THURSDAY, MAY 25, 2023
We expect to be posting tomorrow: As previously announced, we don't expect to be posting today. We expect to be posting tomorrow.
Today's semantic puzzler:
Has a book been "banned" when a single K-8 elementary/middle school decides to move it from the elementary grades section of its library to the middle school section?
Related question:
How many regular, K-5 elementary schools have a copy of the book in question in their school libraries? (We don't know the answer to that question.)
Related puzzler: Has the book been "banned" by K-5 schools which don't have the book on their shelves?
For background to this latest topic, see the Washington Post.
We live in a deeply tribal time—in an era whose prevailing impulse might perhaps be described as No Loudly Voiced Sense of Outrage Left Behind.
Tribunes sell outrage as a product. In a large, diverse, continental nation, is this approach to the world likely to turn out well?
Compare and contrast. Discuss.
Instead of arguing about whether a particular book has been banned in Kentucky, Somerby should be highlighting Drum's article, in which he says:
ReplyDelete"The Washington Post reports that most book challenges come from a tiny number of activists:
The majority of the 1,000-plus book challenges analyzed by The Post were filed by just 11 people.
Each of these people brought 10 or more challenges against books in their school district; one man filed 92 challenges. Together, these serial filers constituted 6 percent of all book challengers — but were responsible for 60 percent of all filings."
These bannings are political stunts aimed at academic freedom and education nationwide, by right wing activists. Somerby needs to stop treating them like they are legitimate parent complaints based on book content, and acknowledge that this is a guerilla tactic to stoke outrage among right wing voters, annoy the left, gain attention by right wing politicians, and make the left appear to be "grooming" children in the absence of any harmful behavior in our nation's schools.
Instead of challenging this attack on our schools, Somerby falls right in line with the right.
Somerby doesn't mention which books are being removed from shelves or banned in Kentucky. His supposed link to an outside source goes nowhere (he used to complain about such links to nowhere).
ReplyDeleteIs a book being banned if it is moved from elementary to middle school shelves? Yes, if a child who wishes to read such a book cannot access it.
Should parents, librarians, teachers be placing restrictions on what a child is able to read? Children mature at different rates. The idea that a age-in-grade restriction can be right for every child is wrong, based on children's development.
Beyond that, is it harmful for children to read about things that may be upsetting? Not necessarily. That too depends on the child and the circumstances. It can be expected that children will self-limit what they read, and if they cannot cope with the content of a book, they will stop reading it. The idea that a book can be subversive is specious too. There is no evidence that children will acquire "wrong" views from book reading, absent motives to misbehave in their own lives. Books about thieves do not cause children to steal, and so on. Books can and do explore consequences of actions, resilience and coping, thoughts and feelings, and they teach about history and our world. There is no need propagandize in favor of virtue and keep children from knowing about their world for fear they will choose a wrong path, if a child has other positive influences at home and school. Reading about the holocaust will not turn kids into German sadists. Reading Huck Finn will not cause kids to run away down the Mississippi River.
When I was in elementary school, my parents gave permission for an adult library card at our public library and I was alllowed to read without supervision. I did read a few books that shocked me but I also read widely and without harm, as I have continued to do to the present. No one told me I couldn't read what I wanted because it was too far ahead of my grade level, had adult content, or was inappropriate.
Parents can be intrusive and controlling, just as schools can be. There is no evidence that such attempts at protecting kids does them any good. The main reason for assigning books to specific grades is to ensure that most kids in a class will be capable of reading a particular book and not struggle too much with it, and to ensure that all kids will read the same thing so that teachers can discuss the content in class, helping kids learn to analyze and understand what they are reading. It is not to make sure that kids are developmentally "ready" for the book's content, because that is both too varied and also NOT the content of school curriculum, not what schools are for.
When it comes to right wing concerns (what used to be called family values), a book that deals with teen issues such as sex, identity, future goals and achievement, stresses of teen life (popularity, athletic ability, social media usage, family troubles) may come into conflict with their preferred attitudes and beliefs. Enforcement of their own beliefs strikes me as wrong when children are diverse and come from many backgrounds. Imposing conformity of so-called social and family values is propagandizing kids as surely as if they were introducing political values and beliefs.
Somerby never grapples with this stuff. He only asserts that parents should be free to try to control their kids' hearts and minds. Today, he thinks it is a matter of what age should the control lessen. I don't see it that way. But this might be an interesting discussion, if Somerby were genuine in his presentation. I suspect he is not, and that his writing today is only to further right wing political actions, not to consider what is best for kids in schools.
