Sonia
HOLUMON
On unfriendly terms
Losing contact with someone close kills
Earlier this week I lost someone
who used to be a good friend of
mine. I can remember how we used
to sit in the cafeteria and talk about
people who came in, doubling over
in laughter in a
comer by the
window. Some
times we would
just sit on a
swing and talk
for hours, putting
our problems out
like the books
we’d scattered
-— across the floor
was easier to deal with
them that way—two pairs of eyes
and two different perspectives have a
way of making things Took better. We
could boogie down with the best of
them, too, whether it was Alan
Jackson or swingin’ to the big bands,
it was the best fun I ever had.
Sometimes I think it’s easier to
lose a friend to death than to lose one
to a silly misunderstanding. At least
then there’s a funeral to attend, and
you can gain some sense of closure.
Not that I would wish death on an
old friend, but some days it’s too
tf
Sometimes I think it’s easier to lose a
friend to death than to lose one to a silly
misunderstanding. ”
difficult to see someone on campus
or (Mi the street who you used to be
close with and think “That person has
been to my house and met my family.
They know what I look like in
curlers. I’ve cried on their shoulder
more than once. Of course that one
time I got makeup all over his Hard
Rock Cafe T-shirt ... but hey—we
were friends.”
No, my friend didn’t die, but our
friendship did. When I think about it,
though, that died a long time ago. It’s
just that we’ve only recently held the
funeral.
I always thought that it would feel
good to finally hear him admit that
he had been the one to place distance
between us, and that it was all his
fault. Hearing him say it didn’t make
it hurt any less.
I think what happened was that
pretty soon there was only one
person in our relationship: him.
Whenever he thought that something
was wrong, instead of talking to me
about it, he would avoid me, even if
whatever was happening was only
going on in his own mind. After
awhile, he would be avoiding me and
I didn’t even notice—it’s hard to
miss something that wasn’t ever
really around, anyway. After a few
months, he’d return to tell me about
his new commitment to our friend
ship, how he wanted to talk every
thing out and be honest with each
other. 1 don’t think it was me whom
he needed to start being honest with.
I was taught that when you’re
faced with something, you deal with
it and face it head on. (term papers
excluded—everybody knows you’ll
write better the night before, right?)
Eveiy friendship has it’s rough spots,
but friendship isn’t about conve
nience, and I’m not a 7-Eleven store.
Remember when you were a kid <
and all it took to be best friends was
a party invitation or being first pick
on a team? When sharing a bag of
M&M’s with someone was enough to
make you giggle and feel special?
These days, I need a lot more
from my friends than candy, although
the occasional quart of Jamocha
Almond Fudge does tend to make me
open up faster. Webster’s defines a
friend as “an ally, supporter.” Like
everybody else, I need all the support
I can get these days, and if you’ll
lend me your shoulder, I’ll promise
not to wear makeup.
I still love my friend, and I
suppose that I always will. Perhaps
one day, if the opportunity ever came
for us to be true friends again, we
could talk about it. Of course, this
time, he should probably stop by
Baskin-Robbins first.
Hollimon is a senior broadcast
ing major and a Daily Nebraskan
columnist.
Anthony ' ■■; r r ■: ws4sss®k
NGUYEN •
Are rights inalienable?
Liberty vs. safety: a give and take relationship
Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof; or abridging the
freedom of speech, or of the press;
or the right of
the people
peaceably to
assemble, and
to petition the
Government for
a redress of
grievances.
—Article
the Third of the
Bill of Rights,
and the First Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution
Recently, I’ve thought about this
important aspect of American
democracy.
Not just the First Amendment, but
the entire Bill of Rights. The
remaining amendments are important
- — the 13th’s final denunciation of -ry..
slavery, the 19th’s shaping of
American politics—but it is these
first 10 within the Bill of Rights that
form the foundation of America.
Without these simple, but powerful
articles, our ability to persist as a
nation and society would undoubt
edly be in jeopardy. But we all take
these for granted, unless something
occurs that forces us to reflect on
these “rights.” *
I put the word “rights” in quotes
on purpose. Is it a “right” because
our founding fathers wrote it down?
Or is it a right because as humans we
are all inherently in possession of it?
At times, it seems to be both. And
f ■» t f > ,* i - V - j '
66
Is it a ‘right’ because our founding fathers
wrote it down? Or is it a right because as
humans we are all inherently in
possession of it?”
• . ' 'V
I:!_—__fc__' ' . r- -sC
think of the very things that allow us
to do things unobstructed. We can
exercise our rights, but through our
complacency cannot protect them.
Not only do we allow, but at times
demand our government to control
our very behaviors. Limits on liberty
are prudent in situations where our
very rights are threatened (rape,
murder), but it becomes a dangerous
precedent when it deprives me, as an
individual, of choices—which only
concern me or my loved ones.
And here the unanswered ques
tions creep again into my mind. The
that’s where my confusion arises.
Ultimately, I believe in liberty and
rights, but then common sense says
that perhaps they aren’t absolute and
inalienable. Where should the
dividing line be drawn between
protecting society and oppressing
society? Can such a line be drawn?
Will it be inclusive or exclusive? Or
should there be a line at all? And
does morality determine the line?
We go about our daily lives,
exercising our freedoms to our
hearts’ content, without bothering to
deprivation of what is considered a
dangerous precedent? Issues that I
cannot answer emphatically. Are they
a question of rights? Or a question of
specific contemporary issues?
Hate speech is abhorrent. Com
mon sense and personal experience
tell me it is wrong. But the First
Amendment states: “Congress shall
make no law... abridging the
freedom of speech...” So can I
demand hate speech proponents be
punished? Can I struggle for an
amendment to prohibit hate speech?
Until I die, I will never understand
hate speech. In the end, though, it’s
protection of this vile form of speech
which ensures I’ll have the right to
free speech and a right to counter the
hate.
Because if I want limits on-liberty
dictated by sentiment... it limits
everyone’s liberty. And limits
dictated by sentimentjneans in 10
years sentiment might be against my
ability to free speech.
The right to die. Next year the
Supreme Court docket has a case of
euthanasia to consider. Do I have the
“right” to die? I have the right talife
—so why not the converse? But is
any of this a “right”? Does it deserve
consideration of an elevated status of -
right?
A right touches upon the concept
that people are in possession of
something intangible. Those who
tout the banner of rights or who are
the standard-bearers of rights
sometimes ignore the issue of the
basic foundations of America in
order to get their “right.” But when
we clamor for a “right,” we react in a
manner destructive to the fundamen
tal rights.
The V-chip. Our children have the
“right” to watch television that is not .
harmful, and parents have the “right”
to demand such programming. I
agree it’s wise that we should be
protectors of the young and innocent.
But is it wise to limit liberty when it
deprives me of Choices—and
tangentially, aren’t we shirking our
own responsibilities as parents and
adults, demanding the government
become parents, in order to have this
“right”?
And that’s the ultimate question
we must answer. At what point is the
denial of liberty justifiable?
So, go do your civic duty. Read
the Bill of Rights and the Constitu
tion and remember what Benjamin
Franklin once said, “Those who
would give up essential liberty to
purchase a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
Nguyen is a senior biochemistry
and philosophy major and a Daily
Nebraskan columnist