Lament #0010 - How gullible ARE we?

There are moments when I really wonder about our mental state of mind. I'm not saying I don't believe in people, insofar as their ability to overcome and improve themselves. My issue is with those who don't and won't.

Take this for example:

Nathan Zohner, a 14-year-old student, gathered petitions to ban "DHMO" as the basis of his science project, titled "How Gullible Are We?"

In order to understand how this has any bearing, I will further demonstrate by referring you to an website which explains DHMO. Coalition to Ban Di hydrogen Monoxide. (Another informative website, more up-to-date, is found at DHMO.org, although the first link provides a concise example of what I wish to illustrate.)

Pretty severe sounding, right? Yeah, well. Di hydrogen Monoxide is only water. But there are thousands of people who don't know this, and who merely agree to sign a boy's petition without knowing the facts, because "it must be good to ban this, because a 14 year old boy asked me to!" Sorry. That's not a good enough reason to sign anything.

There's my issue. Humorous as the situation with DHMO is, I'm not amused by the consistent gullibility of the masses. How much effort would it take to type "Di hydrogen Monoxide" into Google, or to look it up in an encyclopedia to discover that, yes, water can kill you, and no, the odds aren't in favor of that. Assuming one has the sense to spell Di hydrogen Monoxide (but that's an issue for another lament).

And gullibility isn't always so harmless as signing a petition to stop water usage. Sometimes it has much more adverse effects.

Take, for example, the voting of Barack Obama into office. I'm not referring to his political standing, but rather those who voted for him for, say, a single act he promised to pass. My brother recently visited a neighbor who was among those who voted in favor of Obama, but now, mere hours after his official inauguration, they express the horror of voting without knowing all the facts. Or, in their own words, "We used to like Obama. Not so much now."

Oh, great. I feel so reassured that those who voted really knew where they stood.

Yes, I'm being sarcastic.

With the mentality of people like that, people who think they hear a good idea, and so jump at it, it's a wonder we have a person in office at all. They may as well have voted for those 300 roosters on Fox News, instead of Obama. It would have been just as consistent.

Whatever a person's political, religious, or other views, they ought to "look before they leap", think before they talk, watch before they stand. Unlike a computer art program, where we can simply "undo" our mistakes, the world at large doesn't in reality revolve around us (sorry, no, it doesn't) and life goes on after we've made our blunder. Whoops. Too late now.

In short, know where you stand now.

Yes, I know. Twenty-twenty hindsight. Easier said than done. But that's my point. If we know the facts, all the facts, before the issue, how much easier is it to know where you stand, what to say, how to vote? I've made decisions early in my life which still affect me today, whether adversely or not.

I believe in people, as they can be if they only take the time to try. I believe we have what it takes to make or break the world by acting on our convictions, rather than standing by, or signing our names on the dotted line because a young boy asked us to. Learn, evaluate, know yourself. At least then, when the smoke has cleared and you see the results of your actions, you can know for yourself that you did what you knew was best. There are less regrets that way. I can't see anything wrong with that. Can you?