By Aaron Reiss
By Angelica Leicht
By Dianna Wray
By Aaron Reiss
By Camilo Smith
By Craig Malisow
By Jeff Balke
By Angelica Leicht
One of my family members is in the upper caste of a university teaching staff, and he encourages the kids to find any viable way to get a copy for the lowest possible price, unless major changes have been published in the textbook. And that happens in old European history how often?
Apparently, as the RIAA found out, the kids are pretty crafty, utilizing their Internet and CD-burning skills wisely.
Name withheld by request
Math lesson:In your story about college textbooks, you indicate that the bookstore will make a 50 percent profit on used textbooks. Actually, a $100 book, purchased used by the store for $50 and then resold at $75, is a 50 percent mark-up, and a 33 percent profit margin. Seventy-five dollars is 50 percent more than $50 (mark-up); $25 is one-third of $75 (profit).
Also, many students buy soft-cover versions of their books from Asian (Chinese, Indian, Taiwanese) Web sites at less than 30 percent of the cost (even after shipping). Also, Half.com can save students big bucks.
No monopoly:There is a lot of information online about the price of textbooks. Go to www.nacs.org/public/nacs/mediaroom.asp. Also, you should note, the UT Co-op is a nonprofit, with money going back to the school and scholarships for students. So complaints of its "monopoly" are always forgetting that point.
Waldorf works:I am very disappointed in the article about Waldorf education ["School Spirit(s)," by Michael Serazio, February 5]. Waldorf is so much more than the fantasy world of the kindergarten that Mr. Serazio visited.
The questions he posed about gnomes and fairy life are the same questions that can be asked about Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. And we all know that Christmas and Easter are about so much more than that.
Maybe when Mr. Serazio has some real time, he can write an article on why Waldorf education works, how it honors the spirit of the student and teaches to the whole person.
Pay attention: I have my issues with some teachers' ways of taking on Steiner's ideas, but I've looked quite a bit into Steiner's work and agree: It's way-out stuff, but only in comparison to accepted, conventional ideas.
Perhaps I can help by briefly introducing the heart of Steiner's work as it is presented in his early philosophical works. For Western culture, the world exists as a material entity complete in itself, whether or not humans participate in it. But, Steiner argues, the error in this well-established belief is that perception and thinking are intrinsically part of all knowledge creation. Thus, we cannot justifiably believe that the world exists just as we perceive and cognize it whether or not we perceive and cognize it. To do so is to ignore our own participation in beholding reality, to believe in the perceived without a perceiver, the thought without a thinker. While this is fairly mind-bending stuff, it's a tight argument nevertheless (I recently defended a thesis on it), and lets us into Steiner's way of seeing the world.
Unlike natural science, anthroposophy often has to be experienced over years before it really becomes valuable as a tool for entering more deeply into everyday experience. As your article suggests, it's unfortunate that the links between Steiner's research and the rest of our culture have not been more openly explored. Perhaps that will come in time. Thanks for the article.
On the Ropes
You wrote: "the controversial moment eventually came when Yates, believing Simpson was dead, cut the slender thread joining him to his partner, who was dangling in the air, unseen, a hundred feet below."
Yates knew Simpson was alive when he cut the rope. That's why it was so controversial. Yates cut the rope to save his own life. Yates knew Simpson was hanging in midair. Yates knew cutting the rope would likely kill his friend.
Great movie. It deserves, at least, a factually accurate review.
Once more, withPassion: I'm no Jesus freak and wasn't bent on seeing Gibson's Passion film (until on video), but Robert Wilonsky sparked my interest ["Suffer Unto Mel," February 26]. Suspicious review, at least. He spends the first 26 lines talking about himself!
Then he nags Gibson for failing to show the rest of the gospel (gee, one thought the film The Passion was about, er, the Passion, the last three hours of the character) and with complete ignorance accuses Gibson of portraying Pilate as a good guy. He nails the coffin by stating that if it weren't a Mel Gibson film marketed by Bob Berney, it would have passed unnoticed. I seriously doubt he himself buys that lie.
Furthermore, he bends the rules of art by not allowing Gibson to introduce demonic imagery, as it is not found literally on the text (what is it, a documentary?). Folks, it sounds like a critic with a deliberate agenda, pissed off by the fact that he found integrity and quality in the film. Now, that ain't gonna improve the Jews' image, once again.