You can trust Republican leaders to do in the future what they’ve done in the past.
1. Prosecuting political opponents.
George W. Bush broke precedents of decency. One precedent he broke was that you don’t use criminal prosecutions to destroy your political opponents.
So U.S. Attorneys have been above politics. Typically, when a new party came to power, U.S. Attorneys would resign, and the new administration would replace them. But once in office, while that administration was in power, U.S. Attorneys typically held their position unless they misbehaved. Then Bush was elected.
Bush fired U.S. Attorneys who were not partisan enough in their prosecutions. For example, David Iglesias, a Republican, was fired because he pushed back against political pressure to prosecute a Democratic state senator before an election.
Question: Do you want political parties to use criminal prosecution as an arm of politics?
2. Shrinking democracy.
Historically, politics was relatively simple. If a party wanted to gain power, it crafted a platform that would appeal to a wide segment of the electorate.
Not so in recent times in the Republican party. A new strategy has emerged in Republican-controlled states. Instead to broadening their platform to widen their appeal, Republicans in Republican-controlled states are shrinking the electorate.
Voter-fraud is a minuscule problem. It rarely happens. But there has been an avalanche of legislation nominally to combat this non-issue. The purpose of these laws is visible in their effect. This legislation discourages minority voters and discourages young voters – constituencies that skew Democratic. The venerable, non-partisan League of Women Voters is conducting no voter-registration drive in Florida this year; the onerous new laws make it too easy to get penalized.
The Republican plan is working.
The American Revolution began, and patriots gave up their lives, for the idea of "No taxation without representation." But in the worldview of Republican leaders, taxation without representation is fine for minorities and young people.
And these are people who might fight and die for America in war, without the voice of their vote.
Question: Do you want politics that shrinks the voting pool instead of making a platform more attractive to more people?
3. Attack on truth.
It’s a peculiar "news" organization that alters photographs of persons to make them seem sub-human. But that’s what Fox News did to New York Times reporters.
It’s a peculiar "news" organization that replaces footage of a crowd at a conservative rally with footage of a crowd of a more popular rally, to make the rally seem more popular than it was. But that’s what Fox News did with an anti-health-care-reform rally led by Michele Bachmann.
It’s a peculiar "news" organization that labels its enemies "socialists" to stir up hatred against them. But that’s what Fox News does. A Fox News person even wondered if Warren Buffett was a socialist, after Buffett said that he and people like him pay too few taxes. Buffett buys and sells companies for a living.
But Fox News is only nominally about news. It’s really a slick delivery system for Republican propaganda. Once, the Republican Party issued talking points about what to say about the improving economy. A Fox on-air personality obediently read the talking points on-air.
Fox News is the network face of the Republican Party, and Republican leaders have it’s habit of casualness about truth. So, the Affordable Care Act will save lives by guaranteeing that people with pre-existing conditions can get insurance. But Republican leaders claimed that it was all about killing grandma.
For the sake of their ideology, Republican leaders won’t dilute their positions. So they can’t broaden their platform to appeal to more people. Instead, they lie.
Question: do you want politics to slip the tether of truth?
4. Attack on Christianity.
You can spend your life improving your Christian walk, but the frame of Christianity can be taken in in a few minutes. Elements of this frame are: love your neighbor, and love your enemies.
But the political frame built by leaders of the Republican Party differs from the Christian frame. Their alternative frame is, basically, "What’s mine is mine, and screw my neighbor."
So: Republican leaders tout the freedom not to pay for health care by buying insurance. To them, this is more important than saving lives of men, women, and children by making insurance available to people with pre-existing conditions. To be clear: the Affordable Care Act will save lives. But it encroaches on Republican notions of liberty, so Republican leaders uniformly side with letting people die.
And the Bible is overwhelmingly on the side of the poor. But Republican leaders are overwhelmingly on the side of the rich and on the side of big banks and big corporations. They routinely top off the cups of the rich with tax cuts that favor those with vast wealth. But they are glad to drain the glass of the working class and the poor – so they resisted extending the payroll tax for workers, until political pressure made them reluctantly yield. They tear the social safety-net. This is not Christianity. This is social-and-political Darwinism.
And since the time of George Washington, America has treated war prisoners humanely. There never was a time when some advantage might not have been gained by torture; but, until recently, there never was a time when we touted torture. But the Bush administration changed that.
Question: Do you want politics to channel Darwinism instead of Christianity and decency?
5. Conclusion.
Individual Republicans are often lovely persons. But they are dancing with indecency to music that mixes partisan prosecutions, partisan assault on voting rights, partisan lies as a tool of politics, and Darwinism.
The right-wing will probably continue to dance to this music. The left will not.
I hope that the center holds. I hope that the center rejects partisan prosecutions, attacks on democracy, lies, and Darwinism. I hope that the center rejects politicians who reject a fair criminal-justice system, broad-based democracy, truth, and Christianity and decency.
Showing posts with label lies. Show all posts
Showing posts with label lies. Show all posts
Thursday, March 29, 2012
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
Truth or Consequences
Would you take a drug if it helped you attain an immediate goal, but it also made you lose track of the frontier between reality and your imagination?
1. Reality impairment.
He said that the document, a transcript of a meeting, showed my brother (my law partner) refusing to address the issues of the case, instead talking of nothing but the attorney’s fees he hoped to gain if we won. The lawyer meant to convince the judge that we were uninterested in justice and instead were motivated by greed and greed alone. But in reality, Peter discussed at length the issues of the case, and the subject of attorney’s fees never arose, not once. I know this because I read the transcript.