"Related puzzler: Has the book been "banned" by K-5 schools which don't have the book on their shelves?"
ReplyDeleteOf course it has been banned. The book is not available to children who might wish to read it.
It is the job of children's librarians to select books for a school library. They do this based on a master's degree in library science which trained them to understand how libraries support classroom learning, child development, reading development, online media resources, and library organization and administration. Selection of books is guided by curriculum and by publications, conferences and organizations describing new books and issues in library science. It is an educational specialization that requires training and knowledge about how best to meet children's needs. It is NOT political.
When a parent or other community member demands that a book be removed from shelves (or not be purchased), that is interference in education and it is banning of books, whether the book already existed on the shelves or not. It is not the presence or absence of a book that constitutes book banning, but the politically motivated meddling in the activities of educators.
The White House has suggested that book banning denies children their educational rights. I agree with that perspective. Choice of books should be guided only by the educational needs of ALL of the children in a school, not parents seeking to impose a political, religious, or other agenda on ALL of the children in a school, district, or the nation. It is outrageous that this is happening. And it is guided by activists, not well-meaning parents seeking to control their own children's reading (they already have that right).
See: https://jabberwocking.com/book-banning-is-a-very-very-niche-activity/
Drum is suggesting that people shouldn't get upset about book banning because it isn't happening broadly. I disagree. This is a slippery slope. If parents and/or activists wish to indoctrinate their children, they can send them to private schools. Public school should be based on public needs, not individual parent whims, political motives, religious beliefs, or idiosyncratic beliefs (such as that the Earth is flat, global warming is a hoax, evolution is not real, etc.). Public education does not exist solely for the convenience of parents, but it serves the needs of a democracy to have an educated populace cast votes in elections, it socializes and helps immigrants assimulate, and it ensures a well-educated workforce to support our economy. These are public needs. Using the schools to propagandize students into right wing voters is NOT among the goals of public education.
"It (library science) is an educational specialization that requires training and knowledge about how best to meet children's needs. It is NOT political."
DeleteWhat studies has 'library science' conducted to define 'children's needs'? What hypotheses were put forth and then confirmed or shown to be false under controlled conditions? Do library scientists conduct their library science in library laboratories?
Do your own homework, 11:45.
DeleteHey, Hector, the new Florida law says “ In 2022, Florida passed a law mandating that school books be age-appropriate, free from pornography and "suited to student needs."” So I guess the “student need” better be part of it.
DeleteLibrary science is an actual discipline, with journals that publish peer reviewed academic research.
DeleteHere is just one example of one that deals with children and books:
https://journals.ala.org/index.php/cal/index
Drum calls the whole thing a “ Nothingburger“, engineered by “cranks.” He ignores the sheer number of complaints and the nationwide interconnectedness of groups like Moms For Liberty who are often driving the right wing outrage at books about gays and blacks. He calls the book banning “dispiriting”, which I agree with, but it’s also dispiriting that he and Somerby dismiss the seriousness of it.
DeleteDrum and Somerby are role playing good cop/bad cops in what you might call the new right media - a cohort of right wing grifters and opportunists, that initially built an audience from pretending to support “liberal” notions but have since unmasked as right wingers. Here’s a partial list of these folks:
DeleteDave Rubin
Jimmy Dore
Glenn Greenwald
Joe Rogan
Matt Tiabbi
etc
mh,
Deletemy post only objected to the idea that 'student needs' were the sort of thing that could be subject to scientific determination. Unless the law you referred to made this claim, I would have no objection to its usage of the term.
The fact is “student needs” are subjected to academic research, including publications in peer reviewed journals.
DeleteIt was a silly claim.
2:15 don’t forget the moronic Tim Pool.
DeleteHere is a book that should be banned in all schools, along with guns:
ReplyDelete""Parents and teachers in the Dallas area have expressed alarm and concern that the Stay Safe book, produced by a law enforcement consulting firm in Houston, has been sent home in the backpacks of children in pre-kindergarten and elementary classes," reported Ed Pilkington. "The book features the honey-loving bear created by AA Milne and illustrator EH Shepard instructing kids about how to react to a mass shooting. "
"The subtitle to the Stay Safe book is: 'If there is danger, let Winnie-the-Pooh and his Crew show you what to do: Run Hide Fight,'" said the report. "Run, hide, fight are the tactics advised by the FBI 'should the unthinkable occur.' Inside pages of the book, featuring other characters from the Hundred Acre Wood, tell kids: 'If it is safe to get away, we should RUN like Rabbit instead of stay … If danger is near, do not fear, HIDE like Pooh does until the police appear.' The 'hide' page has a drawing of Pooh burying his head in a pot of honey."
