As I read through the initial pages and listened to Kidder describing the history and background of this town, I tried to imagine what kind of person he was. Was he a tolerant sort or more rigid in his moral views. I'm still not sure. As we proceeded through the excerpt and into the heart of the matter, that of whether the DPO should be passed, I started to feel that he was leaning towards the conservative side, in that although this town was known for it's tolerance, when its citizens felt that something was wrong or threatened what they considered a moral way of life, they stood up to be counted. I'm not sure if this is making any sense but it seems that the townfolk were content to let sleeping dogs lie as it were. As long as people kept a low profile and didn't disturb the peace of the town, they were content to just let folks go about their business. It's only when they, **whoever introduced this bill**, tried to formalize things that folks started to take notice and voice thier opinions. Of course, all this might not mean much if you read the last line. "As usual, a majority of the adult population hadn't even bothered to vote." After I'd read the article and this line, I almost felt let down, like he had made it out to be this big argument the whole town was involved in when in actuality less than half the town was even paying attention.
As for me, as hard as I may try to be open minded and tolerant, my life experiences always get in the way. When trying to describe my community, say the SCA community, I always tend to gloss over some of the, shall we say, less than stellar parts of it. It's something I enjoy so I try to cast it in as favorable light as possible. It's not easy to look at yourself or your community and admit your own faults.
And lastly, sorry I didn't post this in time....I have no excuse.....I'll go sit in the corner now...**hangs head in shame**
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment