" literature that's most appropriate to the class at hand and, hopefully, most relevant to the students' lives. But, as always, the devil is in the details. The point is, diverse communities have different ideas as to what constitutes the "best" and most relevant literature. A lot of people think To Kill a Mockingbird, one of the most challenged books of the last four decades, is not appropriate for high schools. Others say 1984. Or A Handmaid's Tale, or Beloved, or The Chocolate War, or Lord of the Flies. And so on and so on.

Going back to the movie analogy, is the writer really arguing that schools should never be allowed to show R-rated movies either? No Shindler's List in history? No Who's Afraid of Virginia Wolf? in drama class?

The point is, context matters. In fact, when it comes to literature, context is everything. Simply writing a list of topics, or compiling a list of words, that are not "appropriate" for schools means that--whoops!--we will have actually eliminated the whole concept of literature.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

I was - I might still- atempt to read the bible in school.I'm not a relgious freak but I believe in god and read his word daily.However,if all this is true I will probally have it taken away.Not because it's disrespect for other religions(where I live this really is not a issue as the majority are christions) but the bible has sex.

12:30 PM  
Blogger Sara Z. said...

Great points, Brent, about the importance of context. Understanding context and evaluating content within it is such an important critical thinking skill - teens should be acquiring this skill in high school. By the time they turn 18 and can vote and join the military, let's hope for the sake of us all that critical thinking skills are well-honed by then at the latest!!

2:57 PM  
Blogger SafeLibraries® said...


Once again you prove yourself to be intellectually honest. I think you are saying context is key, and since inappropriate information is often mixed in with appropriate information, who's to judge what should be kept from children.

That's a valid point. But it ignores the starting point. The starting point is a broad selection of inappropriate books for children as selected by and sometimes awarded by the American Library Association. In others words, the pool of books from which schools select those they present to students are seeded with a significant proportion of inappropriate books as judged by anyone outside the ALA's top tier policy makers.

Somehow it then becomes the job of the school administrators and parents to weed out the inappropriate books, if they are even aware of them given the glowing reviews they receive from the ALA. In the weeding out process, the ALA arrives on the scene to cry foul that the books should not be weeded out, when the truth is they would not have been in the pool in the first place but for the ALA's placing them there.

Now in the Wendy Day case, indeed the ALA came riding to the rescue to ensure everyone in that community knew that those opposing particular books were doing so because they were racists.

In "Group Targets Black Author's Book," is it reported Judith Krug, director of the Office for Intellectual Freedom of the American Library Association in Chicago, said, "Toni Morrison is challenged regularly because she is a black author who writes about the real world ... about black issues.... People find these issues threatening," she said.

It is Judith Krug herself playing the race card to mislead people about the truth. It is Judith Krug's ALA that hints the US Supreme Court is racist for deciding against the ALA in US v. ALA, thereby continuing the "digital divide," allegedly.

Now she is implying people in Howell, Michigan are racist. She is so effective in her propaganda, that the title of that very article was totally misleading. A truthful title would have been "Group Targets Sexually Inappropriate Books in Public School."

The truth is the race of the author or the number of awards she has won is irrelevant to the issue. The issue is the inappropriate material for children contained within the book, and whether public schools should make such material available to children. Luminaries such as Naomi Wolf, author of "The Beauty Myth," have sadly noted the downward spiral of books for children.

Here are some quotes from one of Toni Morrison's excellent books, just not excellent for children: "When she senses some spasm about to grip him, she will make rapid movements with her hips, press her fingernails into his back and pretend she is having an orgasm. [M]ight wonder again ... what it would be like to have that feeling while her husband's penis is inside her." "She sits reading ... [and the] cat will jump into her lap. She will fondle that soft hill of hair and let the warmth of the animal's body seep over her and into the private areas of her lap. [S]he opens her legs just a little ... perhaps shifting a little together."

Mrs. Krug, in my opinion, is purposely misleading the public in Howell and elsewhere by claiming parents are objecting to Toni Morrison's books because she is black. In reality, the people are objecting to the sexually inappropriate material for children, including the bestiality.

Worse, she and the ALA could care less about black authors except as she can use them for her own purposes in promoting her own and the ALA's political agendas. For example, she and the ALA say nothing when the Castro regime confiscates and literally burns the books of Martin Luther King, Jr. MLK books burning in Cuba? Silence. Bestiality books removed from children in Howell but available everywhere else? Howell community is attacked for its racism.

