Bob's Angry Rants

Nothing pisses me off more than an uninformed opinion. Unfortunately, there seems to be no stopping their constant onslaught.

For example, you may have heard that 7 of the top brass, including the Chief and the Assistant Chief, at the San Francisco Police Department have been indicted at a Grand Jury proceeding for criminal conspiracy. Now, as grand jury proceedings are confidential nobody, except those involved, know exactly what evidence was presented that provoked these indictments. Lack of information, however, hasn't stopped everyone and their mother from telling me what they think happened. Depending on their political bent this can be anywhere from justice finally being served on corrupt cops to a rogue DA persecuting innocent police officers for political reasons. Of course, it could be either one or, more likely, somewhere in between. When I suggest that maybe we should wait until all of the facts come out before jumping to conclusions, I am inevitably told to, "Just wait. You'll see." Yes, I'll see that you're an idiot. I've already got all the information I need to make that judgment.

Or, in other local news, take the instance of Scott Peterson, husband of the missing and presumed dead Laci Peterson. Many people seem to think that he killed his wife. This very well may be the case. But I would like to know what these people are basing their opinion upon. I have to assume that they get all of their information from the near constant media coverage of this case. Of course, this information is very incomplete and full of speculation and guesses. It is clear that the police, at this point, have no real evidence against Scott Peterson. If they did, they would have arrested him. That is, in fact, what the police do when they have significant evidence against someone. The media has certainly played up the possibility that Scott Peterson is a murderer, but more because it makes a better story than for any other reason. They constantly state that, while the police say that Scott Peterson is not a suspect in this case, he has also not been ruled out either. Well, what the hell is that supposed to mean? That statement could apply to almost anyone. As far as I know I'm not a suspect in the case, but the police haven't cleared me, either. The same applies to all of these reporters as well. The only reason that I can see to make such a statement is to remind everyone that he is under investigation, the results of which have been inconclusive. What people forget is that being under investigation is not a sign that you've done anything wrong. Even being arrested does not necessarily mean that a person is guilty of a crime. That is what a trial is for. But the span of time from day of the crime to the day of the verdict could be years, and by then public interest in the story would have faded, so the media will just assign guilt at move on, regardless of the consequences.

It is said that a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing. Certainly this does seem to be the case. In the case of ongoing criminal investigations, I don't know why the public needs to know anything at all. Is it really in the public's interest to know all of the gritty details of a homicide investigation? Unless there is an imminent public danger, I don't think so.

It occurs to me that this might seem in conflict with my stance on the Bush administration's information blackout on Iraq. There are two significant differences between a criminal investigation and this whole "weapons of mass destruction" thing. First of all, Bush's actions do endanger the public safety. Secondly, in the case of a criminal investigation, an information blackout would serve to limit groundless allegations. In the case of the Bush administration, they are making the allegations first and then refusing to back them up.

The scariest thing as that most people don't even seem to be aware that they possess incomplete information. I don't think it ever occurs to them that there might be some perspective other than their own.

Of course, on the other hand, I have been known to refrain from forming an opinion even when overwhelming evidence is on hand. So maybe I'm too cautious. For example, in college I had a roommate who was somewhat effeminate, wore tight little muscle shirts, was incredibly fastidious, spoke with a slight lisp, and had his "friend" Mike sleep over with him on a couple occasions. Despite this, I still refused to assume that he was gay for about a month after he moved in. I mean, he hadn't told me himself and it is possible that there were other reasons for his behavior other than being a flaming homosexual. Anne made that leap within a minute of their first meeting.

So maybe I could be a little more aggressive in acting on incomplete information. On the other hand, you might say that I'm just trying to balance out the rest of the world. Somehow, I don't think that may people will say that, though.

By the way, can you tell that I learned how to do italics in this entry? It's fun!