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

Ross Perot, Ron Paul, Sarah Palin?

I'm perforce following the antics of the Tea Party movement. This organization couldn't have snowballed without the Web 2.0 social networking system to enable it. Perot didn't have any access to such power in 1992. Ron Paul tried, but it hadn't yet reached critical mass. This is probably the answer to a question I recently posted as a response on (facepalm) FaceBook:

Where was that Tea Party 7 years ago, after the president declared "Mission Accomplished" in that elective war? That excursion from reality was a significant factor in converting the budget surplus he inherited into record debt. As was his creation of the largest government bureaucracy ever (Homeland Security) nominally to do what other agencies were already supposed to be doing. Then his decision to roll back those pesky banking regulations established in the 1930's to prevent lenders from packaging bad debts as good bets, sure has worked out well.

But now there is a coordinated effort to undermine the legacy political process by uniting people of disparate intentions under a single banner. Anarchists, Libertarians, Christian-nationists, assault-rifles-for-the-kids, and anti-taxers now gather together in front of cameras from every corner of the nation. Who is the current figurehead of the movement? Sarah Palin. Not that Ron Paul is yet out of the running. But certain faith-based reports count him out of Tea Party support. Maybe I'm just confused, but I'd really like to see an actual Tea Party party in the next big election. This would be a true referendum on how much support they have. But as near as I can tell from my casual reading, the Tea Party goal is not to take responsibility, but rather to sink candidates from the other parties who disagree with their very particular simple positions on complex issues.

Continue ReadingRoss Perot, Ron Paul, Sarah Palin?

Federal Court rules that the “National Day of Prayer” violates the First Amendment Establishment Clause

Yesterday, I received an email from the Center For Inquiry indicating that, in 2008, Freedom From Religion Foundation had filed a lawsuit (Freedom from Religion Foundation, Inc v. Obama) to prevent the federal government from declaring a “National Day of Prayer.” The U.S. District Court, Judge Barbara B. Crabb of the Western District of Wisconsin, struck down 36 U.S.C. §119, which establishes a yearly National Day of Prayer. Here’s the text of the statute:

The President shall issue each year a proclamation designating the first Thursday in May as National Day of Prayer on which the people of the United States may turn to God in prayer and meditation at churches, in groups, and as individuals.

As discussed in the Court’s Opinion, the National Day of Prayer was established in part, due to the efforts of Reverend Billy Graham in 1952. One of Graham’s speeches included the following:

We have dropped our pilot, the Lord Jesus Christ, and are sailing blindly on without divine chart or compass, hoping somehow to find our desired haven. We have certain leaders who are rank materialists; they do not recognize God nor care for Him; they spend their time in one round of parties after another. The Capital City of our Nation can have a great spiritual awakening, thousands coming to Jesus Christ, but certain leaders have not lifted an eyebrow, nor raised a finger, nor showed the slightest bit of concern. Ladies and gentlemen, I warn you, if this state of affairs continues, the end of the course is national shipwreck and ruin.

Congress then took the reins, lead by [appropriately named] Representative Percy Priest, who introduced a bill to establish a National Day of Prayer. Here is the Court’s description:

In addressing the House of Representatives, he noted that the country had been “challenged yesterday by the suggestion made on the east steps of the Capitol by Billy Graham that the Congress call on the President for the proclamation of a day of prayer.” In support of the bill, Representative Brooks stated that “the national interest would be much better served if we turn aside for a full day of prayer for spiritual help and guidance from the Almighty during these troublous times. I hope that all denominations, Catholics, Jewish and Protestants, will join us in this day of prayer.” Representative Peter W. Rodino, Jr., stated that “it is fitting and timely that the people of America, in approaching the Easter season, as God-fearing men and women, devote themselves to a day of prayer in the interest of peace.”

[The Court added a footnote: "This part of the report is not accurate. 1 Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783, 787(1983) (“[P]rayers were not offered during the Constitutional Convention.”] I downloaded the entire ruling from the federal district court in pdf format and I’m making it available here. The Plaintiff argued that Plaintiff the statute is unconstitutional “because it endorses prayer and encourages citizens to engage in that particular religious exercise.” [More . . . ]

Continue ReadingFederal Court rules that the “National Day of Prayer” violates the First Amendment Establishment Clause