Say it ain’t so. Because it ain’t so, and it’s high time someone spoke up.

De Gustibus Non Est Disputandum. It means “about what we like there can be no argument.” That translation has morphed over time from something like “there’s no accounting for taste,” or “to each his own,” to “what’s good or bad, in art or literature or music or victuals, is simply a matter of personal preference.”

Horse pucky. The truth is, if it’s really good art, fine literature or music, excellent food, everyone agrees it is. And if it’s really bad, everyone agrees about that too, except the few deviants who take adverse positions no matter what, to poke or goose or otherwise provoke reaction.

It’s only the art, books, music, and food in the middle that are matters of personal taste. And those items are not great; that’s why they’re in the big fat middle of the bell curve. So okay: to each his own about the Bs and Cs and Ds, but not about the As and Fs.

On the other hand, we insist on defining marriage, regulating schools, and policing behavior. We deny that there are absolutes about art, but we claim there are absolutes about relationships. Marriage is two people only, one of each sex. Schools proclaim zero tolerance policies. Women are expected to subordinate their ethics to their relationships and men are expected to put loyalty to the team or squadron ahead of independent choice.

In truth, it’s obvious to anyone who considers life and people, that as long as a person isn’t hurting himself or others, as long as a person is behaving with clarity (actions consistent with words consistent with intentions consistent with memory), she should be not be impeded.

Isn’t it backwards? We act like it’s desirable to have judges for art and food, when we all already agree about the great stuff so we don’t really need them. And we claim that it’s not okay to judge others, when that’s exactly what we’re all always doing so we’d be best off facing it, admitting it, and working on how to do it well?

(Then a third voice murmurs, a voice that couldn’t be heard until I wrote out the first two. I see that great art doesn’t need a judge, and that critics are guides for people who desire, for whatever reason, a particular kind of mediocrity. And I understand that, while it’s okay to speak up when you see a friend veer away from where she says she wants to go, that’s a different thing than telling her how to be happy. But what about judging the actions of corporations? Now there seems a good place to judge. Especially after recent rulings, corporations are super-beings, able to move mountains and live forever but entitled to all the rights of a body. They are idless omnipotent creatures. Corporations, more than any product or person, must be judged.)