I think the trend to "accept" everything (when not accepting it would be difficult, such as pursuing this indictment, which occurred in Los Angeles, not the local Missouri area where for two years, officials avowed there was nothing to be done) is pretty terrible.
I think there's a big difference in being tolerant of some things and this just accepting that bad happens, the end. Wrong. Maybe that's the difference for we who write speculative fiction. We ask "why?" and "how did this happen, and how can we prevent it?" I have people tell me I'm very tolerant (maybe too tolerant) but so much that local people want to police is not my business. Yes, you have the right to raise your children in your religion. But if your religion takes children out of school at the end of eighth grade, then we must require you to send them to school until they graduate from high school. Because 75% of your children do not remain in your faith -- and they should not be left helpless outside your community, or a burden on the country's services. Can you tell I gently had this argument with a friend who was upset that the Amish are required to send their kids to high school?
It's true that occasionally the public must draw a line. I know that many motorcycle riders feel they must be allowed the responsibility of choosing, or not, to wear helmets. I can understand this, because of course helmets are heavy and unwieldy and may give a sense of false security. But I think it's fair for the state to say: "All right, you do not have to wear a helmet. But then you must sign this paper saying that you understand you're doing this against the best advice available, that you have health insurance, and that the public does not have to spend $500,000 in three days trying to save your brain after it hits the pavement."
When Obama spoke in Pennsylvania and actually spoke about race, it was the first time in my life I felt a politician spoke as if to adults. If he can be brave enough to speak like an adult, maybe the majority of the Electoral College is ready to grow up, too.
no subject
I think there's a big difference in being tolerant of some things and this just accepting that bad happens, the end. Wrong. Maybe that's the difference for we who write speculative fiction. We ask "why?" and "how did this happen, and how can we prevent it?" I have people tell me I'm very tolerant (maybe too tolerant) but so much that local people want to police is not my business. Yes, you have the right to raise your children in your religion. But if your religion takes children out of school at the end of eighth grade, then we must require you to send them to school until they graduate from high school. Because 75% of your children do not remain in your faith -- and they should not be left helpless outside your community, or a burden on the country's services. Can you tell I gently had this argument with a friend who was upset that the Amish are required to send their kids to high school?
It's true that occasionally the public must draw a line. I know that many motorcycle riders feel they must be allowed the responsibility of choosing, or not, to wear helmets. I can understand this, because of course helmets are heavy and unwieldy and may give a sense of false security. But I think it's fair for the state to say: "All right, you do not have to wear a helmet. But then you must sign this paper saying that you understand you're doing this against the best advice available, that you have health insurance, and that the public does not have to spend $500,000 in three days trying to save your brain after it hits the pavement."
When Obama spoke in Pennsylvania and actually spoke about race, it was the first time in my life I felt a politician spoke as if to adults. If he can be brave enough to speak like an adult, maybe the majority of the Electoral College is ready to grow up, too.