We groan when someone in the group starts a sentence with 'I think' or 'You know' because we know this means our friend is going to share his or her opinion on what ever the topic de jour is. And we all know the old adage: "Opinions are like A@@holes. Everyone has one and they all stink."
But opinion is a fact of life. We have to interpret information presented to us. Is a statement true or false? How does the statement affect me? Does it change how I perceive the world? In fact opinions become tied up with our identities. If someone disagrees with my opinion does that affect my self worth? Does it say the other person is criticizing my ability to form opinions?
An opinion is more a statement about how we perceive the information given than a statement about the truth of the information.
For instance, let's take a statement: "The President of the United States is a black man."
First: Is the statement true? Literally no. President Obama's skin color is more of a brown than black. He is a man. His father was a native of an African country. His mother was an American citizen living in the state of Hawaii. So President Obama is provably an African-American. African Americans are colloquially referred to as 'Black' even though skin color varies. So the initial statement can be taken as being 'True'.
Of course we could legitimately say : "The President of the United States is a Hawaiian."
Or we could say: "The President of the United States is an American."
Or : "The President of the United States is a Lawyer, and a father, and an Author....."
The point here being not what the fact is but which facts we choose to acknowledge when we form an opinion. Or should I say, which facts we allow ourselves to acknowledge based on our preconceived opinions.
Wait a second: Aren't opinions supposed to be formed from the facts, not the other way around?
Lately in Washington we see the effects of opinion trumping facts. The Republican's hold the opinion that President Obama is an ineffective leader. There fore they refuse to create the jobs he asks for, roll back the taxes he asks for, and authorize the income producing measures (taxes on the rich) that he asked for. Why? Because they don't want to 'give him the win'?
John Boehner said that taxing the wealthy and corporations prevents the wealthy and corporations from creating jobs. His logic is: If the government takes money from the entities that have accrued the wealth, then they aren't free to create jobs to make more wealth for themselves. On the surface this seems to have some logic, until you look at the results.
As restrictions and taxes have been decreased on these entities they have moved jobs to other countries that don't have our strong middle class or our messy safety and ecological rules. The jobs they create in this country are at the lowest possible wages because they are non productive jobs and don't create wealth.
The facts are that a strong middle class expects a fair economy where small businesses can flourish and not be destroyed or bought out by massive corporations. Where the health and welfare of the people matter more than the health of massive soulless non physical entities like Citibank or Chrysler. A strong middle class will demand fairness and a chance to form their own opinions instead of being told what to think.
What set this particular chain of thought off on me was the argument over the extension of the tax cut for the working class.
Fact: The tax cut was on the Social Security Tax which is paid only on the first $110,000 of income.
Fact: 85% of the people in this country make less than $110,000.
Fact: The original proposal was to pay for the 2% tax rate decrease by increasing the tax on unearned income which would effect the wealthiest 1%.
Fact: The tax on the rich had to be taken OFF THE TABLE for the Republican's to agree to any tax cut for the majority of Americans.
Now what's your opinion?