Another example. A lawyer described under oath his phone conversation with my brother. My brother hadn’t trusted him, so he had recorded his own side of the conversation. (You legally can do that without telling someone; but in California, you can’t secretly record both sides of a conversation). This lawyer made embarrassing accusations against my brother. But since Peter had recorded everything that he himself had said, he could supply to the judge, verbatim, his side of the conversation to refute the other lawyer.
I have known both of the lawyers from these examples for a while. One especially (he-who-said-that-my-brother-spoke-of-nothing-but-money) is a strategic liar. He says whatever wins. He’s untethered to the truth.
As years go by, more lawyers are like this.
2. The mind bent.
But then I encountered the same phenomenon with a relative. In all sincerity, with nothing to gain by fooling me, this relative discussed fervently the contents of a document that simply were not there.
Like the two lawyers whom I have talked about, this relative uses falsehoods. If he is angry, he will lie to hurt someone. If someone has made a mistake, he might claim that apocalyptic consequences will flow from that mistake. ("Because of you, I’m going to lose $50,000!") He does this to burden his victim. His lies correctively.
Have lies dimmed the ability of my relative and these lawyers to know when they are telling the truth, and when their words only express what they wish were the truth? Does this happen when you use lies? When you use lies, do they make you blind?
3. The malleable mind.
For example, most people don’t remember their dreams. But if you want to remember your dreams, you should keep a pen and paper by your bed. When you wake up, immediately write down what you remember from your dreams. In time, you’ll remember your dreams without writing them down.
The act of writing down your dreams tells your mind that it’s important to remember them. Then your subconscious mind starts automatically to store them in a place that your conscious mind can reach.
Names are another example. If remembering names is important to you, you tend to remember names. I want to remember names. So over time I’ve taught myself to do so. I’m not great at it, but I’m better than I was. I’m better than most people who don’t care to remember the name of somebody they’ve just met.
Moonwalking with Einstein: The Art and Science of Remembering Everything
is a book about memory. In one chapter, it talks about a memory experiment. For weeks, a test subject was tasked to remember random numbers. For weeks, his memory for randon numbers was ordinary. But then, he started to be really good at it. He became really good at it without training, just by constantly doing it.
The mind responds to demands put on it. It becomes stronger or weaker based on what it’s called to do over time.
Scrupulous truth-telling is like that. If you’re scrupulous about the truth, your mind responds by vividly delimiting reality. But when you wilfully choose falsehood, that tends to dilute the reality-delimiting power of the mind.
I hypothesize that scrupulousness about truth trains the mind to know reality. In contrast, a habit of lying instructs the mind that truth is unimportant. And it compromises the mind’s ability to know reality from imagination.
4. Proposed experiments.
Or neurologists could study the brains of truthful persons, and compare them to those of known liars. ("Well, ladies and gentlemen, in 87% of liars, there was a 34%-or-more increase in the size of the mendacious-deludus portion of the brain.")
5. Doesn’t everybody?
Maybe a liar knows the line between truth and imagination, but not the difference between himself and someone who values truth. He himself little-values truth, so he assumes that everybody little-values truth.
So when he transparently lies, he knows that everyone will see through him. But he doesn’t care, because, in his mind, nobody cares about the truth. It’s not that he can’t handle the truth. It’s just the opposite: he can’t be bothered with it.
6. Truth or consequences.
The habit of lying is like a potent drug that gives an immediate benefit, but it has terrible side-effects.
And over time, even the short-term gains will subside. Because in our time, people still tend to believe what they hear. A judge, for example, usually is slow to assume that the lawyer before him is lying. Because society is presently based, in large part, on trust. (Not too long ago, the term "liar" was a fighting word.)
But as liars multiply, trust diminishes. In time, credulity will wither. It will wither in law, in business, in journalism, in politics; then in teaching, then in church, then in family. And then we’re hammered. Truly, truly hammered.
Because a society that cannot share reality as common ground is a society of atomized reality. Atomized reality is chaos. A highly cooperative, integrated society such as ours cannot function in chaos.
7. A house divided.
Lincoln knew that the nation could not survive half-slave and half-free. He sorrowfully but resolutely waged war that the nation would be all one or all the other.
So with truth-telling and lying. Truth-telling and lying don’t rule discourse and men’s minds and women’s minds equally like co-regents. One rises while the other falls. Society will move toward one or the other. There will be no stasis, no equilibrium. And to become a society of liars is dreadful to contemplate
8. Back from the brink.
Most of us are limited in our influence. We have great control over ourselves; some influence over our loved ones and friends; and little influence beyond our immediate circle.
That doesn’t make us helpless. Our solution to the encroachment of falsehood lies in furrowing our souls in straight lines. Our solution is to be zealous in truth - fanatical, even. If we are zealous, we can often influences our circle of acquaintances by our example. If heaven blesses the effort, then the virtue of truth will ripple outward in circles of verity that spread wherever someone commits himself to truth.
It will take a movement like this to rescue ourselves from what we are becoming, because now all the expansion is in the other direction. Liars plant lies. They arrogate to themselves a God-like authority to invent a world to their liking with nothing more than will and words.
We must not as a nation swallow that poison.
He said that the document, a transcript of a meeting, showed my brother (my law partner) refusing to address the issues of the case, instead talking of nothing but the attorney’s fees he hoped to gain if we won. The lawyer meant to convince the judge that we were uninterested in justice and instead were motivated by greed and greed alone. But in reality, Peter discussed at length the issues of the case, and the subject of attorney’s fees never arose, not once. I know this because I read the transcript.
Another example. A lawyer described under oath his phone conversation with my brother. My brother hadn’t trusted him, so he had recorded his own side of the conversation. (You legally can do that without telling someone; but in California, you can’t secretly record both sides of a conversation). This lawyer made embarrassing accusations against my brother. But since Peter had recorded everything that he himself had said, he could supply to the judge, verbatim, his side of the conversation to refute the other lawyer.
