12 June 2001
Last year: It wouldn't spoil the book for me to learn that!
At least four people yesterday asked me whether Kris's patient made it to Saturday. I didn't know, because I hadn't asked her about it when I saw her on Sunday. But for you, I wrote her to ask.
Kris tells me that he was still alive when she saw him on Monday. So even if it's bittersweet, the ending is happy - or at least, as happy as it could be.
After the Hall last night, we wound up having a discussion about whether we felt a government had the right to execute its citizens. Naturally, it was sparked off by Tim McVeigh's execution, but we didn't even really talk about him.
I say "we" - in actuality, I did little more than sit and read everyone else's arguments. Political discussion fascinates and frightens me like a poisonous snake. I rarely participate, but it's so interesting that I can't look away, either.
The problem, of course, is that people tend to hold very passionate views, and when they are called upon to defend them, they tend to become passionate themselves - and if they aren't agreed with, that passion can turn to anger. I am, and always have been, very uncomfortable around anger, especially the sort of fiery anger that tends to accompany discussions of a theoretical nature.
Despite being uncomfotable around that kind of passionate anger, if I get sucked into one of these discussions I tend to play devil's advocate - mostly because I'm even more uncomfortable with someone holding a belief or an ideal that they have never challenged or can't defend.
It's even kind of fun, with just a couple of people. But with five or six, online, the arguments were going so fast I could barely read them, much less formulate coherent responses. So I mostly sat back and watched unless I really had to say something.
I have very... malleable opinions on subjects like this. I can see almost everyone's points, which doesn't help me decide who is right. I know what I believe. I know what is right ideally, according to my own moral code. But at the same time I understand that the reality of the situation may not allow an ideal response. So what do you do?
It was said by several people during last night's discussion that we ought to be able to hold our government to a higher standard than is held for individual citizens. I agree with that. I think that the government ought to be responsible for maintaining policies that are fair and just and objective and moral, regardless of the private thoughts of those people who form the governmental body.
But what no one said was that in order to do that, then the government must also be able to hold its citizens to a higher standard. It angers me terribly that my government legislates and micro-manages, as if I'm a retarded eight-year-old with neither common sense nor a thimbleful of morality. Ideally, a government would trust its citizens to make their own decisions, to run their own lives.
But it doesn't work that way in practice.
I don't talk about politics often because it makes me so upset. Since high school government class, I have actively avoided even learning much of anything about politics, because it serves no purpose other than to anger me. Yes, I understand why many people don't vote.
This was a little disjointed, I know. I just wanted to say whatever came out.
For the record:
I do believe there are cases where the death penalty is appropriate. I think that it is used too often and without enough care in this country, but I don't believe we can do away with it altogether.
I do believe that abortion should be legal.
I do believe in the separation of church and state, enough so that it infuriates me that there is mention of God in our Pledge of Allegiance and on our currency.
I do believe that schools and employers should be allowed to select from applicants based on those applicants' skills, without regard to race, gender, or other discriminating factors. I believe that anti-discriminatory laws such as Affirmative Action are unreasonable and unfair. I do, however, acknowledge that my belief here is a highly ideal one, and that the Real World is unlikely to ever operate the way I think it should.
I do believe that there is no such thing as love that is morally repugnant, and that the definition of marriage should be extended to include homosexuals and groups. (Personal repugnance should have nothing to do with it. Just because I don't like brussels sprouts is no reason not to let anyone else eat them.) Wait, I take that back: I believe that marriage should be defined by those who wish to enter into it, and not by the government at all.
Those are the issues on which I hold firm opinions. I will not argue them. I am willing, however, to discuss them if you happen to be curious.
Word of the Day:
misconstrue - to understand or explain wrongly, misinterpret
Currently Reading:
- nothing
Current Projects:
- drawing
- Hall stuff
- garden