Tag Archives: reform

Pew Research: What Does the Public Know? Not That Much


Pew Research has released a study, which you can participate in if you’d like, on what the public knows and what it doesn’t know about current events. I’m frankly not sure what to think about the results.

First of all, what I am sure of is what everyone will be sure of, which is that the results are pretty dismal for a democracy.  For example:

  • Only 23% of American adults know that “cap and trade” refers to energy and environmental legislation.
  • 58% of Americans think that Iran and Israel share a border.
  • Only 33% of Americans know that Ben Bernanke is the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board.
  • Only 33% know that the Dow is in the range of 10,000
  • 82% do not know that Max Baucus is Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee that has been working on healthcare legislation.

Here are some real kickers:

  • Only 40% of Americans know that Glenn Beck is a TV and radio talk show host
  • 44% of American adults do not know that the “public option” has to do with health care

There are also some non-surprises.  Older people know a lot more about current events than younger people, and more educated people know a lot more about current events than less educated people.

What I’m not sure about is whether this changes my world view of politics.

After untold hours of arguing with conservative friends about the entire array of issues and philosophies wrapped up in politics, and having only ever convinced one or two to change their opinion on anything, I’ve come to believe that expending a lot of energy on convincing people of anything is futile.  Calories are far better spent finding the people who already agree and convincing more of them to get their asses off the couch to vote and make phone calls than the other side.  Turn out is everything.

Do these numbers challenge that?  Could it be that if we can explain cap and trade to the 77% of Americans that don’t know what it is before the other side can, we actually have an opportunity to win them over?  Could it be that the 77% of people who think cap and trade has to do with health care, or unemployment, or banking and finance reform can not be convinced otherwise?  Or could it be that the 77% of people who don’t know this are just way more interested in who is winning Dancing with the Stars and they are never going to be an important political force whether they understand or don’t understand because they are never going to vote anyway.  I’m not sure.

Aside from the obvious, as stated above, what do you think this study means for the pragmatic practice of politics?

1 Comment

Filed under economy, health care, healthcare, Politics

Lets Get Rid of Terms and Conditions!

The Missouri case of the mother who taunted a teenage girl over the Internet until she committed suicide has created a legal question quite apart from the facts of that case.  Due to where and how it was prosecuted, the verdict may create a precedent wherein the criminal justice system can be used to prosecute civil law cases.  You’ll have to find the details of the case elsewhere, but basically what happened is that when Missouri decided it couldn’t put forward an actual criminal case, the district attorney in Los Angeles prosecuted the case on the basis that the communications went through MySpace’s servers in California, and therefor the mother violated MySpace’s terms and conditions, and in doing so crossed state lines, and blah, blah, blah.

I tell you this to draw your attention to terms and conditions.  We need to get rid of them.  We probably need to completely overhaul our legal system to do it, but that’s ok.  I’m up for the challenge if you are.

Here’s our problem.  We want our corporate friends to be good, so we want to have a legal system that allows us to go after them when they are bad and A) make us whole and B) hurt them enough to convince them to be good.  Unfortunately, that same legal system can be used to abuse them and hurt them when they really haven’t done anything that wrong.  It also gives them, too often, a get out of jail free card in the shape of “terms and conditions” agreements, shrink wrap licenses, etc.

And we’ve gotten into a mouse / mouse trap thing with them.  First, someone figures out how to sue the corporation 1,500 miles from where they are.  So corporations all add clauses to their contracts about where cases will be tried.  Then somebody figures out how to sue them because they got hurt trying to use their knife as a screwdriver.  So corporations all add “fitness for use” clauses to their terms and conditions.  Then somebody figures out how to use children as a legal weapon against them.  So the corporations (Google and many other popular websites have done this) add clauses in their terms and conditions that users must be 18 years or older.  If a 9 year old gets hurt on their site, they are no longer responsible because the 9 year old violated the terms and conditions of the site.  Had the nine year old heeded them, he wouldn’t have gotten hurt.

You know as well as I do that the long terms and conditions agreements on so many things are bypassed as a matter of common practice.  Even when we have to push a button agreeing that we read them, we haven’t read them.  And they know that.  The button is only there because somebody figured out a way to sue them because someone hadn’t acknowledged that they had read the terms and conditions.

We have created an impossible situation for both consumers and corporations.  They cannot possibly predict all of the ways we might come at them and we cannot possibly imagine what limitations have been put on our use of whatever it is we’re using by the terms and conditions agreement.  We are both in a legal quagmire.

The solution is that we need to step back from details and try to find principles to replace them with.  We want our corporations to be good and to treat us fairly.  We don’t want them to take advantage of us.  Likewise, we need to be good and treat the corporations fairly.  We shouldn’t be using a legal system that allows us sneak up on them and “gotcha!” from left field.

Especially for consumer transactions, where legions of lawyers cannot be brought to bear on day to day nonsense, I think nearly all, if not all, legalese has to be banned.  In its place we need standards of conduct.  If there is a problem over where corporations will be sued, lets just make up a standard and write it into the law so it doesn’t have to go into a contract.  Lets acknowledge that search engines and portal sites are obviously going to be used by children, so they can’t write into their terms and conditions that they can’t.  And lets also acknowledge that children are going to use search engines exactly like adults, so we’re going to need some sort of exception to the issue about minors not being able to enter into binding contracts.  Rather than each website having to clarify that they are not responsible for what we do with their site, we need to figure out the principles that can be applied across the board.  Corporations can’t be held responsible when people abuse their sites.  Corporations also can’t build sites that are designed to be abusive or that leave obvious, discovered opportunities for abuse unresolved.

Believe it or not, this idea isn’t unheard of.  It would be quite possible for each state to use vastly different standards for their road signs.  Vermont might like to stick with the black and white rectangular speed limit signs, but New Jersey might decide that speed limits shall be on maps posted on toilet stall doors in turnpike rest areas… and give every unsuspecting Vermonter who couldn’t find a speed limit sign a hefty ticket once they’re half way across the state.  But we don’t.  Rather than create convoluted ways for states to hide speed limits and equally convoluted ways for drivers to figure them out, we’ve created standards… all speed limit signs are black text on white rectangular backgrounds, generally of a certain size, position, and even font.  And it works great.

We can do the same with software, websites, music, electronics, toasters, car seats, etc.  The basic principles are what we need to figure out… not page after page of tiny legalese.

1 Comment

Filed under Politics