I have known both of the lawyers from these examples for a while. One especially (he-who-said-that-my-brother-spoke-of-nothing-but-money) is a strategic liar. He says whatever wins. He’s untethered to the truth.
As years go by, more lawyers are like this.
But then I encountered the same phenomenon with a relative. In all sincerity, with nothing to gain by fooling me, this relative discussed fervently the contents of a document that simply were not there.
Like the two lawyers whom I have talked about, this relative uses falsehoods. If he is angry, he will lie to hurt someone. If someone has made a mistake, he might claim that apocalyptic consequences will flow from that mistake. ("Because of you, I’m going to lose $50,000!") He does this to burden his victim. His lies correctively.
Have lies dimmed the ability of my relative and these lawyers to know when they are telling the truth, and when their words only express what they wish were the truth? Does this happen when you use lies? When you use lies, do they make you blind?
For example, most people don’t remember their dreams. But if you want to remember your dreams, you should keep a pen and paper by your bed. When you wake up, immediately write down what you remember from your dreams. In time, you’ll remember your dreams without writing them down.
The act of writing down your dreams tells your mind that it’s important to remember them. Then your subconscious mind starts automatically to store them in a place that your conscious mind can reach.
Names are another example. If remembering names is important to you, you tend to remember names. I want to remember names. So over time I’ve taught myself to do so. I’m not great at it, but I’m better than I was. I’m better than most people who don’t care to remember the name of somebody they’ve just met.
Moonwalking with Einstein: The Art and Science of Remembering Everything
is a book about memory. In one chapter, it talks about a memory experiment. For weeks, a test subject was tasked to remember random numbers. For weeks, his memory for randon numbers was ordinary. But then, he started to be really good at it. He became really good at it without training, just by constantly doing it.The mind responds to demands put on it. It becomes stronger or weaker based on what it’s called to do over time.
Scrupulous truth-telling is like that. If you’re scrupulous about the truth, your mind responds by vividly delimiting reality. But when you wilfully choose falsehood, that tends to dilute the reality-delimiting power of the mind.
I hypothesize that scrupulousness about truth trains the mind to know reality. In contrast, a habit of lying instructs the mind that truth is unimportant. And it compromises the mind’s ability to know reality from imagination.
Or neurologists could study the brains of truthful persons, and compare them to those of known liars. ("Well, ladies and gentlemen, in 87% of liars, there was a 34%-or-more increase in the size of the mendacious-deludus portion of the brain.")
5. Doesn’t everybody?
Maybe a liar knows the line between truth and imagination, but not the difference between himself and someone who values truth. He himself little-values truth, so he assumes that everybody little-values truth.
So when he transparently lies, he knows that everyone will see through him. But he doesn’t care, because, in his mind, nobody cares about the truth. It’s not that he can’t handle the truth. It’s just the opposite: he can’t be bothered with it.
The habit of lying is like a potent drug that gives an immediate benefit, but it has terrible side-effects.
And over time, even the short-term gains will subside. Because in our time, people still tend to believe what they hear. A judge, for example, usually is slow to assume that the lawyer before him is lying. Because society is presently based, in large part, on trust. (Not too long ago, the term "liar" was a fighting word.)
But as liars multiply, trust diminishes. In time, credulity will wither. It will wither in law, in business, in journalism, in politics; then in teaching, then in church, then in family. And then we’re hammered. Truly, truly hammered.
Because a society that cannot share reality as common ground is a society of atomized reality. Atomized reality is chaos. A highly cooperative, integrated society such as ours cannot function in chaos.
7. A house divided.
Lincoln knew that the nation could not survive half-slave and half-free. He sorrowfully but resolutely waged war that the nation would be all one or all the other.
So with truth-telling and lying. Truth-telling and lying don’t rule discourse and men’s minds and women’s minds equally like co-regents. One rises while the other falls. Society will move toward one or the other. There will be no stasis, no equilibrium. And to become a society of liars is dreadful to contemplate
8. Back from the brink.
Most of us are limited in our influence. We have great control over ourselves; some influence over our loved ones and friends; and little influence beyond our immediate circle.
That doesn’t make us helpless. Our solution to the encroachment of falsehood lies in furrowing our souls in straight lines. Our solution is to be zealous in truth - fanatical, even. If we are zealous, we can often influences our circle of acquaintances by our example. If heaven blesses the effort, then the virtue of truth will ripple outward in circles of verity that spread wherever someone commits himself to truth.
It will take a movement like this to rescue ourselves from what we are becoming, because now all the expansion is in the other direction. Liars plant lies. They arrogate to themselves a God-like authority to invent a world to their liking with nothing more than will and words.
We must not as a nation swallow that poison.
Monday, November 29, 2010
A Stench in the Nostril of God
Lies are a stench in God’s nostril. In the first ten Psalms, four condemn lies and deceit. In the third chapter of the Bible, Eden is lost because of a snake. Satan is called a "liar and the father of lies." (John 8:44.)
To a believer, God hath said should be the last word. It may be, or not. And not everybody believes. So, God aside, here is a think-piece on truth and lies.
This is not "It’s nice to be good." This is a big deal. In Nixon’s "I’m not a crook"; in Reagan’s "[W]e did not - repeat - did not trade weapons, or anything else, for hostages"; in Clinton’s "I did not have sex with that woman"; and in Bush/43’s – well, look at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYI7JXGqd0o – in all of these, our leaders pissed on public virtue. And America is fumbling with its zipper.
