"Selective...."

Several dictionary sites have chosen "pandemic" as the Word of the Year 2020. It would be tough to argue with that. The virus has destroyed 2020. Everyone's life has been affected by it. Yes, no complaints from me about "pandemic" other than I just plain don't like the word. Similarly, I believe it was the annual Lake Superior State University review that included "We're all in this together" as a phrase they'll be glad to see go. Me, too, since it's obvious to all but the unseeing that we are not all in this together. More evidence today--people are "jumping the line" to get their vaccine shots. It doesn't matter than some people might be more vulnerable, might need the shot more. After all, those "Old people, why do they need the vaccine? They're going to die anyway." So, "If I can cheat and get the shot instead of someone who might need it more, so what?" I'd really like to see which people are doing that. "We're all in this together," except when we're not. I have another candidate for a word that has played an important role in our society, but not just 2020. This started several years ago. I'm not sure how often people actually use the word, but it does describe much of how they act. "Selective." People have become very selective in their lives. It seems we have selective morality, selective outrage, selective principles (Does that make them really not principles then?), selective concern, and more. Some "experts" have dismissed this, that "selective" merely is employed to attack political, philosophical, and other opponents. I'm not quite so quick to dismiss it, but am willing to accept a different term if it fits. I suppose "hypocritical" can worm its way into the discussion. So can "self-serving." Perhaps frivolous, but a good example was an article in the newspaper the other day. The sports writer noted how the likes of Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, and others are kept out of the Baseball Hall of Fame because of their performance-enhancing drug use. OK, if Hall electors (sports writers, veterans' committee, or whoever) want to take a stand on that issue, fine. But, then, how can these same electors have inducted former commissioner Bud Selig to the Hall? Wasn't it under his watch (or non-watch?) that the whole PED thing exploded? Wasn't it sort of like Nero fiddling while Rome burned? (Actually, that, Nero fiddling, isn't true, but you get the point.) Why, then, are the players who used PEDs not selected while the man who looked the other way is? Why is Donald Trump roundly criticized for infidelity to his marriage(s), but Bill Clinton's similar escapades overlooked? Where was the National Organization of Women on that? Oh, Clinton was impeached (as was Trump, but over a far different "issue"), but he remained very popular despite being a scumball. Why are Trump's lies brought up at every turn, but most people ignored Barack Obama's untruthfulness, deliberate untruthfulness? It seems to me Obama's lies had more of a direct impact on lives than Trump's. "Follow the science" is another example of being "selective." If we are to "follow the science," shouldn't we consider all of "the science?" But we don't. We only "follow" what suits our agendas, our purposes. I'm old enough to remember the Time Magazine cover story of the '70s, "A New Ice Age?" Oh how we were warned! Fewer that 20 years later, it was "global warming" that was going to destroy our planet (and us). Well, maybe it's not really global warming, but "climate change." Remember the "acid rain" fears heaped upon us? Our lakes would be dead, all the plant and animal (fish) life killed off. The "science" told us that. Perhaps in part due to some societal changes we made, it never happened. The same thing is true of CoVid. Selective science is applied, science that supports some politicians' motives and agendas. They pick and choose what they use to set policy, to inform the citizenry. Oh, they trot out "experts," experts who say the "right" things. But why don't they (or the media!) also listen to or even publicize opposing views? "The science says....." Well, not all of the science says what is purported. Some very well known and respected scientists, including Nobel winners, have disagreed with the science that has been accepted. How "selective" we are in our outrage over the protesters. Those in DC, although only a very small fraction of those who were there, were "assaulting our democracy." Yep, I heard that from all of those lame-brained politicians, media pundits, and their "experts." So, it must be true, right? Why would they lie to us? Heh Heh. But all those summer riots, er, "peaceful protests," even against federal and state government buildings, police and fire stations, other government property, not to mention private homes and stores, was not an "assault" on anything, I guess. I remember nary a peep from these same people when cities were being burned last summer. Our outrage is "selective" when it affects us in a bad way, but if others face bad things, that's OK--we're not angry at all. There are many more examples. I, for one, am getting very, very tired of it. I suspect more and more people are, too.