Howell citizens should know the US Supreme Court said in US v. ALA, "The interest in protecting young library users from material inappropriate for minors is legitimate, and even compelling, as all Members of the Court appear to agree." The Court in Board of Education v. Pico found that books containing various ideas may not be kept from children in public schools, but the parties stipulated that pervasively vulgar books may be removed for lack of educational suitability at any time.

Howell citizens should ask themselves to what do they look for guidance? To the US Supreme Court and their own community standards where people do not give taxpayer supported inappropriate material to children? To Judith Krug of the ALA who is implying they are racist for questioning books by a black author and who said parents who tell their children not to read Playboy "don't really care about their kids growing up and learning to think and explore"? Do people know it is ALA policy to ensure librarians "assume a leadership role" in ensuring children maintain access to "comprehensive, sex-related materials"? Judith Krug is setting that example.

Howell citizens should know they are not racist and are not targeting books by famous black authors. They are properly concerned for the welfare of their children who should not be reading about bestiality and other inappropriate sexual material in public schools. They have the full support of their fellow citizens, the law, and the US Supreme Court.

The ALA's attempt to mislead them into voluntarily exposing their children to inappropriate sexual material should be seen for what it is and discounted. The ALA, a once great organization, has taken a radical turn that is, in my opinion, endangering children in public schools and public libraries nationwide. People should not let the ALA intimidate them into sexualizing their own children or allowing them to be sexualized in the public schools. People should not let their children be the next victim like those the ALA has already strewn about the nation's landscape.

Even your title on this blog thread starts out from a particular point of view. Banning books is bad. Guess what -- I agree! But keeping children from reading inappropriate books that the ALA is pushing on them does not fit the definition of banning. You don't get to give children inappropriate books then cry banning or censorship when someone cries foul. But the ALA sures tries.

Real banning is going on in Cuba, for example, and the ALA is doing nothing about it. Here, in Wendy Day's case in Howell, Michigan, the ALA's involvement, and its claiming racism through the intervention of its de facto leader, is merely another effort to ensure children's neverending access to the inappropriate books the ALA selects for children. The spotlight of hypocrisy shines brightly on the ALA.


Here are sources to back up what I have asserted:

US v. ALA = http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/02pdf/02-361.pdf

Board of Education v. Pico = http://laws.findlaw.com/us/457/853.html

Group Targets Black Author's Book = http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070124/METRO04/701240390/1026/SCHOOLS

Krug quote about kids growing up and learning = http://www.safelibraries.org/what_lurks_in_the_library18sep1995by_scott_denicola.pdf

ALA policy to assume leadership role in pushing sex material on children = http://www.ala.org/ala/ourassociation/governingdocs/policymanual/services.htm

ALA says nothing about MLK books burned in Cuba = http://www.4freadom.org/BurnDoc.html and http://www.4freadom.org/CubanBookBurning.html

Toni Morrison quotes are from "The Bluest Eye" = http://www.sibbap.org/booksttheh.htm

Naomi Wolf = http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/12/books/review/12wolf.html (free account needed) For more of Naomi and others like Naomi, see http://www.safelibraries.org/pushers.htm

ALA victims, one specific example = http://www.plan2succeed.org/justice4victims.html and multiple victims = http://www.plan2succeed.org/examples.html

5:16 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Safelibraries.org makes some valid points about playing the race card and getting to the truth of the matter. It's pretty much a given that both sides of an argument are subject to certain amounts of "spin". We need to stay focused on the issues that are brought up as factors in selection of classroom reading materials, whether those are factual inaccuracies, sexual content, etc.

Safelibraries.org says, "Real banning is going on in Cuba, for example, and the ALA is doing nothing about it." Okay, Cuba is not part of America, is it? What exactly do you want the American Library Association do to about book banning in another country? Yes, ALA can issue a statement about their outrage at this censorship, but what else can they do? Nothing. Let's bring that back to what I said in my first paragraph and stick to the relevant facts.

1:06 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Safelibraries.org makes some valid points about playing the race card and getting to the truth of the matter. It's pretty much a given that both sides of an argument are subject to certain amounts of "spin". We need to stay focused on the issues that are brought up as factors in selection of classroom reading materials, whether those are factual inaccuracies, sexual content, etc.

