dreams, emails, and schemes

just before my mom woke me up for dinner I was having an exquisitely pleasant dream in which jarom came home, it was the very day he came home, and for reasons that only make sense in dreams his family was giving me a ride to my aunt’s in sacramento. (talking to jennifer about our aunt in salt lake, and recently to someone else about a different aunt in sacramento, may have gotten them muddled in my mind, because this aunt in the dream was really the one from salt lake.) so they came by to get me, and jarom was driving (go figure) and I put my bags in the backseat (long trip?) before getting in the passenger seat. without saying a word jarom just pulled me into this awesome mikahug, after a minute he let go and we said hi or something, then pulled me back into another hug. throughout the rest of the dream we didn’t talk much (we spent time in sacramento or wherever), but I was ecstatic anyway. his dad suggested that jarom and I drive back to utah together at the end of the summer, even though we’d be in separate cars. I remember that the two of us were doing our own thing at my aunt’s house but whenever I’d pass him or glance over at him he gave me a breathtakingly adorable smile. siiiiiigh. and here’s a new thing for my dreams, I had my cell phone with me and was calling aubrey and ryan and jennifer telling them about how jarom had just come home and I was so happy.

when I came back into my room after dinner, there was an email from brother hillery telling everyone when jarom’s homecoming is — and when jarom is coming home. (interesting phrasing and word choice on my part, eh?) well…he’ll come in to the san francisco airport on tuesday the 14th! I wasn’t expecting him to be back until the 15th or 16th or even 17th…this is so excessively delightful…it means only 23 days till he’s here! 23 days! how on earth will I ever survive the time between his coming home and his homecoming? I’ll be a smiling idiot, with butterflies in my stomach and caterpillars crawling out my ears and shooting stars in my eyes. (can I just say, I love this thing aubrey came up with? she asked me, “are you all antsy and your stomach is full of butterflies and caterpillars and shooting stars? I hope so, because it’s kind of a fun feeling.” poetry.) ahhh.

I enjoyed talking to jennifer earlier. things are going so well for her; I’m so glad she’s found herself a nice boy. a fun one, too. I was thinking again about timeframes with jarom…which tends to get me into trouble. that’s where I daydream the most, I suppose, and do the majority of my impossible scenarios. or is it? maybe these are more probable things, whereas a passionate kiss anytime in the first month that jarom is home is not going to happen. (ok, I may have to eat my words on that, which is fine by me, but I doubt it. I wouldn’t bet money on it, even if I were a gambling gal.)

ok I really ought to stop going on and on and on about this. towards the end of december last year I forbade myself from writing or talking about jarom until 2005, it was about a week and a half if I remember correctly. so I’m going to try it again, just until next sunday. no more lovey-dovey ramblings, no conversations about how soon he’ll be home, etc. (and then it’ll be barely two weeks until he’s back and you know I’ll be delirious and dying to say something about it. gaaa.) ready…go!

seat-belt laws

it’s come to my attention that I have a lot of half-formed opinions — particularly in regards to politics and government. as I can see, the reason for this is that it’s so hard to have an honest-to-goodness discussion with anyone about those topics. almost every person I know will argue and defend their position, trying to convince rather than simply explain; and the second person in the conversation (and third, and fourth, and so on) will argue and defend their position, until it becomes black and white: I’m right, you’re wrong. I hate listening to that. as a result, I don’t listen, which means I know very little about either side of a lot of arguments. here’s my attempt at thinking out my opinion on one issue: seat-belt laws.

