Perhaps you've heard the phrase "a distinction without a difference." Debaters often fall back on employing this logical fallacy when confronted with an argument they wish to evade. This is the world of euphemism. And it applies to the DOL fiduciary rule. Let me explain.

Politicians and marketers call it "reframing the argument." People who have read too many books might be tempted to call it "sophistry." Normal people simply call it "misleading." We can all agree "a distinction without a difference" is something we want to avoid being accused of using.

But what about "a difference without a distinction"? I could get into the whole Thomas Aquinas and "Just War Theory" thing, but that would just trigger a lot of shouting and marching with the whole mess ending up in the Ninth Circuit. Instead, I'll use a less controversial example: cholesterol. I don't know about you, but ever since I could remember, I was told "cholesterol is bad." Then, one day during a routine check-up, I learned there was such a thing as "good" cholesterol and "bad" cholesterol.