The next page shows Kanga and Roo wearing boxing gloves, with the message, “If danger finds us, don’t stay, run away. If we can’t get away, we have to FIGHT with all our might.”
Too bad Pooh is in the public domain. This seems like a misuse of a classic.
DeleteIt does seem a bit odd, but it’s also a commentary on what a mess we live in.
DeleteThe film Christopher Robin isn’t great, but does well convey how poorly run and convoluted our society is.
When liberals ban conservative stuff, we don't hear about it. But, one can see the banning if one looks.
ReplyDeleteThe ban that offends me most is the banning of Thomas Sowell by the New York Times and other liberal organs. Sowell is the most respected conservative political and economic philosopher and pundit in the country. Those who espouse black advancement should be trumpeting him as a great example of black success. Instead, the Times does not run his articles. They don't recommend his books.TV and radio news stations don't interview him. That is real censorship.
You seem to have a novel definition of censorship.
DeleteHow about Bud Light advertising their products to someone who isn't you, David? Why didn't you mention that book banning?
DeleteAs for Thomas Sowell, his only redeeming quality is his outright contempt for Republican voters.
To the not very bright right winger, the dim bulb Thomas Sewell is a favorite lawn jockey ornament. When Sewell had his national column he wrote a lot of tripe, including a piece explaining the Vince Foster smear was actually quite valid. He’s a political hack who conservatives have tried to transform into a great thinker because he’s an obedient black.
DeleteReferring to a black man as a "lawn jockey" in order to imply subservience to white power is deeply offensive and racist.
Delete"conservative stuff"
DeleteLOL
To point out the obvious, 11:45 wasn’t referring to a black man as a lawn jockey, they were referring to how right wingers view Sowell. The concept employed by right wingers is old, is often called tokenism, and it is a form of racism.
DeleteThat is just as offensive and racist. Your ugly claim promotes negative stereotypes based on race and perpetuates racial division and discrimination. For now, don't mind me but I will leave you here at the bottom of the barrel.
DeleteYes, 2:17, pointing out how right wingers tokenize black people is offensive, but true nonetheless.
DeletePointing out racism, such as tokenism, is neither offensive nor detrimental to society, just the opposite.
DeleteEngaging in tokenism is racist, offensive, and detrimental to society.
This is trivial.
Mom Who Challenged Amanda Gorman Accused of Posting Antisemitic Memes
DeleteDaily Salinas, who has attended protests with the Proud Boys, apologized to the Jewish community after saying she didn't fully read a post that referenced a historical antisemitic text
DAILY SALINAS, THE Miami-area mother whose poorly reasoned complaint about “The Hill We Climb,” Amanda Gorman’s poem for Joe Biden’s inauguration, got it banned in an area elementary school, is now defending herself against claims of antisemitism. The Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA) reports that Salinas posted a meme to her Facebook citing “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion," a piece of virulently antisemitic Russian propaganda from over a century ago that falsely claims “Jewish Zionists” could take over the world by promoting socialism, communism, and despotism.
Yep, that's your tribe, David.
The second amendment is evil.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteThe surprising obstacle to overhauling how children learn to read, reported by Troy Closson:
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/25/nyregion/nyc-public-schools-reading.html
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete“No Loudly Voiced Sense of Outrage Left Behind.”
ReplyDeleteThat isn’t the impression you get reading the article in the Washington Post. The article calls what is happening “a historic wave of school book challenges”, and quotes from a number of people who are troubled by the trend. Their concerns hardly seem to be media-manufactured outrage. They come from groups like PEN America and library advocacy group EveryLibrary.
Also, the article notes the book banners are often connected to national right wing groups like Moms For Liberty. In fact:
“We have a lot of districts across the country where they are just having one or two people file," she [ Pippin, the Moms for Liberty chairman in Florida] said, "but there are many, many people doing the legwork."
Is Moms For Liberty’s Sense of Outrage also Loudly Voiced? Somerby has defended the book banners in the past.
“Has a book been "banned" when a single K-8 elementary/middle school decides to move it from the elementary grades section of its library to the middle school section?”