Safelibraries.org says, "Real banning is going on in Cuba, for example, and the ALA is doing nothing about it." Okay, Cuba is not part of America, is it? What exactly do you want the American Library Association do to about book banning in another country? Yes, ALA can issue a statement about their outrage at this censorship, but what else can they do? Nothing. Let's bring that back to what I said in my first paragraph and stick to the relevant facts.

1:06 PM  
Blogger SafeLibraries® said...

Thank you, Anonymous.

But as to the ALA and Cuba, the ALA is involved almost everywhere else BUT Cuba. See here for a start: http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/bannedbooksweek/bookburning/21stcentury/21stcentury.htm

2:09 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I hadn't heard about this case until your post, Brent. Thanks for bringing it up. I'm very happy to see that the book went through several committee reviews--committees made up of Howell citizens--and will be returned to the AP English class from which it was pulled.

That is the context in which this book was being read--by seniors who have elected (presumably with parental approval) to take a college-level English class while still in high school.

But it looks like this is just the beginning for the poor students, teachers and school board members of Howell, who are facing new challenges spear-headed by a group calling itself the Livingston Organization for Values in Education (LOVE). Wendy Day, the school board member whose essay you quote was LOVE's candidate. As this article (http://tinyurl.com/2f96d3) demonstrates, these folks are using the same strategies we've seen elsewhere. They recite the naughty bits (courtesy of those Parents Against Bad Books in Schools www.pabbis.org) at school board meetings and attempt to browbeat board members into protecting children from smut.

This is sort of snarky and definitely out of context, but when I first went looking for information about the case in Howell, Michigan, I came upon a local news station, which was featuring these headlines:

Howell Stepfather's Molestation Conviction Upheld

Dad Assaults Volleyball Referee and Coach

Man Pleads Guilty to Viewing Child Porn

and then there's

Services Set for Marine Killed in Iraq

By quoting these headlines I don't mean to imply that that Howell is different from any other place. But people, seriously, you're worried about BOOKS?

9:43 PM  
Blogger MarkLWilliams said...

Those are great points, Rosemary, speaking of "context" -- but yes, people worry about books because they can ban them, and delude themselves into thinking that banning will therefore make the world "safer."

They can't get the crazy man out of the White House, or put the war genie back in the bottle, but they can by God ban an "R-rated" book from the classroom.

And thereby, all the bad things in the world will go away.

Of course, once they do that, and their world is still out of control, then "PG-13" books are next.

12:25 AM  
Blogger Sara Z. said...

In reading SafeLibraries last comment, I got to thinking about the repeated use of the word "children." In reality with the Howell case we're talking about high-school-aged teenagers. These are young men and women who, in many cases, are bound for college. As I pointed out in my earlier comment, they are at or close to the age at which they can vote and join the military. They've already experienced either first-hand or by observation of friends and peers everything that they would read about in the books at issue. Books that openly and honestly explore complicated issues can be a huge help for teens as they think about the things they are observing and experiencing. It gives them space and means to think about what they believe about an issue or topic. If you know any actual teenagers, you know they are not so easily influenced as many seem to think. They may well read books about drugs and sex and come to the conclusion, "You know, I read about this character doing -x-, but that's not for me and I'm not going to make those choices." If parents and teachers don't start giving teens room to explore and ponder these things at age 14 or 15 or 16, when do they? The day they turn 18? Graduation day - which would give them about 6 weeks to magically mature into critical thinkers before the first day of college or the proverbial "real life" we always heard teachers talking about in school?

Repeatedly using the word "children" in the argument obscures who we're really talking about here - teens well on their way to fully entering society with all of the burdens and responsibilities that bears. Many high schoolers have jobs, care for siblings or grandparents, do volunteer work, are active in their churches or other community groups, live in a post-9/11 world where they've already seen humanity at its words. What good does it really do to withhold compelling books that can help them navigate the many facets of what it means to be human? Furthermore, the book at issue - Freedom Writers Diary - is full of non-fiction accounts of teens' real lives. The very stories in the book demonstrate how complex teens and their lives are, and how much they can and do understand.

4:42 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Also, safelibraries, I don't think that ALA is off the mark by playing the race card.

Howell is well-known for being a hotbed of Klan activity. It has a history of some serious race-related issues. I would not be suprised if, in the Howell case, it was an issue of race.

