Lying, Part One
I grew up on a farm at the end of a dirt road, ten miles from the nearest town. A number of years ago, the state in its wisdom decided to build a big prison (actually two big prisons) some three miles north of my parents' farm, down an unused dirt road. The prison would be in the country, more or less. Escaping prisoners could zip right up that unused road and find a number of isolated farmhouses, including my parents', within easy walking distance.
At public meetings, the proponents of the prison talked about what would happen should a prisoner ever escape (which of course, would be totally unlikely). We would have a rapid warning system, they said. We would call every single house in this specific radius; we would inform everyone quickly and efficiently; there would be no real danger.
What if that doesn't happen, my father asked. What if there are escaped prisoners headed our way and we have no idea? It will happen, the officials told him in reassuring tones, because we say it will and we're, you know, officials. Don't be so emotional, they said. How can we make progress here if you're not going to be rational?
The prison, of course, was built. Prisoners were trucked in by the busload from distant cities where the actual crimes had been committed.
Over time, prisoners have escaped. No calls get made. The prison tries to find them quick, like a bunny, before anyone finds out. Calls come unofficially from prison guards whose families live near by. But the official notification, the swift and efficient honesty, never comes. The promise isn't kept.
What do you do when people lie right out to your face? How do you have a rational conversation? If you suggest that maybe, perhaps, what these excellent people are saying isn't actually what's going to happen, they play the emotion card.
Emotion is not the opposite of rational; it's another field of response altogether. It is possible to be both rational and passionate. It's possible that rational calm consideration of differing points of view, of facts in evidence, and of your own experiences are the reason you're passionate in the first place.
A lot of people who profess to be all about freedom and democracy, don't want to deal with the people. They can't allow the process to work because the people might decide they don't want whatever it is that the project's proponents are trying to shove down their throats. It's the equivalent of scientists who say, people don't understand what we're trying to do here, never considering that maybe 'people' do understand. And they don't agree with it.
And so what happens is that officials or company reps spout an official line and don't really listen to the questions and they get huffy when the questioners, with real issues on the line, keep asking the same questions over and over. When you know human nature and the risk-aversion of organizations and how much is unspoken in the way the organizations work, it's beyond frustrating to try to have a reasonable discussion. If only one side is honest and the other side is not, things never turn out well.
Honesty. It's a choice.