305 karma · joined December 24, 2009
I really don't think he's setting a dangerous example, because most people trying to emulate him would find that something gives--joint, muscle, whatever--before it got to the point of danger.
Is that clearly science?
Thirty years ago & more my college French teacher told me that her students had little compartments in their minds in which they stowed facts, and that the facts in one compartment commonly did not interact with those in another. They certainly weren't getting those facts off the internet.
A more accurate headline might be "Mother Jailed for Providing False Affidavits in Effort to Put Children in Better School."
As far as I know, you can teach a class using Toynbee or Kissinger; the students just have to find copies. As for community theater, they put on works far more recent--one friend appeared several years ago in "Dancing at Lughnasa" (1995), another in "Lips together, Teeth Apart" (1991; or whichever MacNally play gave him a chance to shed his clothes--"Love! Valor! Etc" of 1994 maybe). What the terms are, I can't say; but it doesn't seem to run anyone broke.
I do agree that the copyright extension gone beyond reasonable bounds. The critic Hugh Kenner made an interesting case that the extension of copyright in the United Kingdom about 100 years ago had a dramatic effect on the public's impression of what literature was, creating a discontinuity in perception that made the modernists' work appear to have come about without its actual context.
And somebody seems to be cooking in the poorer neighborhood a short walk away. The grocery stores have fresh vegetables, meat, 10-pound bags of rice, and so on, along with the canned stuff.
I wonder whether the article isn't aimed at readers in their 20s, on their own for a little while, but not really accustomed to a settled life.
(After looking at dhughes's post: my sample is also skewed toward the baby boomers. Caveat lector.)