It is scary. I know it will be worth it. But here's where my shyness, fear of rejection, and everything else converges. I know I can write. I know I can pick topics to research. I know I can research. I know I can teach. I can and will read, and discuss, and do a hundred different paper formats, change citation from MLA to Chicago. I can do all this and then walk to the blackboard and do mathematical proofs.
But does it matter? Is it enough?
Now, I know from reading journals in one of my classes, that what is written about may seem at first to be it all. It isn't. This is an excerpt in my life, and the trepidation it puts in me is only one thing I feel out of a jumble of other things, good and bad, every day. It's important. But I'm also happy in many ways, so the worry about grad schools is part of a working, not-all-good-or-bad psyche. I guess I'm trying to say don't worry too much.
Now for something completely different...
Legislated Smoking?
I've been thinking about smoking bans, ever since it was passed in Tennessee. Then the laws in California passed, which have even prohibited smoking in private apartments.
What did we do wrong to have laws about smoking? It seems like, if everything worked right, for the most part you would have smokers who would seek places to smoke courteously where others could walk sufficiently around the smokers, and nonsmokers, if offended, would politely enlighten the smokers so that further encroachment isn't made. But there are a few problems with this.
Smoke, like noise and odor, don't obey property lines or personal space. They are pervasive. So it is more difficult to find a place to smoke that doesn't affect nonsmokers.
Smoke, while certainly harmful over long periods of time and exposure, won't kill someone that has an unfortunate occasional encounter. It's difficult to connect health problems from infrequent second-hand smoke inhalation. So how could you tell someone, "Please don't smoke right here, it wafts into where I'm working?" if it doesn't affect you definitely?
There's always the jerk smoker that will insist on their right to smoke in a place, defying anyone that tells them it's harmful or otherwise. There's also the jerk nonsmoker, that makes it their specific mission to try to get them to stop smoking. Thus, everywhere is off limits. Abuse of courtesy on both sides.
So with all of these things going on, we turn to laws. In the case of restaurants and such, it's mainly up to them to enforce their own bounds. In the case of a private apartment or something like that, it's probably their neighboring tenants. This makes the laws about as strict as those on littering, which while it carries a rather hefty fine, many people still seem to get away with it from the collection of colorful bottles and wrappers on the side of the road. More aptly, it's a weak public disturbance law.
One issue I see here, that I'm not resolved about, is to what degree we allow people to do things that harm themselves? Is it only when it harms others? Well, okay, but define that. Is it when someone else can get cancer from your use? Or is it when their tax dollars have to foot your medical bills? Which, in that case, goes back to issues of universal medical care. If that goes into effect, then behaviors that affect health can be legislated against, and should be, to safeguard the costs of the system. I'm not comfortable with that, but I don't know what an answer would be. Could doctors withhold medical care if patients do not follow doctors' orders on diet and lifestyle? Could they do this for unsafe sex practices?
Too many implications. Sadly, the most interesting things I see on the political tickers seem to be, "
Subrant - Definition by Nonstatus
This is a minor rhetorical issue sometimes, and other times a serious implication, but think about what was up there? Specifically, categories.
Smoker Nonsmoker
The nonsmoker is defined, not on what they do, but on what they don't do. It's interesting. And necessary, to talk about the issue.
Now, let's think about descriptions in literature that call people (usually women), out of the blue, not married. What, where did this come in? There is this big gap between unmarried and married. It creates an expectation, as if ordinarily, or ideally, they would be married. It's old fashioned, yes. It's also a trap. There is no choice.
Incidentally, which sounds worse as a counter of an abortion position: Anti-choice, or anti-life? I actually think anti-choice sounds pretty apt for pro-life.
No comments:
Post a Comment