Which is worse, too much information or a lack of same?
In the first case much has been said about the TMI syndrome where the public knows way too much about something or someone. For example do we really need to know how many men some celebrity has slept with? (Notice I left off the gender of the celebrity.)
But the other side of the coin (the Not Enough To Go On - or NETGO) is the ignorance factor that supposedly breeds fear and contempt.
So I guess the answer is it's in between both and that's too bad.
You see it's quite hard to reach a Goldilocks level of security in everything we do, know, and say. Even beds are made with varying degrees of softnesses from side to side lest you think married couples are completely compatible in all things.
The upcoming circus known as the confirmation hearings for a new Supreme Court Justice will show the fallacy between the TMI & NETGO camps.
On the one hand there are the Republicans who will argue that they know nothing (well that part seems true) about nominee Elena Kagan and therefore cannot confirm her. But since she has survived as a scholarly woman and head of Harvard and appeared before the Supreme Court on many occasions they may find it also hard to deny her. So I guess as usual the Republicans can neither confirm nor deny.
But if the candidate had a large tome of easy to find opinions he or she would face a tremendous scrutiny and cross examination more fitting the trial of a mass murderer.
So what should we do?
In politics which of the strange bedfellows will be juuuust right?
The truth is neither.
As long as we have this increasingly partisan attitude in DC that has stymied progress both camps are right AND wrong.
We need to know a little about Ms. Kagan to understand if she will be capable of making fair and unbiased opinions based solely on the law of the land as set forth in the current configuration of our Constitution. In other words can she set aside her personal feelings and rule impartially?
It's a tough question that cannot be answered until all the results are in, in say 30 or 40 years.
Perhaps we should just place her on the bench and come back then to see if we wish still to confirm her.
Of course at that point if we don't like her legacy we would have to overturn all of her decisions. Lawyers might like that guaranty of lifetime work but I'm not sure about the rest of us.
And it seems to me and any other truthful individual that our Senators do not want an unbiased judge. They are always looking for someone to appoint to this lifetime post that will rule the way they would like them to for years to come!
Looking back through the ages our Supreme Court has been fairly good but no side would give them 100%. And that's fine. That's as it should be.
Remember you cannot please nor fool all of the people all of the time but it can be fun trying. (Or as a somewhat less than articulate person once said, "Fool me once uh, uh shame on you. Fool me twice uh, well uh shame uh you can't fool me again.)
So here's a bit of advice as might have been offered by Kipling:
If you can work within the framework of the law stating your opinions as to how you arrived at your decision clearly for all to see and understand;
If you can listen with an unbiased ear to all sides of an argument without any preconceived notions or prejudices;
If you can allow that others may not agree with you and still work with them to come away with a fair compromise;
If you can risk the wrath and ridicule of both the public and the Sunday funnies yet still rule with sane thought and clear eye toward society
Then yours is the future my friend and you will be a true Supreme Court Justice worthy of the respect of the likes of John Jay.
And in conclusion, do you think Senator McCain had a touch of buyers remorse after finding out where his choice for VP sat on the TMI vs. NETGO scale?