As I watched nearly five dozen eager graduates of the Los Angeles Police Academy throw their hats in the air celebrating their achievement, I knew these were the survivors of a rigorous training and their journey wasn't over.

Ahead of them would be a full year of supervised field training, and it’s unlikely all of them would make it through their probation.

It’s difficult to cut hard-working and hopeful probationers, but if an organization wants to create a culture of excellence, its gatekeepers (those in charge of hiring, training, retention, and promotion) must exercise clear-eyed objectivity and demonstrate unflinching courage by weeding out those who are unwilling or unable to excel.

In policing, as in many other fields, the stakes are simply too high to knowingly accept less. No one wants a surgeon, teacher, or cop with mediocre skills or shaky character.

Yet everywhere we see signs of declining standards. Public and private organizations regularly lower their expectations due to political expediency, misplaced loyalty, forced diversity, or perceived necessity. Adequacy has become the shifting standard defined as "the best we can get."

Two results are inevitable when we lower standards: The quality of service continually sinks as fewer people strive for the best within them, and mediocrity becomes the norm as good people move up and out, leaving behind a growing proportion of so-so performers.

Two results are inevitable when we insist on excellence: Performance increases as everyone does better than they otherwise would, and some people will be asked to leave.

Management can avoid its responsibility, but it can’t dodge the consequences of shirking it. Excellence is achievable, but not without sacrifice and discipline.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Posted by Josephson Institute Editor at 11:35 AM   | Permalink |  Comment (4)

Long ago, I entered law school wanting to do good. I left more concerned with doing well.

In an atmosphere dominated by raging competitive instincts, persuasive rationalizations, and real economic pressures, cynicism drowned out idealism. My notion of the legal system as a grand forum for the pursuit of truth and justice was reduced to the idea that, in the end, it was just an adversarial game with a less noble purpose: win!

But it’s not just lawyers who are vulnerable to mission drift.

The idealistic drive of people who enter politics to pursue their personal version of the public good can be crushed or converted by real politics. It’s not easy to solve complicated problems in a world dominated by clashing convictions, limited resources, outsized egos, and consuming personal ambitions. And so the acquisition and retention of power, initially the means to an end, becomes the end itself — the measure of success is winning.

If you’re involved in youth sports, you too may be the victim of mission drift.

Is youth sports really a recreational and educational activity designed to allow children to have fun and develop valuable life skills, or is it just an early field of combat teaching the lesson that, in the end, it’s just about winning?

These questions are probed in a challenging online assessment designed by Josephson Institute to identify the core beliefs and values of the parents who support their children’s involvement in sports and the coaches and other adults who administer the programs.

Visit Josephson Institute's Center for Sports Ethics to see how you measure up.

I suspect some of you will find a gap between your ideals and the reality you create or condone.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Posted by Josephson Institute Editor at 12:25 PM   | Permalink |  Comment (1)

I’ve expressed before my admiration and appreciation for police officers, who undertake the responsibility of serving and protecting the rest of us. But when I was invited to give a commencement address for police academy graduates, instead of talking about physical risks, I addressed the importance of safeguarding their character.

While some graduates fulfill a lifelong dream and look at police work as a calling, others perceive it as just a way to make a decent living. Yet no matter how people enter this unique profession, their perspective of human nature can become distorted by dealing with a disproportionate number of violent, dishonest, irresponsible, and disrespectful citizens.

In this world, even basically good people are often shown at their worst – all in the context of an imperfect criminal justice system. I suspect the average peace officer has three or more frustrating experiences for every fulfilling one.

Officers driven by a sense of service and a commitment to significance are more likely to perform their duties in an exemplary manner and to withstand pressures and temptations than those who think in terms of personal advancement and financial success. A one-in-four success rate can energize a missionary with hope; a three-in-four failure rate can overwhelm a mercenary with cynicism.

While this may be just another way of highlighting the difference between those who see a glass as half empty or half full, hidden in the observation is a profound insight: People who believe they can make a difference are always right.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Posted by Josephson Institute Editor at 11:22 AM   | Permalink |  Comment (3)

A foundational principle underlying the American legal system is “It’s better that 10 guilty men go free than one innocent person suffer.” Many provisions of the Constitution seek to prevent arbitrary detentions and unjust convictions.

Among them are prohibiting coercive interrogation and protecting the rights to a trial by jury, a speedy trial, attorney representation, witness cross-examination, and remaining silent. In addition, we require the government to prove a defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

This imposing array of prosecutorial hurdles is supplemented by habeas corpus, the right of every person to a court hearing to determine if confinement before trial is lawful.