I don’t want to be preachy. But before we amble down into Gehenna with Richard, Ronald, Bill, and George, let’s look at the landscape of where we are headed. Let’s look back at what we are leaving.
1. Power.
Truth gives power to the weak.
In a court contest against a powerful adversary, a poorer, less-lawyered party can tell himself, "I have truth on my side". This declaration gives moral strength. It literally encourages.
And truth matters. By and large, judgment in court is based on truth. This is important, because a rich man can buy lawyers, but he can’t buy truth. If society values it, truth makes a legal contest more fair.
We expect that the party that should prevail in court can prevail. We expect that being right matters. Yes, our courts aren’t perfect. Sometimes courts convict the innocent. Sometimes courts give judgment against the righteous. But jurors try to rule right. They take seriously their duty to discover the truth. And that matters.
If judgment weren’t based on truth, it would have to be based on something else. Without judgment based on truth, judgment would be more often against the weak and for the powerful.
Like elsewhere. A former colleague of mine became a prosecutor in a court of another culture – I forget where. He told me that judgment there was based on the parties’ comparative status, not on the truth. And in Russia, jury tampering by the government is common. Russian jurors report government interference, but Russian judges do nothing; they even help the government. This happens because Russian courts exist not to determine the truth. They exist to vindicate the government.
These are examples of courts where truth plays a subordinate role. This is unheard of in America’s recent legal history. We assume that a court case is a search for the truth or falsity behind the charges. We may not perfectly find out the truth, but we try to, blunt as the effort sometimes may be.
But if truth is thought of as a shabby has-been, we lose the power of truth in our courts. We become like courts in other countries where truth is valued only if it meshes with any other goal of the court system – upholding the rich against the poor, upholding the insiders against the outsiders, upholding the government against the people. And that would be tragic for us.
2. Usefulness.
Truth is helpful.
Truth acts as a common ground. We might argue about values, but we fundamentally expect that we will agree on basic facts. If disagreement about facts separate us, we try to return to the common ground of agreed facts. If we did not intend for basic facts to be our common ground, the bedrock of our decision-making would be sinking sand.
Society makes life-and-death decisions based on facts. Do we go to war, or no? That depends upon whether our adversary is seeking weapons of mass destruction or not. Do we extend unemployment benefits to the unemployed, or no? That depends upon whether the unemployed need the benefits to stay afloat while they seek work, or if a government stipend squelches their effort to find replacement work. Do we reform health care so that sick people don’t die because they are poor, or no? That depends upon whether the reform includes provisions to kill old people (aka "Death Panels"). These are decisions where truth was needed to make right, crucial choices. These are decisions where people will choose wrong if they believe lies. These are cases in which lives will be wasted by a wrong decision.
People who inject truth into society’s debates help society make right choices. People who inject lies corrode society’s decision-making.
People also make important personal decisions based on truth. Sometimes my clients wobble about whether to take a plea bargain or go to trial. I often tell them, "I wasn’t there. You were. You know what happened. If the charges are true, then this is a fair deal. But if the charges are false, then no deal is worthwhile and you should fight the case in front of a jury." Most of my clients make the right decision.
3. Morality.
Morality presumes truth.
Lies are the servants of immorality. A man who gets between sheets with a woman not his wife tells his wife that he was driving home a co-worker. A person who destroys the innocence of a child denies molestation. A police officer who wrongfully beats a man claims that the man assaulted him. A politician who betrays his constituency says he acted on their behalf. A thief denies stealing.
Lies make a mockery of morality. Some people labor to do right, even when doing wrong would be easier or more profitable. But the liar cheaply gains the benefit of virtue by falsely claiming it.
4. Culture.
In our culture, we value and expect truth.
In romance, we don’t expect a suitor to woo a bride with lies. Someone who does is called a cad.
In medicine, we don’t expect a doctor to give us advice he knows is wrong. A doctor who does is called a quack.
In law, lawyers have a duty to speak truthfully to the judge Dishonest lawyers are called shysters.
In science, we don’t expect scientists to fudge data. One who does is despised in the scientific community.
In business, businesses are expected to be upright. We are shocked to be cheated.
We expect our friends to be honest with us. When we discover that a friend has lied, we loose trust in him.
The assault on truth turns back all of these expectations and values.
5. Conclusion.
Lies do to truth what forgeries do to currency. They debase it. They shake people’s trust in it.
When nominated as a Republican Senate candidate, Lincoln said:
One last note. I started out saying that lies are a stench in God’s nostril. I started out saying that to believers, God hath said may be the last word. But to be clear: in my observation, believers are not noticeably more truthful than non-believers. This makes me sad to behold believers.
Sources
For more on Russian government interference with juries: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/16/world/europe/16jury.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=russian%20juries&st=cse
To a believer, God hath said should be the last word. It may be, or not. And not everybody believes. So, God aside, here is a think-piece on truth and lies.
This is not "It’s nice to be good." This is a big deal. In Nixon’s "I’m not a crook"; in Reagan’s "[W]e did not - repeat - did not trade weapons, or anything else, for hostages"; in Clinton’s "I did not have sex with that woman"; and in Bush/43’s – well, look at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYI7JXGqd0o – in all of these, our leaders pissed on public virtue. And America is fumbling with its zipper.
I don’t want to be preachy. But before we amble down into Gehenna with Richard, Ronald, Bill, and George, let’s look at the landscape of where we are headed. Let’s look back at what we are leaving.
1. Power.
Truth gives power to the weak.
In a court contest against a powerful adversary, a poorer, less-lawyered party can tell himself, "I have truth on my side". This declaration gives moral strength. It literally encourages.
And truth matters. By and large, judgment in court is based on truth. This is important, because a rich man can buy lawyers, but he can’t buy truth. If society values it, truth makes a legal contest more fair.