I grew up in a very conservative area, but nobody ever challenged Morrison. And we were allowed to (with parental permission) watch R-rated movies. I saw Platoon in history class junior year.

I think safelibraries is off the mark when she claims that teachers teach books just because the ALA recommends them. I'd like to give the teaching profession a little credit and think that teachers tend to actually read a book before planning lesson plans around teaching it.

If we don't let these teenagers read these books in high school, they are in for a rude awakening once they hit college and find themselves illprepared.

12:29 PM  
Blogger SafeLibraries® said...

Once again I appreciate writing here because even though we apparently disagree, we do so in a civil fashion. So here's some more.

Rosemary Graham says "the poor students, teachers and school board members of Howell, who are facing new challenges spear-headed by a group calling itself the Livingston Organization for Values in Education (LOVE)." The "poor students" being challenged by a "LOVE" fest would not be in that situation in the first place if they were not given bestiality books to read. The "poor students" get bestiality books handed to them, then LOVE is criticised for trying to remove them. This is backwards! The kids should not have been given bestiality books in the first place. Your efforts to recast the matter as LOVE's intrusion are admirable but the truth is bestiality books should not have become public school material in the first place.

This link (http://tinyurl.com/2f96d3) did not work for me. If you don't mind, would you try to get a working link? Thank you.

"They recite the naughty bits (courtesy of those Parents Against Bad Books in Schools www.pabbis.org) at school board meetings and attempt to browbeat board members into protecting children from smut." That is your statement as well.

First, I do not view those books as "smut." Some parent did. Just keep in mind SafeLibraries is not saying those books are smut.

Second, your characterization of parents as "browbeating" reveals your bias. The word is defined as "to intimidate or disconcert by a stern manner or arrogant speech : BULLY". Clearly, the bestiality books still being available to children illustrates no one was intimidated. As to stern manner, I wasn't there, but someone calling the book "smut" probably qualifies as a stern manner. But bully. Now that's the tough nut to crack. Saying parents are bullying people to stop public schools from giving bestiality books to children is a little silly. Of course bestiality books should not be given to children. Does is qualify as bullying to try to stop that behavior? Isn't the bullying being done when children are required to read books about bestiality? Before you answer, read this and tell me if this kid is not being bullied by the public school's "language arts" curriculum: Laura Miller, "Why Teachers Love Depressing Books," The New York Times Book Review, August 22, 2004 p12(L) col 01.

Then you said, "But people, seriously, you're worried about BOOKS?" what with all the other bad things in the news you mentioned. This is a common excuse I hear for allowing children access to inappropriate material. There are so many bad things in the world that could happen to children, why worry about a child merely reading a bestiality book. This is a silly argument. Well, the argument goes, they could be assaulted on the street, so reading a bestiality book is not so bad in comparison. In fact it's rather minor. I'm sure you agree this is a silly argument.

MarkLWilliams then goes on to make two more false arguments. 1) people think the world will be safer if books are banned. First, banning is not the issue here. No books are banned. And keeping children from reading bestiality books in public school is not banning. It is totally lawful. You need to read 1982 SCOTUS case of .

2) He then says once the bestiality books are removed, the inoffensive books are next. This is another slippery slope argument. Listen, Safe Libraries and SCOTUS are directed to inappropriate material. Those people who go after Harry Potter are indeed on the slippery slope, but they won't get any support from Safe Libraries or SCOTUS. Serious argument won't come from the Harry Potter folks. But using them as an excuse why bestiality books should not be kept from children is a nice try but it won't work. People aren't fooled anymore.

Sara Z. then takes her turn. She goes on about my use of the word "children." Finally, I admit I lose the argument. I do think children in high school are children. Guilty as charged. I do think I would be outraged if someone made my high school child read bestiality books. And that's child, not my high school adult. Redefining what is an adult, such as in the American Library Association's deciding 12 year olds are adults, does not make it true. So please continue to criticize me for calling children what they are, children.

"Real life" is another argument. It's what's called "authentic literature." Quick poll. How many people reading this have witnessed or have experienced bestiality? How many think public schools need to expose children to bestiality to help them grow into thinking adults and an informed electorate? What are they informed about if they are reading about bestiality and not something more appropriate?