ReplyDeleteSomerby is likely referring to Amanda Gorman’s book.
The question is asinine, because the book hasn’t merely been moved from one shelf to another. It is no longer available for checkout by elementary students. That is a ban of the book for elementary students. But leave it to Somerby to parrot the right wing pretext.
Amanda Gorman is from California, just this alone seems to trigger certain people. Specifically she is from Los Angeles, a K-12 school called New Roads, and I can assure you, there are even more impressive kids coming out of that school ;)
DeleteSlam poetry simply has got to go.
Delete“Has the book been "banned" by K-5 schools which don't have the book on their shelves?”
ReplyDeleteRidiculous red herring. Again, he is likely referring to Amanda Gorman’s book being prohibited for elementary students in a Miami-Dade County school.
The book WAS available and WAS restricted.
Other schools make other decisions, but in some cases it’s likely that a book, such as Gorman’s, was rejected as a candidate for inclusion in the school library as being “inappropriate”. And it’s likely that Moms For Liberty will target her book in the future to keep it out of school libraries, and/or others will follow their lead in preventing it from being acquired. So, yes, to answer Somerby’s question: it could indeed represent a ban.
The Republican Party is making a pretty strong argument that the USA is a shit-hole country that can't even pay its bills.
ReplyDeleteLet's hope the Democrats can overcome the GOP's bad-mouthing of the USA, before its too late.
The 14th amendment provides an easy solution.
DeleteEnough with the hand wringing from centrist/establishment Dems, please.
I hadn't seen this mentioned yet here, but it seemed important to me.
ReplyDelete***
An analysis of book banning challenges from across the nation shows the majority were filed by just 11 people described as “hyperactive”.
You need to read this Washington Post report, it is only one prong in the larger right-wing attack on democracy. In the age of the Internet, the anachronistic challenging of books is not only symptomatic of bigotry, but also of sheer ignorance about how knowledge is distributed. 1950s anti-modernism is back, and in some cases extends the reach of dominionists who would reinstate Jim Crow law.
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2023/5/23/2171059/-Cranks-the-nationwide-majority-of-book-banning-challenges-were-filed-by-just-11-people
As it turns out, Citi Bike Karen was in the wrong; the kid she harassed has receipts, un redacted, no less.
ReplyDeleteAs it turns out, Somerby was wrong.
No the TN caller on cspan did not have it right.
The kid didn’t have to show receipts, since the woman’s behavior was abhorrent, harassing a teen over a bike while attempting to solicit racial violence.
Will Somerby show some integrity and personal responsibility and apologize for erroneously denying racism and castigating an innocent kid, or will he run and hide?
Bob never cops to it when he gets something completely wrong (fairly often occurrence), he just moves on.
DeleteDo you have links? If Karen is guilty, I’d like to be sure.
DeleteHere is the young man’s side of the story:
Deletehttps://newsone.com/4592993/sarah-jane-comrie-update-citi-bike-teens-mother-speaks-out/
When Karen came to the dock, the young man was standing near the bike. He had rented it and he intended to rent it again, but at that moment he was not renting it. She rented it, but he and his friends pushed it back into the dock.
DeleteWhen a bike is in the dock, it's available to whoever wants to rent it. The young man, who had rented it and then docked it, had no right to prevent Karen from renting it.
Delete6:25’s claim is misleading.
DeleteThe kid was holding the bike, intending to re rent it (one can dock and then re rent a bike every 45 min to avoid a higher rate tier) when he was approached by Comrie, who asked if she could rent the bike. The kid said no, explaining he was about to re rent it. She then tries to push him aside, and swipes the QR code on the bike. He (alone) responds by docking the bike, and then re rents it, as he explained he was about to do. Comrie proceeds to have a temper tantrum, which goes nowhere, so after a couple minutes she gives up and rents a different bike, as the kids had suggested.
Comrie’ s behavior was aggressive and inappropriate.
The kid did nothing wrong.
Somerby should be ashamed of himself.
6:50’s claim is misleading.
DeleteThe kid was holding on to the bike, in the process of docking it and then re renting it to avoid the higher rate of longer duration rentals. He explained to Comrie that he was about to re rent it.
Comrie then had no standing to push him aside and swipe the QR code.
Comrie was in the wrong.
Do you think she would have yelled help like that if the young man was white, yellow, brown, female, trans etc? Now that we know the details, he was guarding an unrented bike for himself that he had possessed all day and wanted to continue to possess and she swiped her card and rented the bike anyway, against his wishes. A fairly typical NYC street skirmish ensued.