Sadly, our commitment to the values underlying these legal procedures failed to withstand public fear and anger generated by the attack on Pearl Harbor. Under the banner of national security, more than 100,000 people of Japanese ancestry were confined in internment camps for three years without any hearing.

This is an important context to understand the controversy surrounding the recent split decision of the Supreme Court to grant prisoners at Guantanamo Bay the right to a habeas corpus hearing to determine whether the government has legitimate grounds to continue their confinement.

There are valid legal arguments about the applicability of the Constitution in this case, but the root of the issue is an ethical question about what we believe and what we stand for.

I hope we’ll have the courage to overcome our fears and stand by our historic commitment that every individual has the inherent right to be judged on facts, not fears, and evidence rather than suspicions.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Posted by Josephson Institute Editor at 9:32 AM   | Permalink |  Comment (6)

Law, Politics, and Principle.mp3

In preparing a comment on the legal and ethical issues emerging from the detention and interrogation of suspected terrorists held at the U.S. military base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, I was surprised at how hard it was to find positive quotations on American law and justice. After all, our laws and legal system, however imperfect, are among our most noble and admirable qualities.

Our greatest contribution to world civilization is the Constitution and Bill of Rights, documents deeply rooted in core moral values demanding respect for human dignity and the right to justice, due process, and maximum personal liberty.

Although the Founding Fathers did a magnificent job balancing public needs and individual rights, controversial judicial interpretations are inevitable.

Those who say they’re strict constructionists, for example, generally support laws outlawing obscenity, libel, and death threats instead of insisting that the First Amendment, which declares that “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech,” is absolute.

Similarly, while many people favor strict interpretation of the right to bear arms, they support Supreme Court interpretations limiting the right to exercise one’s religion by upholding laws against polygamy and animal sacrifice.

If sticking to the exact letter of the law is impractical or undesirable, therefore, what principles should guide the Court’s interpretation of laws that deal with claimed violations of civil and human rights by non-citizen detainees? Do such individuals have the right to challenge the legality of their confinement and harsh interrogation methods?

These are legal issues with huge political implications. They’re also ethical issues that will test our commitment to the underlying principles that define us – to ourselves and the world.

More on that tomorrow.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Posted by Josephson Institute Editor at 9:52 AM   | Permalink |  Comment (3)

Religious traditions and legal systems throughout the world agree that young children can’t be held guilty of sins or crimes because they don’t understand the moral consequences of their actions.

The age of accountability varies among religions and cultures. The Catholic Church puts the age at eight, when a child can participate in the sacrament of confession. In Judaism, boys at 13 and girls at 12 can become a bar or bat mitzvah and be held morally responsible for their actions.

In the Anglo-American legal system, a person must normally be 14 to be held criminally liable. In some traditional Latin-American cultures, a girl becomes an adult at 15.

In America, most children look at various age benchmarks in terms or rights or privileges -- they can drive at 16, smoke, vote, and serve in the military at 18, and drink alcohol at 21.

Religious “coming of age” traditions are more concerned with obligations and responsibilities.

Last week, my 12-year-old daughter Abrielle, in a solemn but joyous ceremony, formally left her childhood to accept the responsibilities of an adult. The essence of the bat mitzvah process, involving reading from the Torah, is accepting the moral duties prescribed by Jewish law. The Hebrew bat mitzvah means “one to whom the Commandments apply.”

Of course, moral duties are distinct from legal ones. As a former Justice of the Supreme Court said, “There’s a big difference between what you have a right to do and what is right to do.”

At a conference for lawyers, an attorney declared, “My job is to keep our clients out of jail.” When my turn came, I said, “My job is to keep them out of hell.”

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Posted by Webmaster at 9:29 AM   | Permalink |  Comment (4)

As I approach my 65th birthday, a milestone that can be generously described as the early stages of old age, I can’t help but reflect on all the unplanned turns my life has taken.

As a fourth grader, I was interviewed on the national TV show Kids Say the Darndest Things hosted by Art Linkletter. I said, "I want to be a lawyer because my mother says I talk so much I might as well get paid for it.”

My early ambition to become a wealthy lawyer was later replaced by the aspiration to become worthy lawyer. I wanted to be a fierce warrior for social justice.

Along the way, I was given an opportunity to teach law and I loved it. I derailed my trial law goals by happily spending my days learning, thinking, and writing about theoretical legal concepts and essential lawyering skills. I earned tenure (lifetime job security) before I was 30.

I specialized in "warrior" courses focusing on litigation and negotiation. My favorite saying was: "The law is what is boldly asserted and plausibly maintained."

