Thanks, New York Times, for reporting on this surprising find. Ummm, duh.
Study Finds Women Wear Shoes That Cause Pain
Category Archives: NY Times
Hooray for Utah, and No Texting While Driving
Utah has got it goin on.
Let me preface this by saying I have not been paid by the state of Utah, I am not Mormon, and I have only been to Salt Lake City once, at which time I ordered a glass of white wine with my dinner and was politely told that “(ahem) You are in the city owned by that very large church across the street so we will not sell you alcohol, but we will certainly pray for sinners like you.” Those may not have been the waitress’s exact words, but I’m fairly certain that’s what she meant.
So now, almost 15 years later, here I am cheering Utah on because despite their confusion about white wine, they are showing some serious common sense.
In his NY Times article about a law that recently took effect there, Matt Richtel explains it this way:
“The new law, which took effect in May, penalizes a texting driver who causes a fatality as harshly as a drunken driver who kills someone. In effect, a crash caused by such a multitasking motorist is no longer considered an “accident” like one caused by a driver who, say, runs into another car because he nodded off at the wheel. Instead, such a crash would now be considered inherently reckless.
“‘It’s a willful act,” said Lyle Hillyard, a Republican state senator and a big supporter of the new measure. If you choose to drink and drive or if you choose to text and drive, you’re assuming the same risk.’”
Now that makes sense to me. And I text. And I will admit that I have texted while driving. I am busy and efficient and hey, look at me multi-task. But that’s a bad one. I was lucky and realized I was insane and I put my darn phone down. Isn’t it bad enough that we’re flying along at 75 miles an hour engrossed in a conversation on our cell phone? Do we really need to answer our e-mail and texts on the road, too?
No, we don’t. We really don’t.
We need to put our phones away. We can put them in the glove compartment or in the back seat or at the bottom of our purses. But we should put them away for so many reasons. We should put them away if for no other reason than our children are watching, and they’re learning and you know how that works. Despite our best efforts they will often do as we do and not as we say.
And, God forbid they ever text while driving. It’s not worth the price, friends. Don’t you agree?
Should Students Choose The Books They Read?
Motoko Rich raised this question in her NY Times article this week. My short answer to this short question is, no. No, I don’t think so. Students should not choose the books they read for class. Teachers should choose those books.
But, as my loyal readers know, I’m not a big fan of superlatives, so please note, my answer was not, “No, not ever, students should never choose.
There are so many different types of students. There are so many different types of teachers. There are so many different types of books.
It seems to me that it’s pretty clear that education is not a one-size fits all proposition. Some districts do it better than others, and some teachers do it extraordinarily well. But often these schools they have more resources—they can pull kids out for extra help or enrichment; they have aides in the classroom; they have highly involved parents. These factors make a difference for the teachers and the kids.
Regardless of school district, I think age is a big factor. In discussing whether or not students should choose the books they read for class, I’m referring to older kids, to middle schoolers and high schoolers. Elementary school kids should read whatever floats their boat. The goal at that point isn’t to analyze the symbolism of red flowers or white hats, but to instill a love of reading.
Also, I understand that some kids don’t have a love of reading by the time they enter middle or high school. I realize that some schools are struggling just to get kids to pick up a book and that throwing Moby Dick at these kids is rather pointless. So I will concede that, in those cases, allowing students to begin by choosing their own books is a good idea, with strong teacher guidance later.
But generally speaking, as kids get older, they need more. When we read and discuss great books, classic books, with others, we learn more. My friends had insights I didn’t and vice versa. When we read and discussed assigned books, I learned from them and they learned from me. Furthermore, students who have read and discussed these books have a shared history, a common understanding, a mutual point of reference for discussing the topics broached in classic literature.
The books that challenge and change us aren’t usually the books we read on the beach in the summer. And the books that challenge and change our kids aren’t usually the ones they read for entertainment. I totally support reading for entertainment. It beats the heck out of another hour of TV. But our kids aren’t in school to be entertained. They’re in school to learn.
Here are two books I read simply because they were assigned:
Lord of the Flies. If you haven’t read this classic since high school, it’s worth another read. As you find yourself on the beach with Golding’s boys, you think about the biases we hold today; you’ll think about our tendencies as humans and why order and laws are good for us and why, despite knowing better, people still hurt each other every single day. If your kids are old enough, let them read it and talk about these ideas with them, too.
The Good Earth (Pearl S. Buck). Despite my disdain for superlatives, I will go out a limb here and say that I as a student I never would’ve picked up a book about a Chinese farmer unless my teacher said, “Read this.” But because she did, I read it, and in one fell swoop I understood why some books are called classic. This one stood the test of time and I’ve read it at least 5 times since, most recently a year or so ago. It never ceases to amaze me. This book makes you think, think, think.
Both of these books raise questions and issues that resonate with readers today, even though they were originally published in 1954 and 1931. Even if they don’t touch everyone in the same way they touch me—and they won’t—it’s still worth exploring the issues their authors raise.
Not every classic will affect and challenge us, or our kids. I remember laboring through The Grapes of Wrath in the 11th grade and forcing myself to flip page after dusty, dreary page. Ugghh. It was such a chore. But other kids may have felt differently. Maybe Grapes of Wrath spoke to them the way The Good Earth spoke to me. So if Grapes of Wrath wasn’t a favorite then, isn’t it my top ten now and never really grabbed my attention, so why do I still think it’s a good idea for my kids to read it in school?
School—like life—isn’t always about doing what you like. Sometimes it’s about doing what’s good for you. Reading the Grapes of Wrath introduced me to John Steinbeck. If the only thing I got from picking it up was that it lead to my reading East of Eden years later, which is one of my all time favorites, then that’s worth every minute I spent analyzing its dry symbolism.
Reading classic books asks our children to explore issues beyond their schools, neighborhoods, and families. It asks them to think, to really think, about poverty and prosperity, gratefulness and ungratefulness, age and class and humanity. It begs them to consider equality and possibility; hope and hopelessness; it challenges every paradigm they have.
Don’t we want this for our kids? I know I do. I’d love to hear your thoughts on this one.