Contrary to what some may think, I don’t have an opinion on everything. And some opinions I held just a year or so ago, I now call into question. This is not waffling so much as the processing of new information, new sources of information, and maybe an increased willingness to really listen to other views.
My 9-year-old grandson was watching a TV news program (not my favorite) that was spewing bilge and wild speculation about the guilt or innocence of basketball star Kobe Bryant, rock star Michael Jackson and assorted suspects of terrorist connections incarcerated but not charged with any crimes. The host amazingly seemed to give equal weight to all of the cases, while taking calls from those who had already formed opinions based on only partial information, much of which came from highly unreliable sources.
My grandson weighs in on the side of Bryant, saying it’s obvious his accuser is lying in an attempt to get money from him. And what did I think? I said I didn’t have nearly enough information to form an opinion on his guilt or her credibility. I added that while celebrities are often targets of those who try to extort money from them, in this case, it probably wouldn’t work that way, since the case was being tried in criminal court.
Well, didn’t I know that the girl had done bad things in the past and was probably lying? I reminded him that we don’t really know enough about her past, because we don’t know where these “facts” came from. Although it’s generally considered part of the defense team’s job to discredit the witness against their client.
“Well, I don’t think he did it,” the boy said. And since his father was sitting on the couch watching the same TV show, I refrained from giving my opinion about the chances of the information being accurate or from reliable sources. The fact is, I said, I hadn’t the time or interest to pursue it, since there’s nothing I can do about it anyway. And ditto for Jackson. But let’s not even go there.
The point, my young friend, is that we shouldn’t feel compelled to form opinions on everything. Or to judge the rightness or wrongness of what people do, particularly absent hard facts. If some issue really sparks our curiosity, then we can take the time to read about it, in several different papers. Or at least listen to, let’s say, one “News Hour” on PBS for each “Special Report” on Fox. One “All Things Considered” on NPR for just about any right-wing shock jock call-in show.
Now, I have to be careful talking to a nine-year-old about the ambiguities of right and wrong, because at that age, it’s important for kids to develop their sense of what’s acceptable behavior (in various circumstances). Difficult even for adults in our ethically-challenged corporate culture and ideologically-driven political climate.
I sensed my seeming ambivalence worried him. So I mentioned that people who are so convinced of their moral rectitude and so quick to cite the failings of others as inexcusable, often have to choke on their own words. Rush Limbaugh being the perfect example, after condemning drug addicts as morally bereft while he himself became addicted to prescription painkillers.
Alone, I pondered the debate over the legal responsibility of a doctor over-prescribing addictive painkillers to celebrity patients and the prescribing of marijuana (an illegal drug according to federal law; medicinal use legal in several states) to the terminally ill. The courts have told the Justice Department to butt out for now, but that could be appealed.
Then there’s our attorney general, who would deny U.S. citizens suspected of just about anything, often on unvetted intelligence, access to an attorney, a speedy arraignment and/or trial. At the same time, he defends to the death their right to buy and own guns and the obliteration, after 24 hours, of criminal background checks. Ideology run amok.
In the debate last week over FDA approval of emergency contraception, the “morning after pill” for over-the-counter sale, opponents trotted out the usual rhetoric about ease of access to contraception promoting promiscuity. Never mind that an unwanted pregnancy prevented is better, by all counts, than an abortion.
In Texas, those who would deprive women of all family planning services, recently blocked the construction of a Planned Parenthood clinic. In a jawboning exercise worthy of congressional lobbyists, the local supplier of concrete and building materials shut down work at the site and warned subcontractors that if they worked on the project they would never work again. Church building being much bigger business in Texas than women’s medical facilities, he reportedly said. The ratio in that state is about four to 400 in favor of houses of worship.
So much for right and wrong. I guess it’s prudent to remember that trying to legislate morality is always a murky business, more about power than goodness. And the most self-righteous among us are often hoisting on their own petard.