Excuse Me, Can Anyone Cash this Reality Check?

ENTRE NOUS

BY CLAUDE DUCLOUX

“You cannot teach a man anything; you can only help him find it within himself.” – Galileo Galilei, 1564-1642

I continue to embrace the notion that truth, and our Quixotic mission to improve justice, are the most sacred of our duties as protectors of the rule of law. But everything I’ve learned about such notions proves we’re certainly not hard-wired to seek justice. Instead, we cling to false narratives which comfort us, and more importantly, disingenuously support outcomes we want. And we don’t like hearing from people who “disconfirm” our comfortable beliefs. (I read that new verb in a psychology article. I hope it catches on. It sounds polite. Wife to Husband: “I think it’s time for us to disconfirm our marriage.”)

In an age when facts are more accessible than ever, we appear free to create our own. We watch smart people say stupid things every day. And usually in the name of “freedom.”

Human history is simply awash with incredible and important discoveries by people who paid dearly for their brilliance. Easy figures come to mind: Galileo had the impudence to suggest that the earth was not the center of the universe aka “Aristotelian cosmology”—but rather, we revolved around the sun—the “Copernican heliocentric system.” This led to his prosecution by the “Holy” Inquisition, as my dear Catholic Church pronounced Copernican Theory heretical. Let me also remind you that Nicolaus Copernicus himself, who explained his theory in six detailed volumes, fearing certain condemnation (and the likelihood of very “Holy” re-education) by the Church, instructed his students not to publish those six volumes until he was dead. Copernicus: brilliant and wisely torture-avoidant.

Why is it that, with our astounding scientific abilities to discover and publish the truth, we instead continue to seek refuge in “closely held beliefs?” Because that is the only way we can justify the agenda which retains power. So, although we know 2 + 2 = 4, we assert that we have a right to believe that it is 7, or 11, depending on outcome served by that belief. And we dismiss the importance of the true answer with impunity. Such dismissal necessarily imperils freedom and justice. Here are two great examples: The right to vote and the right to bear arms. We serve false truths in both cases to support political agendas.

Despite 20 years of intense studies of voter fraud by the Brennan Center for Justice which revealed 31 proven cases over a four-year period, during which 1 billion votes were cast, our leaders, clearly shocked by such lawlessness, are creating unnecessary and unwarranted hurdles to keep you-know-who’s from voting. (In fairness, the conservative Heritage Foundation brandishes a tally of 1,312 instances of voter fraud, but that list goes back to the early 1980s, covering perhaps 10 billion total ballots, and includes such shocking “violations” as helping someone fill out a ballot.) The creation of hurdles to voting is as shameful as it is transparent. But we don’t do “shame” anymore, do we? The famous psychologist Leon Festinger demonstrated that even when our theories are easily “disconfirmed,” we refuse to abandon them. Rather, we find ways to justify and adhere to them, finding comfort in fellow “believers.”

So, while addressing the “crisis” in voter integrity, this same leadership feels completely comfortable ignoring the carnage of mass shootings in America. Take for example, during the same fouryear period of voter lawlessness which produced 31 fraudulent votes, for each one of those 31 votes, over 1,500 U.S. inhabitants have been murdered by guns (not including suicides). Hard to justify voter fraud as a civic priority, wouldn’t you say? Voter integrity? How about Congress’ constitutional duty to ensure domestic tranquility?

“Sorry,” we’re told, “the Second Amendment says I get as many guns as I want.” And how do they reach that result? By also ignoring the conditional clause of the Second Amendment—requiring access to arms for a wellregulated militia, leaving only the unfettered right to bear arms. And where are the rightleaning “Originalists” in this, who say the constitution must be strictly interpreted based upon the circumstances existing when it was written—a time when we had no army, no AR-15s, and we needed those muskets to defend the nation with “well-regulated militias” (not “volunteer,” not “medium-” or “somewhat-”regulated, but “WELL-regulated”)? Actually, the Second Amendment is much more understandable with that clause: We don’t have wellregulated militias. So we pretend it’s invisible. Sigh…

In an age when facts are more accessible than ever, we appear free to create our own. We watch smart people say stupid things every day. And usually in the name of freedom. Freedom, to some, means: “My right to infect you supersedes your right NOT to be infected.” Well, if that’s true, I don’t think I need to stop at stoplights, or obey speed limits. Personal freedom, ya know. The long-held principle of constitutional law, i.e., that public health and safety supersedes individual freedoms, is a figment of the past.

I’m sure down through history our greatest minds have always faced such stupidity. For example, it was only around 150 years ago that British doctor Joseph Lister instituted hygienic practices. Lister understood that wounds made by accident or in surgery often resulted in infections—often called post-surgical “ward fever”. He, like Pasteur, believed that germs already existed in breath and on surfaces, and were not “spontaneously produced” by wounds.

As expected, many doctors didn’t believe in “germ theory” (“Do you see any germs? I don’t see any germs.”). Despite relentless proof of effectiveness (deaths by infections following surgery dropped from 80% to 0%) and extensive publication of his findings, sadly, his own English doctors were the last to accept these principles, more than 12 years after publication.

The long-held principle of constitutional law, i.e., that public health and safety supersedes individual freedoms, is a figment of the past.

Fortunately, I found a wonderful historical source which demonstrated this principle with other historical figures. Here are some glimpses into famous discoveries and their reception by the beneficiaries of their work:

Charles Babbage (1791-1871). Inventor of the first programmable computer. “Look, I’ve found a way to organize numbers for summation.”

Lord Sidmeuller. “But I have my own numbers. And a fine quill pen!”

Daniel Bernoulli (1700-1782). Discoverer of the Bernoulli Effect—how wings generate lift. “You see, air passing over these curved surfaces will cause them to rise.” Louie la Bete. “It will never fly… Where are the feathers?”

Euclid (c. 300 BC). Author of “Elements,” the most published mathematical work in history. “I can calculate for you the navigation you’ll need to travel to Cyprus.”

Qanonicus. “Begone. Math is for witches. I use this stick.”

Marie Sklodowska Curie (1867-1934). Polish-French physicist and chemist who won two Nobel Prizes and coined the term “radioactivity.” “I have developed mobile X-ray machines for our soldiers in the field and I’ve just discovered two new elements: polonium and radium.”

Dr. Moronique. “Sure you did. Now, run along and get me some bandages.”

We lawyers have pledged to serve justice, truth, and the rule of law. Get involved wherever you can. Take every opportunity to push back on deceit and trickery postured as “freedom.” We owe it to our nation, our solemn oaths, and ourselves to be proud that we stay on the right side of integrity… and history. You’ll probably sleep better.

As Galileo himself would urge us: Find the truth in yourself, and act upon it. Keep the faith. AL

The opinions expressed in the Entre Nous column are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the Austin Bar Association membership or the Austin Bar Association board of directors.