There are some classes that can make you emotionally wasted. Like, really, it makes you eat raw vegetables like monster or typing your stubborn subjectivity into blog post while feeling so mixed up you badly need somebody to hug or something to punch.
Last year the trophy went to Animal Law. And as much as I hate it, as much as I thought about it -- wrote about it. It became a complicated love-hate relationship between me and the subject. Or the cases. Or... whatever. And to Environmental Justice, as it triggered more questions in my troubling mind and brought so much ethical contradictions to my early twenty head. I was fucked, emotionally.
Now, International Environmental Law fucked me up. That developed-developing countries distinction, and all the framing and sharp clash of values, sometimes made me lose my lawyering objectivity to be neutral, heartless, in my legal argument. But, can it be really, really neutral?
Why is it hypocritical for environmentalists from a country without CAFO problem to choose to eat meat, BUT it is NOT hypocritical to enact a statute as strong as CERCLA and RCRA to protect public health while exporting the waste to other countries like India and let people inhale asbestos everyday without any safe equipment?
I really envy Prof. Johnston everytime he said "The beauty of CERCLA..." or Prof. Ostar when he promoted transit justice for people in Portland. Maybe I've got too bitter that Indonesia might not ever be there, because our own inability. Or, I used my heart too much over my head. Or, all I need is my debating mate giving me more and more rebuttal until it kills my emotion. Maybe.
But that's why I love this subject anyway... because it hurts.
2 comments:
Ai. Masokis nian, Qui.
WAHAHAHA. Yg sakit yg enak, tayy~~
Post a Comment