There's a double whammey here. Not only are the children reading inappropriate material, but he is not reading worthy material. Exactly what education do we want for children, an uplifting one, or a depressing one about bestiality, forced bloody anal sex with feces, the raping of self-created grandchildren in diapers, etc.

Jennifer, ah, Jennifer. A true gem. Intellectually honest. Truly. Jennifer says, "I don't think that ALA is off the mark by playing the race card." Corroboration the ALA is playing the race card.

Then Jennifer hits home: "I think safelibraries is off the mark when she claims that teachers teach books just because the ALA recommends them." My child in kindergarten was given an inappropriate book by an ALA public school librarian using an ALA list of books for kindergartners. The principal said the book was twice as bad as what I reported and she, not me, removed it from the library. She told me the book was given to my child because it was on the ALA list. SafeLibraries is not off the mark.

Thank you all and I look forward to your responses.

7:44 PM  
Blogger SafeLibraries® said...

Oops. Messed up that link. The error id not show in the preview. Let me try again:

Board of Education v. Pico

7:47 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Safelib, you lost me at "bestiality." But as to my characterization of the LOVErs "browbeating," here's how the Detroit News reported on the school board meeting:

"Ann Blaine, a Howell resident and author of a Christian novel, on Monday read several graphic paragraphs before the school board from 'The Bluest Eye' that told of incest and rape through the narrative of an 11-year-old girl.

'Tell me, what is the redeeming quality of this book?' Blaine yelled to school board members and the standing-room only crowd of about 100. 'I've never read such smut like that in my life.'


9:23 AM  
Blogger Sara Z. said...

SafeLibraries - I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on whether or not a high school student is a child. Since that is the case, I can probably go no farther in this debate.

Re: your bestiality poll: In my first semester of college---age 17 and about 8 weeks after I left high school---I took a human sexuality course to fulfill a general ed requirement and we saw a film that included images and discussion of bestiality.

4:42 PM  
Blogger SafeLibraries® said...

Rosemary, the bestiality is the fondling the cat on the lap thing in The Bluest Eye. And I did and do agree that there was some browbeating going on. But don't think others who have legitimate points become less legitimate just because some people are browbeaters. (Are there such things as browbeaters?)

Sara, again proving why I love speaking with you all, you, Sara, are honest. You said you were introduced to bestiality in college. Even though it was when you were brand new at college, it was still college, one you or your parents choose, and not the local public school you had little choice in going to, and you were older. (What, another poorly constructed sentence from me?)

I'm am quite certain that you grew into a thinking adult and an informed electorate, as the ALA claims to seek, without having been exposed to bestiality as a, what, child? Youngster? Prepubescent adolescent? Young adult? Adult in sixth grade?

Oh, I too took that required human sexuality class in college, only I don't remember anything about it except the cover of the book as an aqua-green. (That probably explains why I'm writing here instead of occupied elsewhere!)

9:02 PM  
Blogger saraclaradara said...

SafeLib - Personally I think it's a bit of a stretch to say that finding sensual pleasure from stroking a cat that happens to be sitting on your lap constitutes "bestiality".

Mirriam Webster definition of the word in the context you appear to be trying to use it FYI:

Function: noun

3 : sexual relations between a human being and a lower animal

Stroking a cat that's sitting on your lap, even if it is sitting right on top of your private parts, doesn't constitute sexual relations with an animal.

When you use highly charged words like that incorrectly, the rest of your argument loses credibility.

6:25 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Books and book discussions are the appropriate place for any content to be brought up. One of the great things about literature is that it offers rehearsals, if you will, for decision-making. It isn't the expression in books of what somebody may find objectionable that morally disarms our youth. It is repression that leaves them unprepared to make the right decisions when called upon by events in reality, which often come at them all too fast.

7:44 AM  
Blogger NOBODY said...

Yes, saraclaradara, it's like putting your d*ck in the mouth of a young woman a little older than your own daughter is NOT sex, right? Should we tell that to kids whose fathers are abusing them? After all, it's not really sex, right? You guys make me sick! Get YOUR kids to read this kind of trash, but don't force it upon my children!