We expect that the party that should prevail in court can prevail. We expect that being right matters. Yes, our courts aren’t perfect. Sometimes courts convict the innocent. Sometimes courts give judgment against the righteous. But jurors try to rule right. They take seriously their duty to discover the truth. And that matters.
If judgment weren’t based on truth, it would have to be based on something else. Without judgment based on truth, judgment would be more often against the weak and for the powerful.
Like elsewhere. A former colleague of mine became a prosecutor in a court of another culture – I forget where. He told me that judgment there was based on the parties’ comparative status, not on the truth. And in Russia, jury tampering by the government is common. Russian jurors report government interference, but Russian judges do nothing; they even help the government. This happens because Russian courts exist not to determine the truth. They exist to vindicate the government.
These are examples of courts where truth plays a subordinate role. This is unheard of in America’s recent legal history. We assume that a court case is a search for the truth or falsity behind the charges. We may not perfectly find out the truth, but we try to, blunt as the effort sometimes may be.
But if truth is thought of as a shabby has-been, we lose the power of truth in our courts. We become like courts in other countries where truth is valued only if it meshes with any other goal of the court system – upholding the rich against the poor, upholding the insiders against the outsiders, upholding the government against the people. And that would be tragic for us.
2. Usefulness.
Truth is helpful.
Truth acts as a common ground. We might argue about values, but we fundamentally expect that we will agree on basic facts. If disagreement about facts separate us, we try to return to the common ground of agreed facts. If we did not intend for basic facts to be our common ground, the bedrock of our decision-making would be sinking sand.
Society makes life-and-death decisions based on facts. Do we go to war, or no? That depends upon whether our adversary is seeking weapons of mass destruction or not. Do we extend unemployment benefits to the unemployed, or no? That depends upon whether the unemployed need the benefits to stay afloat while they seek work, or if a government stipend squelches their effort to find replacement work. Do we reform health care so that sick people don’t die because they are poor, or no? That depends upon whether the reform includes provisions to kill old people (aka "Death Panels"). These are decisions where truth was needed to make right, crucial choices. These are decisions where people will choose wrong if they believe lies. These are cases in which lives will be wasted by a wrong decision.
People who inject truth into society’s debates help society make right choices. People who inject lies corrode society’s decision-making.
People also make important personal decisions based on truth. Sometimes my clients wobble about whether to take a plea bargain or go to trial. I often tell them, "I wasn’t there. You were. You know what happened. If the charges are true, then this is a fair deal. But if the charges are false, then no deal is worthwhile and you should fight the case in front of a jury." Most of my clients make the right decision.
3. Morality.
Morality presumes truth.
Lies are the servants of immorality. A man who gets between sheets with a woman not his wife tells his wife that he was driving home a co-worker. A person who destroys the innocence of a child denies molestation. A police officer who wrongfully beats a man claims that the man assaulted him. A politician who betrays his constituency says he acted on their behalf. A thief denies stealing.
Lies make a mockery of morality. Some people labor to do right, even when doing wrong would be easier or more profitable. But the liar cheaply gains the benefit of virtue by falsely claiming it.
4. Culture.
In our culture, we value and expect truth.
In romance, we don’t expect a suitor to woo a bride with lies. Someone who does is called a cad.
In medicine, we don’t expect a doctor to give us advice he knows is wrong. A doctor who does is called a quack.
In law, lawyers have a duty to speak truthfully to the judge Dishonest lawyers are called shysters.
In science, we don’t expect scientists to fudge data. One who does is despised in the scientific community.
In business, businesses are expected to be upright. We are shocked to be cheated.
We expect our friends to be honest with us. When we discover that a friend has lied, we loose trust in him.
The assault on truth turns back all of these expectations and values.
5. Conclusion.
Lies do to truth what forgeries do to currency. They debase it. They shake people’s trust in it.
When nominated as a Republican Senate candidate, Lincoln said:
A house divided against itself cannot stand'.(Mark 3:25) I believe this government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved—I do not expect the house to fall—but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing, or all the other.In truth and lies, the same must be true. Between virtue and evil, the middle cannot hold.
One last note. I started out saying that lies are a stench in God’s nostril. I started out saying that to believers, God hath said may be the last word. But to be clear: in my observation, believers are not noticeably more truthful than non-believers. This makes me sad to behold believers.
Sources
For more on Russian government interference with juries: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/16/world/europe/16jury.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=russian%20juries&st=cse
Sunday, September 26, 2010
The Prisoner and the Politician, Part 3
(Parts 1 & 2 below)
7. Introduction, Part 3.
Part 1 compared two lives: a composite life-prisoner, and Newt Gingrich. Part 2 began to scrutinize the comparative virtues and vices of these men. Both have lied: Gingrich certainly, my client probably/maybe. Part 2 examined why.
8. The prisoner and the politician: comparison, continued.
Let’s examine the comparative consequences of these character flaws, and other revelations.
d. The scope of their failings.
If my client lied about his knowledge of the murder of the house sitter, or his own participation in that crime, at least his lie had no scope. The commissioners and I were his audience, and we are few.
But Gingrich doesn’t lie to the few. He lies to a national audience. And he aspires to speak to the world as President of the United States with his unclean lips.
The scope of my client’s lies is minuscule. The scope of Gingrich’s lies is epic.
e. The effect of their failings.
When Gingrich lies, in addition to insulting the dignity of those he lies to, he deflects his audience from reality and molests their judgment. Based upon what Gingrich says, his credulous followers form opinions. Based on those opinions, they will choose candidates. And they will perpetuate his falsehoods among their friends and relations.
