That's very interesting bit of sociology. Is it from personal observation? It has the feel of being a real phenomenon rather than speculation.
I'm listening now to a tape of a book by Scott Thurow, "The Burden of Proof," (fun book, btw), and there's a line in it I wish I'd written down when I came to it, but my hands were in soapy water at the time. It said, describing a certain lawyer, words to the effect that there is a certain type of who goes into the law because it gives them the right (they feel) to lie. In a way that lets them get away with it.
So that implies that it isn't only learned at law school, that sort of routine propensity to distortion (such as constructing a sentence to imply that a single phonecall to one person was a bunch of them to lotsa people, and falsifying the nature of that single one; like implying a conspiracy that never existed; like slandering someone vilely and calling it "word play'; like pretending that someone one wants to torment has "inferred" (note the odd word choice) "negative things about our young men in uniform" while refusing to specify what they might be... ) but also, training aside, that a certain number of attorneys choose that path specifically because they are predisposed to want to communicate untruths and feel themselves getting away with it.
I think CH has loved what he's gotten away with. He's loved the process. And that X has loved witnessing it, and derived vicarious satisfaction from the witnessing, and identifying. That's my opinion. I dare say X "disagrees."
Do you know that Raymond Duray was terminated, and I believe Chris Land was, too (or at least he seems to have gotten a long suspension)?
They shoulda gone to law school. |
