and then haven't even started their round of witnesses yet!
"Judge: ... When might we take a break?
N: The questions about sexual orientation go to our theory of the case so I’ll keep questioning the witness.
Judge: That’s fine, but when might it be a good time to take break?
N: I’d be happy to do that whenever the court wishes.
Judge: Very well, then. Why don’t we do it now?"
Chris is most likely very confused by all this. For a week now I've been deeply interested, and willing to discuss at length, a case which is intensely and inherently political, and I've even blogged about it. Normally I abhor any discussion of politics. Don't get me wrong, I'm not apolitical, I have very strong views, but I have no interest in discussing them. Every discussion either seems to come to a clash of ideologies with each person trying to convince the other of how great their view is, or all parties spend the time acting incredulous at the actions of politicians, whilst fully conceding they shouldn't be surprised. I imagine this is along a similar vein to why some people hate talking to others about religion, they find the discussion dull, tedious, and endlessly repetitive. For me on the other hand, I am phenomenally interested in the anthrolopology, mythology, evolution, personal need, cultutral need, presentation, connection to society, reasons for, and generally everything of religious beliefs, I find them fascinating to discuss with people and find the common ground and the areas where we differ, even with the evangelicals and the scientologists. I just hate doing the same about politics. Except occasionally, usually in gay rights issues, or things in the US (so double points to the Prop 8 trial, really) to be honest, where I follow the developments closely and analyze it endlessly. Like I say, Chris must be very confused, but he's enjoying the rare opportunity to have these discussions with me, usually if he tries I get very frustrated and angry.