But almost worse than what Gingrich does to his credulous followers is what he does to his followers who penetrate his distortions. Because he is a hero to them, when they see him lie and rise, they are tempted to walk in his ways. This harms their integrity, and that potentially injures their personal and professional lives.
But Gingrich offends against more than his followers. He offends against the nation. Lies are toxic to our national lifeblood. On an individual level, any time we make an important decision – like whom to marry, where to invest our money – we crave accurate information. Who would marry if they knew that their would-be spouse was not kind, but cruel behind a mask of kindness? Who would invest their savings in a company, if they knew that the impressive company profits were only an accounting mirage? That's politics, too. America cannot sail itself to a safe and prosperous future under a delusion-based helm.
f. The burden of their failings.
Except in an eternal sense, Gingrich does not bear the burden of his recent failings; his followers and his country do. As Gingrich rises, we (potentially) fall.
g. Hypocrisy.
Gingrich savages Democrats from his position of moral impoverishment. And as Speaker of the House, he famously made the case against Bill Clinton because of Monica Lewinsky. This, while he himself violated his vows to his second wife.
h. Goodwill.
Gingrich possesses contempt for his followers. Contempt is the cause and effect of his falsehoods. Only contempt for his followers permits him to insult their dignity by lying to them instead of telling them the truth. And he necessarily must have contempt for people who cannot penetrate his transparent lies.
i. Humility and hubris.
Gingrich has wealth and power, and he seeks the highest power in politics. He considers his political rise more important than truth, and that is to say more important than God. Gingrich holds a bastard sense of entitlement to power – a sense of entitlement that overwhelms his fidelity to facts.
j. Future.
But it is hard to see a path to Gingrich’s rehabilitation. He has risen high in the world. He has the acclaim of millions. He has power, fame, and riches. And the consequence is pride. I see no catalyst that might alter the practices by which he has risen.
9. Conclusion.
7. Introduction, Part 3.
Part 1 compared two lives: a composite life-prisoner, and Newt Gingrich. Part 2 began to scrutinize the comparative virtues and vices of these men. Both have lied: Gingrich certainly, my client probably/maybe. Part 2 examined why.
8. The prisoner and the politician: comparison, continued.
Let’s examine the comparative consequences of these character flaws, and other revelations.
If my client lied about his knowledge of the murder of the house sitter, or his own participation in that crime, at least his lie had no scope. The commissioners and I were his audience, and we are few.
But Gingrich doesn’t lie to the few. He lies to a national audience. And he aspires to speak to the world as President of the United States with his unclean lips.
The scope of my client’s lies is minuscule. The scope of Gingrich’s lies is epic.
When Gingrich lies, in addition to insulting the dignity of those he lies to, he deflects his audience from reality and molests their judgment. Based upon what Gingrich says, his credulous followers form opinions. Based on those opinions, they will choose candidates. And they will perpetuate his falsehoods among their friends and relations.
But almost worse than what Gingrich does to his credulous followers is what he does to his followers who penetrate his distortions. Because he is a hero to them, when they see him lie and rise, they are tempted to walk in his ways. This harms their integrity, and that potentially injures their personal and professional lives.
But Gingrich offends against more than his followers. He offends against the nation. Lies are toxic to our national lifeblood. On an individual level, any time we make an important decision – like whom to marry, where to invest our money – we crave accurate information. Who would marry if they knew that their would-be spouse was not kind, but cruel behind a mask of kindness? Who would invest their savings in a company, if they knew that the impressive company profits were only an accounting mirage? That's politics, too. America cannot sail itself to a safe and prosperous future under a delusion-based helm.
Except in an eternal sense, Gingrich does not bear the burden of his recent failings; his followers and his country do. As Gingrich rises, we (potentially) fall.
Gingrich savages Democrats from his position of moral impoverishment. And as Speaker of the House, he famously made the case against Bill Clinton because of Monica Lewinsky. This, while he himself violated his vows to his second wife.
Gingrich possesses contempt for his followers. Contempt is the cause and effect of his falsehoods. Only contempt for his followers permits him to insult their dignity by lying to them instead of telling them the truth. And he necessarily must have contempt for people who cannot penetrate his transparent lies.
Gingrich has wealth and power, and he seeks the highest power in politics. He considers his political rise more important than truth, and that is to say more important than God. Gingrich holds a bastard sense of entitlement to power – a sense of entitlement that overwhelms his fidelity to facts.
But it is hard to see a path to Gingrich’s rehabilitation. He has risen high in the world. He has the acclaim of millions. He has power, fame, and riches. And the consequence is pride. I see no catalyst that might alter the practices by which he has risen.
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Lawyers who Lie
1. Lies: a true story.
A lawyer from [Orange County law firm] opposed my motion for attorney’s fees with a brief dense with lies. Five-lies-on-a-page dense. This-drains-me dense. Pull-back-the-refrigerator-and-watch-the-cockroaches-stream-up-the-wall dense. And he didn’t only lie about things beyond proof – like what motives percolated under his skull. He lied about record evidence.
He and my law partner had had a meeting at his office, and this lawyer had had a court reporter record the meeting. He claimed in his brief that my law partner had refused to engage the issues at hand, but instead had obsessed about the attorney’s fees my law partner wanted to win. This made my law partner look shallow and greedy, an impression sure to sour the judge on our cause.
The lawyer attached the transcript from the meeting to his brief. I examined it. His claim that my law partner had obsessed about attorney’s fees was no exaggeration. It was outright fabrication. There was no mention of attorney fees in the entire 20 pages of the transcript. Nada. Null. Nyet. Zero. Zip.
To be clear: this lawyer made corrupt claims that could be proved so just by reading a transcript. He himself supplied that transcript to the judge and to me precisely so that we could see whether he was telling the truth.