As a sideline, I started a company to help students learn the law and pass the bar exam.

In 1976, the same year I became a father, I was assigned to teach legal ethics (this was the American Bar Association’s antidote to the Watergate scandal involving dozens of lawyers – after all, how would they know not to lie unless they had a course in law school?).

Together these experiences produced a new personal and professional life perspective. My fixation with teaching lawyers how to do what they could do was replaced by a desire to teach how to know what they should do. My new motto was, "There’s a big difference between what you have a right to do and what is right to do."

About ten years later, I sold my business and left the groves of academe to found the nonprofit Joseph & Edna Josephson Institute of Ethics to honor my parents, the beginning of another journey full of unexpected turns.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Posted by Josephson Institute Editor at 9:49 AM   | Permalink |  Comment (3)

As a former law professor, I know all about loopholes. I trained young attorneys to find omissions and ambiguities in wording to find legal ways to evade the clear intent of contracts and laws. Although I’m not any more, I used to be comfortable with this technique. After all, that’s what lawyers are paid to do. And despite public disdain for lawyers, it’s precisely what most clients want and expect when they hire one.

The fact is, long-standing traditional assumptions about the adversary system do justify the search for and use of legal loopholes. But strategies to evade the spirit of promises and laws put our integrity on a slippery slope.

Farther down that slope is the willingness to fabricate facts, lie about true intent, or falsely deny knowing or remembering things. These are fundamentally lies. They are dishonest and unethical in litigation, business transactions, and personal relations.

For example, a common ploy to evade limits on campaign contributions is to donate funds in the name of minor children. But falsely representing that the children actually exercised control and independent judgment isn’t just being clever, it’s fraud. The same is true for workers who falsely claim to be sick to take a day off work or to evade no-strike laws, parents who misrepresent their address to get their child in a better school or fudge their child’s age to qualify for a discount, and executives who backdate documents.

Exploiting loopholes is bad enough, but lying crosses the line.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Posted by Webmaster at 12:30 PM   | Permalink |  Comment (2)

When young children cover their eyes so they can’t see you, they think you actually aren’t there anymore. This misconception persists in many adults who think problems will go away if they refuse to see them.

History has shown otherwise. Ignored concerns don’t go away; they generally get worse.

Thus, willful blindness to incompetence, corruption, or irresponsibility usually leads to catastrophe. We've seen that in the scandals plaguing corporate America, Congress, and even the Catholic Church.

And yet our political leaders continue to ignore the blaring alarm warning sounded by the Paris Hilton fiasco.

The simple, indisputable fact is, for nearly two decades a shortage of jails and prisons in California has resulted in the systematic early release of convicted people who the courts said should remain behind bars.

According to the Los Angeles Times, the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department, coping with shortage of space, has released more than 200,000 inmates early in just the last five years including "some who ended up committing murders and other serious crimes when they otherwise would have been behind bars."

The Times reported that "Many of those released had felony convictions and a history of violence and gang activity. Sixteen men released early were later charged with committing murders when they should have still been behind bars. At least seven have been convicted in those slayings."

How early are convicts released? The original sentence is almost automatically reduced to half for good behavior, and the Sheriff’s office said it’s not uncommon to release inmates after they’ve served 10 percent of their already reduced sentence.

Either the original sentences are irrationally long or the release policy is irrationally foolish and dangerous.

We can avoid facing our responsibilities, but we can’t avoid the consequences of avoiding our responsibilities.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Posted by Josephson Institute Editor at 1:21 PM   | Permalink |  Comment (0)

Is there anything useful we can we learn from the recent jailing, release, and re-jailing of Paris Hilton? Surely, the media’s proven penchant to pander to the American public’s insatiable hunger for nutritionless news was no surprise.

What did you make of the fact that both sides of the case based their positions on the principle of equality: the rich and powerful should be treated no differently than the poor and obscure.

The prosecutor and judge, fortified by overwhelming public support, passionately evoked this notion in insisting that a spoiled and pampered millionaire who repeatedly thumbed her nose at the law serve her 45-day jail sentence.

In opposition, Ms. Hilton, her lawyers, and the Los Angeles County Sheriff claimed the equal treatment principle required leniency. First, the Sheriff pointed out (and he should know) that Ms. Hilton’s sentence was much greater than would have been given to a non-celebrity in identical circumstances.

Second -- and here’s the really significant revelation – any other female given a 45-day sentence (automatically cut to 23 days for good behavior) would only serve three days since the Sheriff has for years coped with the unconstitutional overcrowding of the jail system by reducing the time served to about 10 percent of court-imposed sentences.

