What’s In A Label?

Conservative. Liberal. We act as if we know what these labels mean. Conservatives are traditionalists, fiscally opposed to anything that smacks of gambling, private, often religious, and pedantic on what they consider “appropriate” in either government or personal conduct. Liberals, on the other hand, are often taken for progressive, willing to spend social capital to repair perceived problems, tolerant, agnostic if not atheist, and overly-concerned with a definition of justice that ought to be all-encompassing rather than what they perceive as sinecure for the privileged. Well. Over on Facebook I posted a brief quote (my own) to boil down the actual underlying distinctions. Conservatives are those who don’t like what other people are doing, Liberals are those who don’t like what other people are doing to other people. It was meant to be taken as humorous. But I’m not being entirely flip here. When you look at it, and try to define the common factor in much that passes for conservative posteuring—of any country, any background, anywhere—it always comes down to one group trying to stop another group from Doing Things We Don’t Approve. I heard a news report this morning (on NPR—I unabashedly don’t pay attention to any other news source, I find them all utterly biased) from Pakistan about the university scene there, and one bit caught my attention—at a campus in Punjabi, conservative students who find men and women sitting too close together interfere and move them apart. At a game of Truth or Dare, conservative students pulled participants out and beat them. How does this apply here? Well, here’s a clip from P.Z. Meyers’ Pharyngula to illustrate: Rising Sun School in Maryland has the standard default take-it-for-granted attitude that Christianity is just fine — there’s the usual well-funded and usually teacher-promoted evangelical groups, like the Fellowship of Christian Athletes — and when one student tried to form a club for non-religious students…well, you can guess what happened.

Continue ReadingWhat’s In A Label?

We are all responsible for the oil spill

James Cannon Boyce of Salon points out that all of us who fail to fight for clean energy are responsible for the recent Gulf oil spill.

We each use too much oil in our lives and we are each willing to spend more and more on oil, meaning that we drive the profits and the plans of the large oil companies. It is our consumption, our willingness to pay that drives oil companies to explore the depths of the Gulf of Mexico, spend hundreds of millions of dollars on rigs, because they know we will buy their product.

Continue ReadingWe are all responsible for the oil spill

What percentage of oral statements are not totally true?

How many times a day does it happen that someone tells you something that is purportedly factual, yet it is totally or partially untrue? It happens dozens of times every day. For instance, someone says that the meeting is at 2, but it's really at 2:30. You ask someone directions and they get it terribly wrong. Someone claims that Obama wasn't born in the United States. Lots of falsehoods and unsubstantiated claims fly whenever people try to sell you something. Untruths occur even when experts make claims, even within their expertise. Lack of accuracy happens when people who don't know lack the courage to say that they don't know. It happens when politicians tell us that we can drill our way out of the energy crisis. It happens when people allow hope to triumph over the truth. You see it where people aren't careful or when they aren't self-critical (maybe that's redundant). You see it where someone's memory is faulty and whenever they are overwhelmed with emotion. It often happens on homework assignments and tests, even after the students carefully study the topics before providing their answers. It happens where people conjure up imaginary worlds and beings for their eternal protection. It happens when people substitute words for knowledge. It happens when people don't understand what they are talking about, or when they assume. You see it and hear it whenever someone's intellectual reach is greater than his or her grasp. I hear it all the time at work, even during sworn deposition testimony. I hear lots of white lies by kind-hearted people. I hear the untrue words of people trying to save face. I hear the untrue sentences of parents trying to spare their children from complex or intense truths. You hear untrue statements even when people are trying their hardest to be accurate. Just listen, for instance, to the number of times well-meaning people correct other well-meaning people during ordinary conversations. Bottom line: A lot of things that are said during the day are not accurate, from coast to coast. Of course, many of these inaccuracies are not intentionally incorrect. I'm not claiming that most of these inaccuracies are the result of lying, although a huge chunk of it is due to paltering. After this thought occurred to me today, I walked out into the hallway and sprung the following question on two unsuspecting attorneys:

What is the percentage of purportedly factual statements spoken by every person living in the US over the past year that are completely true by any reasonable measure of truth?

When I asked the question, I was assuming that my acquaintances would answer with something like the number that I had in my head: 40% One answered 15% and the other said 10%. Gad. I hope that neither of them is correct.

Continue ReadingWhat percentage of oral statements are not totally true?

Elizabeth Warren on why we need a consumer agency to protect borrowers

Federal TARP watchdog Elizabeth Warren is warning that the Republican proposal for a "consumer protection agency" is anti-family.

"I'm tired of hearing politicians claim to support families and, at the same time, vote with the big banks on the most important financial reform package in generations. I'm deep-down tired of it."
The current Senate bill, sponsored by Democrat Christopher Dodd, which would house the new consumer agency within the Federal Reserve,
adheres to Warren's four tests: a chief appointed by the president, an independent source of funding, the authority to write consumer rules and the ability to enforce them against unscrupulous lenders. The unit, thus, focuses squarely on consumers. Ensuring banks' profitability is left to banking regulators. The Republicans' counter-proposal, released this week, fails all four of Warren's tests.
Warren describes the Republican proposal as follows: ""The whole idea of the substitute is to take a bunch of regulators that already failed and throw them in a committee together."

Continue ReadingElizabeth Warren on why we need a consumer agency to protect borrowers