This is more than inexplicable. It is dead-hooker-in-the-freezer inexplicable.
2. Lies as a growth industry.
This is also increasingly common. There have always been lawyers willing to exploit your inability to prove them wrong. Increasingly, though, contrary proof doesn’t matter. It’s like the philanderer in caught in bed with his mistress, telling his wife, "Who are you going to believe, me or your eyes?"
Another example: a prosecutor named [name withheld] filed a brief to gain the opportunity to continue to prosecute my client. He lied in the brief. To prove his points, he cited page and line of a hearing transcript. The problem was that the evidence wasn’t there. It was nowhere in the transcript. His whole Statement of Facts, a page long, contained one – one – sentence without a falsehood. It wasn’t just lying. It was an orgy of misrepresentations.
It torments me that a prosecutor, with all of his power to ruin lives, would lie to try to put a man in prison. St. Augustine wrote the Christian classic Confessions. In it he regretted that in his early life he taught rhetoric to would-be lawyers. But by way of mitigation, he explained that he taught the tricks of rhetoric so that the guilty might go free, not so that the innocent might suffer.
I’ve given two examples, but I could go on.
3. Stabbing the heart of the profession.
As pernicious as lying is in a prosecutor, it is unpardonable in any lawyer. After all, truth and justice supposedly are our reason for being, our whole purpose. To think that we can grow justice from lies is like thinking that we can water plants with piss. And falsehoods poison the pursuit of truth.
So when a lawyer lies, he stabs the heart of our profession. Like when a pastor molests a young boy, afflicting him with a life-long spiritual malaise. Or when a doctor makes his patient sick. Or when a police officer arrests an innocent man.
Not only lawyers lie. But because the justice system is entrusted to our ministrations, lying is betrayal. And because the justice system is dedicated to the discovery of truth, and truth is sacred, lying lawyers desecrate that system.
4. Personal confession.
I don’t want to present painted-on piety. I have had clients whom I suspected of lying, or who were not completely honest. And falsehoods are not unknown to my own unclean lips. But I’m a amateur, a dilettante. I’m the guy in the weekend touch-football league watching a pro quarterback. I’m a rag-picker among dissemblers. But I know swami masters of mendacity. I know aristocrats of verbal embroidery.
5. Scruples leave, but sensitivity remains.
Lying might be more common and less cabined than before, but one thing hasn’t changed: sensitivity. People with no scruple about lying resent being called liars. Of two prosecutors whom I have called out for factual inventiveness in the last two years, neither now speaks to me. But if that is the price of speaking the truth, I welcome their hatred.
I suppose that these prosecutors have no choice. After all, if they let me call them liars, soon everybody would. Their life is the opposite of the aphorism: "Take care of your character, and your reputation will take care of itself." They think their reputations are under attack from me; but their reputations really are under attack from their characters.
6. Tracing origins.
Why the flood of falsehoods in these times? No easy answer presents itself. But I suspect that it has something to do with the ascent of lies in politics and the media. Lies stream from high office and from costly media centers. Success and status make mendacity appear to be the easy way to rise to the top.
And judges seem indifferent to dishonesty. I have never seen a judge penalize a lawyer for lying. This permissiveness emboldens the veracity-impaired. With judges unwilling to penalize dishonesty, the upside is winning, and there is no obvious downside.
Looking for a religious reason for this infernal trend, maybe we live in an era of cheap grace. We believe that salvation is easy. It’s all grace. At one time, the concept of grace-plus-nothing was a humble acknowledgment of our entire dependence on God for our salvation. That grace evoked gratitude, and that gratitude evoked effort to please the one who conferred salvation. But in this era of take-for-granted grace, we feed at the table of sin, and when the grim reaper presents the check, we jamb our thumb over our shoulder and say, "Give that to the guy over there, dying on the cross." So, to the modern American mind, lying or truth telling isn’t a matter of hell or heaven.
But the problem is not only a feeble theology of grace. Quasi-rigorous religious sensibility is increasingly rare. Truth be told, few among us care more to please God than to satisfy our craving for comfort, property, consumer goods, and stimulation.
7. Earthquake warning.
It drains me to deal with liars. I was drained to deal with this brief I talked about at the beginning. Facts and reality are the foundation of everything else. On a foundation of facts, we construct values, love, politics, future plans, finances, health-care decisions, family choices, friendships, and religion. When confronted not just with lies but with brazen lies that proclaim that truth doesn’t matter, it’s like fissures open up beneath me.
And these fissures threaten society’s foundation. Democracy depends upon debate. We debate values, ideas, the direction of our country, and who should lead it. But we can’t effectively debate these high matters if we lack agreement on basic facts. Ability to agree on basic facts cannot be assumed in these times.
8. The promise.
If lying succeeds, why tell the truth? Someone I respect recently said that if lying succeeds, it’s brilliant to lie. Why is he wrong? For two reasons. First, in God there is no shadow of turning; his adversary is the liar and the father of lies. When you chose to be a truth teller or a liar, you take sides. Second, if you tell the truth, you dwell in fellowship with other truth tellers. You live in their respect. That fellowship and that respect have innate value.
A lawyer from [Orange County law firm] opposed my motion for attorney’s fees with a brief dense with lies. Five-lies-on-a-page dense. This-drains-me dense. Pull-back-the-refrigerator-and-watch-the-cockroaches-stream-up-the-wall dense. And he didn’t only lie about things beyond proof – like what motives percolated under his skull. He lied about record evidence.
He and my law partner had had a meeting at his office, and this lawyer had had a court reporter record the meeting. He claimed in his brief that my law partner had refused to engage the issues at hand, but instead had obsessed about the attorney’s fees my law partner wanted to win. This made my law partner look shallow and greedy, an impression sure to sour the judge on our cause.
