Fewer 'shoulds' should improve things a little

By Alan Caras

It's not so much that you asked, but so many people--politicians, editorial writers, pundits, candidates, victims and even some perpetrators--have been rendering opinions as to what we (whomever we are) should do about almost anything and everything that I feel it necessary to tell you that all the should(s) scare me.

Nothing scares me about this country quite as much as all the should(s). I formerly thought that we as a society had no greater social problem than our desire to alter our conscious states. Sometimes I wavered and felt that out of control adolescent males were an even bigger problem. In times of economic bust, I voted for inflation. During the Nixon presidency, I deplored the complete lack of honesty in Washington. That became a recurrent theme during this administration.

Today, however, I was reading a letter in the opinion section of a daily newspaper, and the writer was commenting, I think, on some previous pundit's opinion on selective-service (a.k.a. the draft) system offered the opinion that " ... national service will help all of us. ... We should prepare to live together ... ." For whom is he speaking? Himself? Me? All of us?

I know, I know, it is only an opinion, but that word "should" has a force stronger than opinion. That word says, "I know better what is best for you." It says, "I am right, and any opinion to the contrary is wrong." It can cause a discussion to degrade to argument.

Politicians, pundits, opinion writers, activists and just plain ordinary folks are willing to render a "should do" on abortion, birth control, drug use, marriage, sexual orientation, and even whether or not you or I or anyone should volunteer.

Where did we get the freedom to decide what anyone other than ourselves--well excluding our minor children, of course--should do about or with reference to anything? Do we ever stop to think about the force of the word should?

You should have an abortion. You should not have an abortion. Why should I not--or my girlfriend, in this case--make her own decision? Why should I vote? Maybe my non-vote is my manner of voting. I know, I should obey the law, unless I am willing to pay the consequences. But some laws seem violate my freedom to choose.

Why should I not be able to agree with an adult woman to buy her sexual favors, or her mine, for that matter? Why do the laws care what I do in the privacy of my domicile with another consenting adult? Or, why does the law care if I want to alter my conscious state of mind by inhaling, ingesting, breathing or taking intravenously any hallucinogen or opiate while I am in my home?

There are even laws that make it illegal for me to have a social game of poker in my home. It is illegal for me to place a wager on a sporting event except in established betting parlors.

Every politician and candidate has an opinion of critical social and individual economic issues. Many of those opinions are rooted in fundamental interpretation of the New Testament of the Christian Bible here in this nation of religious freedom. Religious freedom means I am free to believe or not in any god, idol or frog for that matter. Yet, they have placed in my pledge of allegiance the phrase "... one nation under god ... ."

Next time I pledge allegiance, maybe when I get to that phrase I will say "one nation under the frog prince Pogo." Will I be prosecutable?

The Supreme Court of California more than 30 years ago said that public education should not be financed by locally applied real estate taxes, and thereby mandated a mediocrity in education that has plummeted California public education into the cellar.

The government of the United States in 1964 enacted civil-rights legislation that enforced a set of rules that--by their enforcement--evolved a mindset of forms, rules and regulations, which when administered by the established society, evolved a glass ceiling that limited growth for minorities and women for the next almost 40 years and still does. Women and minorities in general would have made significantly greater advances had the government kept itself out of the picture.

When I read that word, I get the shakes. I gave no one the right or authority to decide what I should do. I want to live my life by two shoulds:

* I should, therefore I do, do unto others as I would have them do unto me.

* I should, therefore I do, mind my own business.

Please do me the courtesy of doing the same. If you prefer not to, that's OK. I am sure you will find any number of people to tell you what you should do.

 

 

Public Safety

Nicknames, even cheesy ones, serve a purpose

Sports Briefs

High school wrestling

Little League registration