I'm not American so I'm speaking out of turn. But could it be resourcing?
Curriculums have to be made, and that sort of thing takes time and money. So I imagine it's easier to take a curriculum for European Spanish that already exists and just keep using it under the assumption that it's "close enough" for students to jump to Mexican Spanish from there, rather than reinvent the curriculum for Mexican Spanish.
I completely forgot that he used the notwithstanding clause within like... the last few years. I don't know what it says about the times we live in (or maybe just my memory, im probably just exaggerating) that something that should be a major constitutional crisis for us happened and nothing came of it
I wish we had more Watergates because at least Watergate toppled a president
Also just as an observation: monotony is boring and I think aversion to boredom is a big reason people seek different things (maybe even things that require more skill to perform). Who wants to dance the same dance their whole life?
I feel like people in the past were as susceptible to being bored that we are -- maybe even more because there were a lot fewer things to actually do back then.
I think I get the point they're making, but eeehhh? I don't think "art is something inherently human" and "you can (and maybe even should!) be improving your abilities in art" are in conflict with each other. Humans have been able to make art for as long as we've been human, but we've also had an implicit understanding of seeing two pieces of art and picking which ones we preferred in the moment. Capitalism didn't really change that, we've had masters and apprentices since antiquity.
Couldn't we say that the desire to make better art and the anxiety that comes with examining your own progress just as easily be called a behaviour unique to humans?
(Edit: writing that last part made me come up with the image of bees that have imposter syndrome about how they build their hives and I don't know how to feel about that)
Thank you! Everyone has been saying this and it's so cop-brained that it's frustrating.
They have not proven that he killed anyone. He is innocent until proven guilty. When you accept that he actually did anything before he is convicted, you are aiding the police's and prosecutor's job by making the assumption that arrest = guilt.