6:54 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

^^ nice blog!! ^@^

徵信, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 感情挽回, 婚姻挽回, 挽回婚姻, 挽回感情, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信, 捉姦, 徵信公司, 通姦, 通姦罪, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 捉姦, 監聽, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 外遇問題, 徵信, 捉姦, 女人徵信, 女子徵信, 外遇問題, 女子徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 徵信公司, 徵信網, 外遇蒐證, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 感情挽回, 挽回感情, 婚姻挽回, 挽回婚姻, 外遇沖開, 抓姦, 女子徵信, 外遇蒐證, 外遇, 通姦, 通姦罪, 贍養費, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信公司, 徵信, 徵信公司, 女人徵信, 外遇

徵信, 徵信網, 徵信社, 徵信網, 外遇, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信, 女人徵信, 徵信社, 女人徵信社, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信公司, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信公司, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 女人徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 征信, 征信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 征信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社,

6:18 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

看房子,買房子,建商自售,自售,台北新成屋,台北豪宅,新成屋,豪宅,美髮儀器,美髮,儀器,髮型,EMBA,MBA,學位,EMBA,專業認證,認證課程,博士學位,DBA,PHD,在職進修,碩士學位,推廣教育,DBA,進修課程,碩士學位,網路廣告,關鍵字廣告,關鍵字,課程介紹,學分班,文憑,牛樟芝,段木,牛樟菇,日式料理, 台北居酒屋,日本料理,結婚,婚宴場地,推車飲茶,港式點心,尾牙春酒,台北住宿,國內訂房,台北HOTEL,台北婚宴,飯店優惠,台北結婚,場地,住宿,訂房,HOTEL,飯店,造型系列,學位,SEO,婚宴,捷運,學區,美髮,儀器,髮型,看房子,買房子,建商自售,自售,房子,捷運,學區,台北新成屋,台北豪宅,新成屋,豪宅,學位,碩士學位,進修,在職進修, 課程,教育,學位,證照,mba,文憑,學分班,台北住宿,國內訂房,台北HOTEL,台北婚宴,飯店優惠,住宿,訂房,HOTEL,飯店,婚宴,台北住宿,國內訂房,台北HOTEL,台北婚宴,飯店優惠,住宿,訂房,HOTEL,飯店,婚宴,台北住宿,國內訂房,台北HOTEL,台北婚宴,飯店優惠,住宿,訂房,HOTEL,飯店,婚宴,結婚,婚宴場地,推車飲茶,港式點心,尾牙春酒,台北結婚,場地,結婚,場地,推車飲茶,港式點心,尾牙春酒,台北結婚,婚宴場地,結婚,婚宴場地,推車飲茶,港式點心,尾牙春酒,台北結婚,場地,居酒屋,燒烤,美髮,儀器,髮型,美髮,儀器,髮型,美髮,儀器,髮型,美髮,儀器,髮型,小套房,小套房,進修,在職進修,留學,證照,MBA,EMBA,留學,MBA,EMBA,留學,進修,在職進修,牛樟芝,段木,牛樟菇,關鍵字排名,網路行銷,PMP,在職專班,研究所在職專班,碩士在職專班,PMP,證照,在職專班,研究所在職專班,碩士在職專班,SEO,廣告,關鍵字,關鍵字排名,網路行銷,網頁設計,網站設計,網站排名,搜尋引擎,網路廣告,SEO,廣告,關鍵字,關鍵字排名,網路行銷,網頁設計,網站設計,網站排名,搜尋引擎,網路廣告,SEO,廣告,關鍵字,關鍵字排名,網路行銷,網頁設計,網站設計,網站排名,搜尋引擎,網路廣告,SEO,廣告,關鍵字,關鍵字排名,網路行銷,網頁設計,網站設計,網站排名,搜尋引擎,網路廣告,EMBA,MBA,PMP


8:37 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

牙醫,植牙,矯正,紋身,刺青,創業,批發,皮膚科,痘痘,中醫,飛梭雷射,毛孔粗大,醫學美容,肉毒桿菌,seo,關鍵字行銷,關鍵字自然排序,網路行銷,關鍵字自然排序,關鍵字行銷seo,關鍵字廣告,部落格行銷,網路行銷,seo,關鍵字行銷,關鍵字廣告,關鍵字,自然排序,部落格行銷,網路行銷,網路爆紅,牛舌餅婚紗台中婚紗,腳臭,腳臭,腳臭,腳臭,腳臭,中古車,二手車,中古車,二手車,高雄婚紗,減肥,瘦身 ,搬家,搬家公司

12:00 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home