DeleteWas it racism?
No, the young man was resting between rides. He wasn’t going to rent the bike again until he had finished resting. That bike was not his. It was available to anyone. He should not have interfered with Comrie. After he was fully rested, he could have rented a different bike.
DeleteYes, but was the yelling of "help" racist?
DeleteIf the kid had been white, Comrie would not have seen the benefit from trying to create herself some victimhood and solicit violence; therefore, would have merely moved on and rented another bike.
DeleteThe kid wasn’t “guarding” the bike, and he didn’t interfere with Comrie. He momentarily docked the bike to keep the rental in the less expensive rental tier, and was literally holding on to the bike, his hands on the handlebars, because he was about to re rent it. This is all reasonable and normal. Then Comrie came along, and instead of renting one of the other available bikes, she bullied her way in to scan the QR code.
Comrie was in the wrong, and then tried to solicit others to aide her in taking the bike from the kid.
The kid did nothing wrong, and handled the situation well.
Somerby was wrong, jumped to the wrong conclusion, since his inclination is to deny racism. Had Somerby an ounce of integrity, he would apologize.
The kid was wrong. When he docked the bike, it was available. He should have yielded it graciously.
DeleteHe was trying to maintain possession of the bike without paying for it.
DeleteThe kid was in the right, he momentarily docked the bike to avoid the higher rate, and was literally holding on to the bike about to re rent it, when Comrie tried to push him off and grab the bike from the kid, even though there were other available bikes to rent.
DeleteWhat the kid did was reasonable and normal, what Comrie did was irrational, irresponsible, and inappropriate.
Hard to be more foolhardy than to not notice how prevalent racism is in America.
DeleteFor example, if you’re White (lucky you!), you’ll have a dollar in your pocket, whereas a Black person will have 15 cents.
If you’re trying to grab a bike away from a kid and the kid is white, you’ll notice nobody will come to choke the kid out; however, within the context of racist right winger’s worldview, it is reasonable to assume that if you try to bully a Black kid, and pretend you’re the victim, there’s a good chance somebody will come to “defend” you.
He was not about to rent the bike. He standing next to the bike, resting. His friends were sitting on docked bikes, also resting.
DeleteThey were maintaining possession of the bikes after they had stopped paying. They were in the wrong.
If you dock the bike, you get off it. When you're ready to ride again, you rent an available bike. Maybe the same bike you had before, maybe some other bike.
While paying, you possess the bike. While not paying, you let it go.
I get off on docking bikes.
DeleteWho really would make a direct link between race and her victimhood without sufficient evidence? And why?
Delete11:34 utter nonsense.
DeleteThe kid said he had only docked the bike to then re rent it so as to avoid the higher tier rate. He explained to Comrie that he was holding it because he was about to take it out, so it would make no sense for him to rent a different bike, particularly since there were other bikes available for Comrie to rent.
It is not reasonable to dock a bike you’re going to turn around and re rent, and instead choose another bike to rent. There is no reason to do this. There is no law or rule that requires this.
What the kid did was correct and perfectly reasonable. To claim otherwise is special pleading, and thus your comment is irrelevant.
Historical context is a good reason to connect Comrie’s faux victimhood to racism. It’s highly unlikely Comrie would assume a similar privilege over a White kid, as historically, this is uncommon. Conversely, someone like Comrie expressing a racial privilege over a person of color is exceedingly common. The specific behavior Comrie expressed - being the aggressor yet yelling for help, pushing and grabbing while yelling the false accusation “get off me you’re hurting my fetus” - echoes the circumstances of racial violence that occurred during the Civil Rights Movement as well as after Reconstruction.
Somerby really got it wrong on this one, he needs to apologize and do a correction.
Delete"Michael said he pays for his own Citi Bike account, and in order to avoid the higher charges, he frequently stops his rides before they go over 45 minutes to rest and re-dock the bike. Re-docking the bike resets the timer, allowing him to ride for another 45 minutes before stopping again."
DeleteHe was RESTING. He says so in his own words. When the bike is docked, he has no right to hold it. Another customer may come along and rent it.
While it's out of the dock, the user is paying and has the right to use the bike. When it's docked, he's not paying, and he doesn't have the right to reserve it.
He was cheating, using the bike for an extended period while paying at the lower, short-ride, rate. Between his rides, he was not paying at all.