—–

I’ve heard a great many people who are opposed to seat-belt laws, mainly because they are against the intrusion it represents of government into private life. they usually argue that hey, they’ve never been in an accident, so no harm done, right?

there are two points to this. one is the government issue, one is the safety issue.

safety: whether or not one has a seat-belt on does not impact whether or not one is in an accident. it does, however, impact how badly one is injured when an accident occurs. if there hadn’t been countless studies on the effects of seat-belts, we wouldn’t have a law dictating that cars be equipped with the belts. simply put, they are for our own good.

government: this is the real point, of course, but the safety point had to be addressed to begin with — merely to demonstrate that yes, seat-belts are an inherently good thing. the question is, does government have a right to require us to make use of this good thing? should government be allowed to save us from our own stupidity in not wearing seat-belts (and bike helmets, for that matter)? how far can we let government go in this direction before they institute a thought police?

underneath that is the question, why does government exist? my personal opinion, half-formed and uneducated though it may be, is that a society implements a government in order to…govern. toss a bunch of people together, and they will form rules, unspoken and vague though they may be. when a society forms a government, they are saying that they need bounds, limits, laws, for the good of the whole. I firmly believe that a society has a right to exclude and forbid the things it finds harmful to its existence and perpetuation. what I’m not sure of is, can it require the things it finds beneficial to its existence and perpetuation?

maybe I phrased the last question backwards. when the government passed seat-belt laws, the purpose was to protect its citizens. for the same reason, we also have laws against harmful substances such as marijuana and strict rules about dangerous weapons. (in case someone wants to argue with my statement that weapons are dangerous, i.e. “guns don’t kill — people do,” I would point out that marjiuana is not harmful when it’s sitting on the counter. just as a gun cannot harm someone unless the trigger is pulled, drugs cannot harm someone unless they are ingested in some form. I think it’s the same principle; therefore I’ve called them both harmful and dangerous, assuming that they are indeed used.) I’ve heard the argument that if people are stupid enough to shoot themselves, or not wear a seat-belt, or something along those lines, they deserve to die; government has no place to prevent those deaths. I take what I think is a somewhat more christian view, that government should actually be looking to protect and preserve the lives of its citizens to every extent possible. that is why we have laws.

the argument has also been brought up that wearing a seat-belt is a personal choice. why should government dictate something that affects only oneself? the proponents of this argument often agree that drunk driving is illegal because it places other citizens in danger, and perhaps even laws against drugs are understandable, because a person under the influence of drugs is more likely to harm others. but wearing a seat-belt or not wearing a seat-belt does not affect anyone else. to this, I can only quote dallben of the prydain chronicles: “nothing we do is ever done entirely alone.”

actually, I do have another response to that argument. I believe that there are freedoms that must be “given up,” as it were, to achieve a greater goal. sometimes we have to concede. but it has to be all of us. we all agree to give up our choice of wearing a seat-belt in order to protect ourselves, and each other — and to preserve the government that in turn preserves us.

the last bit is hazy. I’m still unclear on how I really feel about just how far government can “intrude” into a citizen’s private life. but I do think that a society, and therefore its government, has every right — perhaps a responsibility, even — to make distinctions between what is harmful and what is helpful to its perpetuation, and forbid the former. the problem arises when citizens disagree on the distinction. this will be the root of other issues, like gay marriage.

for tonight, though, that will have to be enough. at least I have some opinons…about something.

and I do wear my seat-belt, in case you wondered.

unpersuasive

something I saw or heard or read recently made me think of a few questions I’d like to address in an unpersuasive essay — meaning, written merely for my own purposes, and not intending to convince anyone of an opinion on the matter. the five questions are as follows:

1 – what is religion?
2 – why do so many people believe in a religion, or religion in general?
3 – why has religion been a part of humanity for so long? (connected question: how long do secular sorces say religion has been around?)
4 – what are the main arguments against religion?
5 – how does the gospel as preached by the lds church answer these arguments?

I’ve got some notes already, and it will be a good topic to research. there isn’t a particular rhyme or reason for doing this, other than it interested me, and I feel the need to think out my personal views in silent rebuttal to the many people who claim that religion is humanity’s biggest downfall, that it cages us and ties us down unnecessarily. (and yes, in case you were wondering, I do plan on using alma 30 — it’s an excellent example of the logic used to discredit religion.) so that’s my project for now. more info on it as I get more research done.