The lawyer attached the transcript from the meeting to his brief. I examined it. His claim that my law partner had obsessed about attorney’s fees was no exaggeration. It was outright fabrication. There was no mention of attorney fees in the entire 20 pages of the transcript. Nada. Null. Nyet. Zero. Zip.
To be clear: this lawyer made corrupt claims that could be proved so just by reading a transcript. He himself supplied that transcript to the judge and to me precisely so that we could see whether he was telling the truth.
This is more than inexplicable. It is dead-hooker-in-the-freezer inexplicable.
2. Lies as a growth industry.
This is also increasingly common. There have always been lawyers willing to exploit your inability to prove them wrong. Increasingly, though, contrary proof doesn’t matter. It’s like the philanderer in caught in bed with his mistress, telling his wife, "Who are you going to believe, me or your eyes?"
Another example: a prosecutor named [name withheld] filed a brief to gain the opportunity to continue to prosecute my client. He lied in the brief. To prove his points, he cited page and line of a hearing transcript. The problem was that the evidence wasn’t there. It was nowhere in the transcript. His whole Statement of Facts, a page long, contained one – one – sentence without a falsehood. It wasn’t just lying. It was an orgy of misrepresentations.
It torments me that a prosecutor, with all of his power to ruin lives, would lie to try to put a man in prison. St. Augustine wrote the Christian classic Confessions. In it he regretted that in his early life he taught rhetoric to would-be lawyers. But by way of mitigation, he explained that he taught the tricks of rhetoric so that the guilty might go free, not so that the innocent might suffer.
I’ve given two examples, but I could go on.
3. Stabbing the heart of the profession.
As pernicious as lying is in a prosecutor, it is unpardonable in any lawyer. After all, truth and justice supposedly are our reason for being, our whole purpose. To think that we can grow justice from lies is like thinking that we can water plants with piss. And falsehoods poison the pursuit of truth.
So when a lawyer lies, he stabs the heart of our profession. Like when a pastor molests a young boy, afflicting him with a life-long spiritual malaise. Or when a doctor makes his patient sick. Or when a police officer arrests an innocent man.
Not only lawyers lie. But because the justice system is entrusted to our ministrations, lying is betrayal. And because the justice system is dedicated to the discovery of truth, and truth is sacred, lying lawyers desecrate that system.
4. Personal confession.
I don’t want to present painted-on piety. I have had clients whom I suspected of lying, or who were not completely honest. And falsehoods are not unknown to my own unclean lips. But I’m a amateur, a dilettante. I’m the guy in the weekend touch-football league watching a pro quarterback. I’m a rag-picker among dissemblers. But I know swami masters of mendacity. I know aristocrats of verbal embroidery.
5. Scruples leave, but sensitivity remains.
Lying might be more common and less cabined than before, but one thing hasn’t changed: sensitivity. People with no scruple about lying resent being called liars. Of two prosecutors whom I have called out for factual inventiveness in the last two years, neither now speaks to me. But if that is the price of speaking the truth, I welcome their hatred.
I suppose that these prosecutors have no choice. After all, if they let me call them liars, soon everybody would. Their life is the opposite of the aphorism: "Take care of your character, and your reputation will take care of itself." They think their reputations are under attack from me; but their reputations really are under attack from their characters.
6. Tracing origins.
Why the flood of falsehoods in these times? No easy answer presents itself. But I suspect that it has something to do with the ascent of lies in politics and the media. Lies stream from high office and from costly media centers. Success and status make mendacity appear to be the easy way to rise to the top.
And judges seem indifferent to dishonesty. I have never seen a judge penalize a lawyer for lying. This permissiveness emboldens the veracity-impaired. With judges unwilling to penalize dishonesty, the upside is winning, and there is no obvious downside.
Looking for a religious reason for this infernal trend, maybe we live in an era of cheap grace. We believe that salvation is easy. It’s all grace. At one time, the concept of grace-plus-nothing was a humble acknowledgment of our entire dependence on God for our salvation. That grace evoked gratitude, and that gratitude evoked effort to please the one who conferred salvation. But in this era of take-for-granted grace, we feed at the table of sin, and when the grim reaper presents the check, we jamb our thumb over our shoulder and say, "Give that to the guy over there, dying on the cross." So, to the modern American mind, lying or truth telling isn’t a matter of hell or heaven.
But the problem is not only a feeble theology of grace. Quasi-rigorous religious sensibility is increasingly rare. Truth be told, few among us care more to please God than to satisfy our craving for comfort, property, consumer goods, and stimulation.
7. Earthquake warning.
It drains me to deal with liars. I was drained to deal with this brief I talked about at the beginning. Facts and reality are the foundation of everything else. On a foundation of facts, we construct values, love, politics, future plans, finances, health-care decisions, family choices, friendships, and religion. When confronted not just with lies but with brazen lies that proclaim that truth doesn’t matter, it’s like fissures open up beneath me.
And these fissures threaten society’s foundation. Democracy depends upon debate. We debate values, ideas, the direction of our country, and who should lead it. But we can’t effectively debate these high matters if we lack agreement on basic facts. Ability to agree on basic facts cannot be assumed in these times.
8. The promise.
If lying succeeds, why tell the truth? Someone I respect recently said that if lying succeeds, it’s brilliant to lie. Why is he wrong? For two reasons. First, in God there is no shadow of turning; his adversary is the liar and the father of lies. When you chose to be a truth teller or a liar, you take sides. Second, if you tell the truth, you dwell in fellowship with other truth tellers. You live in their respect. That fellowship and that respect have innate value.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)