Here`s a contrary proposition: It is not necessary for everybody to have an opinion on everything. In fact, it may not be necessary for anybody to have an opinion on anything.
The proposition is contrary because opinion seems to be one of the few growth commodities around, along with leveraged buyouts and awful made-for-cable-TV movies.
No sooner does something-anything-happen, whether in the field of show business, politics or sports, than comes the opinion deluge, with all the usual suspects expressing their very strongly felt (if ignorantly based)
personal point of view.
Needless to say, the opinions expressed one day have to be responded to the next, thus assuring another round of opinionating, with the pros answering the cons and vice versa. There is no record of any of the participants changing his or her mind as a result of these exchanges. Come to think of it, there is no record of any of the participants really paying attention to what the other person said.
By the third day, someone is telling you what your opinion is, having asked 635 randomly selected registered voters who have based their own views on reading a whole headline and who may not care very much about whatever it is that is being debated.
The next step is for opinion to be intensified by radio call-in talk-show hosts, most of whom are almost as ignorant as they are loud-mouthed, and who can be counted upon to attempt to get people all upset over such vital issues as Ronald Reagan`s decision to do the color commentary for an inning at the All-Star Game or the flap over the costumes worn by the Dallas Cowboys cheerleaders.
Finally, someone-probably one of the many newspapers edited by crayon-will compile all this opinion in some kind of graph or illustrated box that will tell you who opines what, without giving you any other information-a fact, for instance-about whatever is in dispute.
No doubt there are several reasons for this sorry state of affairs, not even including the general decline in education as it was once defined, meaning the learning of real things. First, there are all these reporters seeking ”comment” sticking cameras and microphones into the faces of public figures. Apparently there is something in the hormonal makeup of public figures, whether they are congressmen, movie producers or baseball announcers, that renders it impossible for them not to comment, unless of course they have been accused of something, in which case they are stricken mute.
Then there are the aforementioned radio talk-show ignorami and their equally ill-informed television counterparts, followed close behind by the columnists, of whom there are altogether too many these days for the very simple reason that it`s a good job, requiring almost as little work as being a college professor.
This week has been more opinion-filled than most, what with all the opiners flowing forth about the wisdom of incinerating either the American flag or teenagers and just what should be done about Pete Rose. For present purposes, let`s let the boys up front deal with the Constitution and stick to what should be done about Rose.
Among the opinions expressed are the following: He should be banned for life, banned for a year or banned indefinitely; his alleged offense (gambling) is benign compared to some others (taking drugs) so he shouldn`t be punished more severely than baseball`s renowned coke-heads; he should have his day in court, he never should have gone to court, the judge would never rule in his favor and after he so ruled the judge was right or the judge was wrong; Rose can`t get ”due process” from Commissioner A. Bartlett Giamatti or not letting Giamatti make the ruling will destroy the ”integrity” of the game, and perhaps American civilization along with it.
About all of which, a few points. First, American civilization is probably not in danger, save perhaps from those made-for-cable TV movies. Second, due process is not involved. Due process is a civil liberty, and civil liberties are what protect us citizens from the coercive power of governments, which employ armed agents. At this stage, no government is bothering Rose. His activities are being examined by a private, voluntary association which he joined of his own free will, knowing full well its rules, including the one he is accused of violating. There is no constitutional right to manage the Cincinnati Reds. In theory, even a private, voluntary association can act with such blatant caprice that the courts might intervene. So far, this association has not acted at all.
Third, anybody can go to court whenever he or she wishes and can afford the lawyers. As to the judge, he was right until and unless he is overruled, at which point he will have been wrong, because that`s what the law says. The smart money says he will be overruled. But then, that`s the same smart money that said he`d throw Rose`s case out of court.
Finally, even if most of us agree that taking drugs is worse than gambling, raising this issue is another example of the primacy of
subjectivity, which should be resisted. The objective fact is that the rules of that voluntary association Rose freely joined proscribe harsher punishment for gambling than for drug use. Maybe that`s inconsistent and should be changed, but that`s not much of an argument against enforcing them now.
More Top Picks Adhd In Girls Signs That Get Missed For Years
How about this for a prescription. How about if everybody relaxed and let the participants proceed. How about acknowledging that they alone have some information which, if the rest of us had it, might convince us to change our minds. How about replacing reflexive subjectivity with a patient respect for going through the motions.
There is a lot to be said for going through the motions. Some of you may remember an earlier investigation, one which aroused even more passion and opinion than this one, the one which resulted in the resignation of the president of the United States. Then, too, the airways and prints were full of proposed solutions, as almost everyone whose name was mildly known outside his own home felt compelled to explain how to solve the crisis. Only now and then would somebody quietly say, ”What ought to be done is what is being done;
what ought to be done is that the process should move forward in an orderly manner.”
Which is what happened. And it worked out just fine. Maybe this one will, too. If not, there will be plenty of time for opinion when it`s over.