That’s right, folks. You don’t need money or power to get out of jail free (or almost). Paris Hilton should pay the consequences of her defiance of the law, but so should everyone else.

The most important thing to come out of this media circus is a loud alarm waking us up to the ugly facts that most jail sentences in Los Angeles are a sham and that judges, politicians, and the public keep looking the other way.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Posted by Josephson Institute Editor at 1:17 PM   | Permalink |  Comment (0)

First Paris Hilton, now Lewis Scooter Libby. What’s the world coming to? The rich and powerful are being sent to jail – Hilton three weeks (she was released from jail after five days and is now serving house arrest) for violating probation and driving on a suspended license and Libby 30 months for obstructing a federal investigation.

Does this mark a new era of accountability, an end to automatic community service and probation? I hope so. I take no pleasure in the incarceration of either of these notable lawbreakers, but I think it’s a good thing.

It all started with Martha Stewart’s one-year jail sentence for lying to investigators. Thereafter, we’ve seen a parade of handcuffed multimillionaires go to prison for precedent-setting long terms:

• 25 years for WorldCom’s former chairman Bernie Ebbers
• 25 years for Tyco’s former CEO Dennis Kozlowski and his CFO Mark Schwartz
• 24 years for Enron’s leader Jeff Skilling and 10 for his CFO Andy Fastow (who got leniency in return for testifying against his colleagues)
• 20 years for Adelphia’s former CFO Timothy Rigas and 15 for his octogenarian father John Rigas, who founded the company
• 18 years for former Westar Energy’s CEO David Wittig

What good does it do to lock up these rich and formerly powerful executives? There are two benefits. First, punishment serves justice and vindicates the law. Second, it deters others from breaking the law.

Let there be no doubt, sending Paris Hilton, Scooter Libby, and all those corrupt businessmen to prison sounds a very loud warning siren to others who have lied, or might think they are above the law by lying, to investigators or investors.

Character should be what motivates people toward virtue, but sometimes we need coercion.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Posted by Josephson Institute Editor at 11:31 AM   | Permalink |  Comment (0)

So, what do you think of President Bush’s decision to commute Scooter Libby’s jail sentence?

Passions run high and, predictably, it’s political ideology, not objective reasoning, that dominates most opinions. How else can you explain the fact that every prominent Republican supports the decision while their Democratic counterparts call it a betrayal of public trust? Reasoning seems to start and end with one fact – is it my guy or their guy?

Although I have over the last ten years struggled to be objective and avoid political labels, every time I venture into the arena of politics, I receive letters from previously loyal listeners who decide I’m no longer worth listening to because they now identify me as an ideological enemy.

So why comment and risk a label? What can I add? Perhaps this: Politics is not an amoral venture. Its practice will be judged in terms of ethical principles, not who you want to win.

Justice and the rule of law must transcend politics, and it’s a violation of public power to use the law to help political friends or punish enemies. Although the political implications of the Libby trial were obvious, he was convicted of lying and obstructing justice by a jury. The sentence was imposed by a judge appointed by the President after an extensive and expensive investigation and trial conducted by a special prosecutor.

Blatant political intervention reinforces the cynical perspective that justice is about who you know, not what you did.

It’s a cruel irony that the reporter who tried to protect Libby’s identity was sent to jail while Mr. Libby, a convicted felon, will never spend a day behind bars.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Posted by Josephson Institute Editor at 2:30 PM   | Permalink |  Comment (0)

As I watched nearly five dozen eager graduates of the Los Angeles Police Academy throw their hats in the air celebrating their achievement, I knew these were the survivors of a rigorous training and their journey was not over.

Ahead of them is a full year of supervised field training, and it’s unlikely all of them will make it through their probation.

It’s difficult to cut hard-working and hopeful probationers, but if an organization wants to create a culture of excellence, its gatekeepers (those in charge of hiring, training, retention, and promotion) must exercise clear-eyed objectivity and demonstrate unflinching courage by weeding out those who are unwilling or unable to be excellent.

In policing and many other fields, the stakes are simply too high to knowingly accept less. No one wants a surgeon, teacher, or cop with marginal or mediocre skills or shaky character.

Yet everywhere we see signs of declining standards. Public and private organizations regularly lower their expectations due to political expediency, misplaced loyalty, forced diversity, or perceived necessity. Adequacy has become the shifting standard defined as "the best we can get."

Two results are inevitable when we lower standards: The quality of service continually sinks as fewer people strive for the best within them, and mediocrity becomes the norm as good people move up and out, leaving behind a growing proportion of so-so performers.