You dock the bike, you give it up.
https://newsone.com/4592993/sarah-jane-comrie-update-citi-bike-teens-mother-speaks-out/
Any claims of racism are subjective.
DeleteHarry Litman is God.
ReplyDeletePossibly…he allowed some cops to get away with murdering a young black man. You’d think only God should have that power.
DeleteI’m assuming you are full of crap but have you got a link?
DeleteI am full of crap, we all are, that’s why I keep a daily schedule of bowel movements just to keep things from getting out of control.
DeleteFrom Wikipedia:
In 1998, he was appointed U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Pennsylvania by President Bill Clinton. As U.S. Attorney, Litman in 1999 announced that the office would not charge the five officers involved in the killing of Jonny Gammage.
Here are some articles, of course they “both sides” the issue:
https://old.post-gazette.com/regionstate/19990220gammage1.asp
https://archive.triblive.com/local/pittsburgh-allegheny/video-doesnt-guarantee-civil-rights-charges-against-police-officers/
This one covers the actual event:
https://www.syracuse.com/opinion/2020/06/remember-jonny-gammage-who-never-got-justice-commentary.html
It could be just a coincidence, but as God is White, he does seem pretty rough on people of color.
Defund the Supreme Court.
ReplyDeleteHarlan Crow owns the Supreme Court. Defund Harlan Crow.
DeleteRepublicans should support statehood for Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia.
ReplyDeleteLike Kevin McCarthy and Mitch McConnell?
ReplyDeleteLike Victoria Nuland and Jake Sullivan.
ReplyDelete5:57 that's true. The Republican and Democratic parties have both been taken over by Neocons. Our country is completely and totally in the control of bloodthirsty, warmongering maniacs. And there's nothing we can do about it.
ReplyDeleteThe framing of your claim is nonsense, but there’s plenty to do, for example you can vote for candidates that didn’t support the Iraq War and support lowering the defense budget, but that limits you to the Democratic Party.
DeleteNo Democrats running didn’t support the Iraq War or don't support raising the defense budget. Not one.
DeleteDemocrats are now corporate, pro war, Cheney-family-loving, neocon-led Republicans. It's too bad.
DeleteNow it’s time for Russia to behave responsibly.
ReplyDeleteLook who's talking!
ReplyDeleteNo. The Russians should NOT act like us. They should set an example of responsible international behavior.
ReplyDeleteI literally can't tell the difference between Dick Cheney and the average Democratic voter nowadays. Democrats completely lost their minds in 2016 after their chosen horrible presidential candidate lost to a game show host.
ReplyDeleteWe perhaps lost because you didn’t support the Dem party nominee.
Delete8:08 admitting that you have an inability to reason rationally doesn’t convince anyone of your nonsense claims.
DeleteKaren is innocent.
ReplyDeletePerhaps. But not Citi Bike Karen, turns out she was lying.
DeleteShe told the truth.
DeleteThe young man, resting between rides, was trying to keep control of a bike without paying for it. As soon as he docked it, it was available to anyone else who came along. He should have yielded it to Karen. Then, after finishing his rest, he could have rented another bike.
When you're paying for the bike, you control it. When you're not, you don't. If you're resting between rides, give up the bike.
Karen had no more right to it than the kid did, and since he actually held the bike and was about to use it, he had more of a right to it than Karen did, who was just harassing the kid, since there were other bikes there available to rent.
DeleteKaren lied in various ways, and did not tell the truth.
The young man had no right to hold the bike in the dock while resting between his forty-five minute rides. Karen had the right to rent that bike, which she did. He then took it from her by pushing it back into the dock, with her on it.
DeleteWhile the bike was in the dock, he had no right to reserve it for his next forty-five minute ride. It was available to any customer who came along.
He was cheating, paying at the short-ride rate while taking a long ride, and not paying during rest stops.
Karen was doing right; the young man was doing wrong.
Karen's friend, who convinced her to rent another bike, is the hero of this story. The friend most likely saved the kid from being shot to death by a police officer.
DeleteKaren’s friend helped her to retreat from an attack by a bike cheater.
DeleteWe live in a barred spiral galaxy.
ReplyDeletePhonics today, phonics tomorrow, phonics forever!
ReplyDeleteYes, phonics is a teaching method currently employed, and by all indications, will continue to be employed.
DeleteYour exuberance over phonics is noted!
Some teachers still refuse to employ this method.
Delete