Did you view Gary Trudeau's Sunday Doonesbury cartoon? It contains a very anecdotic phrase. Discussing the Bush
Library, one Doonesbury character suggests that the library will also be a "think tank", to which others respond that it will be
a "belief tank", defined as a think tank without the doubt.
I have always thought that most law practices represent think tanks without the prestige. After all, what do we do -- sell donuts? No, we do not sell a product. We do not so much sell a service. We primarily consider the laws, the position of those laws in society, and how those laws effect the public. We rationalize. We role play. We help our clients make it through the cerebral maze that confronts them. We test and we push the thought process.
Or, do we?
Could it be that most of us are not that neutral in our thinking? We are not swayed by the facts that apply to the law as they vary in each case? We believe what we believe and we sell our legal services accordingly. We know we are right in a particular area of the law, we sell it one way, and we have a big, big chip on our shoulder daring everyone, anyone to knock it off? After all, as said by George Bush, we are the deciders. Maybe many of us are operating a "belief tank", or a "think tank without the doubt"? Maybe many of us have drunk the cool-aid? Maybe many of us are true believers?
Just a thought.
Comments