Two results are inevitable when we insist on excellence: Performance increases as everyone does better than they otherwise would, and some people will be asked to leave.

Management can avoid its responsibility, but it can’t dodge the consequences of shirking it. Excellence is achievable, but not without sacrifice and discipline.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

To receive my commentaries by e-mail at no charge, visit www.CharacterCounts.org.

Posted by Josephson Institute Editor at 3:20 PM   | Permalink |  Comment (0)

In 1958 President Dwight D. Eisenhower declared May 1st Law Day to honor our legal heritage, the role of law, and the rights and duties that are the foundation of our unique Constitutional democracy. This is a good time in our history to do that.

It's popular to express disdain for the law and for the many rules that regulate our daily lives -- "They make no sense." "They're wrong-headed." "Rules are made to be broken." Sadly, even our own government has occasionally evaded, bent, and broken laws to achieve a perceived "greater good."

These attitudes are short-sighted and dangerous.

Some people object to laws, which in our system include court interpretation, because ordinances install policies with which they disagree. To be sure, some laws are out of date, poorly worded, and badly conceived. Many are inconvenient.

These shortcomings, however, are inherent in the concept of a dynamic democracy governing a diverse population with conflicting views on what's right and wise. Without respect for the law, our society could devolve into constantly warring factions where physical power rather than popular vote would win the day.

Laws, including those that flow from our Constitution and Bill of Rights, establish standards of behavior needed to create a just, humane, and respectful society. They not only tell us what to do, they tell us who we are.

Rules define our expectations as well as our standards of right and wrong. Whether we're playing a game or trying to run a family, school, company, or community, clear and specific rules backed up by consistent and just enforcement make our lives more fair, efficient, and safe. And I'm all for them.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Posted by Josephson Institute Editor at 4:22 PM   | Permalink |  Comment (0)

Cynicism about the ethics of elected officials may be at an all-time high, continually fueled by new stories of outright corruption or bad judgment. At every level of government there are politicians who can’t seem to recognize or resist conflicts of interest, inappropriate gifts, improper use of the power or property entrusted to them, or the discrediting impact of shameful private conduct.

Thus, it’s no surprise that news media are continually shining light on real and perceived improprieties and putting the heat on federal, state, and city legislatures to pass new and tougher ethics laws to restore public trust.

The phrase "ethics laws" is peculiar because it marries two very different concepts. Ethics refers to standards of right and wrong, how a person should behave according to moral principles such as honesty, fairness, responsibility, and respect. Living ethically is a matter of conscience. Unethical conduct results in shame and perhaps criticism, scandal, or disgrace.

While ethics is about should, laws are about must. They prohibit or mandate specific conduct. Obeying the law is a matter of compliance, and illegal conduct results in sanctions including fines and imprisonment.

Ethics laws meld the two concepts. They both require conduct such as open meetings and disclosure of financial interests and forbid transactions that could compromise the integrity of government. Because of a high tendency of those regulated to evade the spirit and purpose of such laws, statutes have become more complex and technical.

Historically, legislative bodies have been reactive rather than proactive, doing only what they absolutely must. Thus, existing laws often are a hodgepodge of regulations designed to prevent
reoccurrence of specific past improprieties. That’s a big part of the problem.

What we need is nonpartisan statesmanship and visionary leadership willing to face up to the fact that relying on the individual judgment of each elected official is a failed strategy that guarantees a continuous flow of scandals that discredits their institutions and even the enterprise of democratic government itself.

While I wish more emphasis was placed on character rather than compliance, the raw reality is that voters do not consistently demand scrupulous integrity as evidenced by the re-election of people severely stained by scandal.

It’s often said you can’t legislate morality. This is true. But we can require moral conduct. Ethics laws don’t make people ethical, but they do deter unethical conduct. And that’s an important first step.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Posted by Webmaster at 1:23 PM   | Permalink |  Comment (0)

As I watched nearly five dozen eager graduates of the Los Angeles Police Academy throw their hats in the air celebrating their achievement, I knew these were the survivors of a rigorous training and their journey was not over.

Ahead of them is a full year of supervised field training, and it’s unlikely all of them will make it through their probation.

It’s difficult to cut hard-working and hopeful probationers, but if an organization wants to create a culture of excellence, its gatekeepers (those in charge of hiring, training, retention and promotion) must exercise clear-eyed objectivity and demonstrate unflinching courage by weeding out those who are unwilling or unable to be excellent.

In policing, and many other fields, the stakes are simply too high to knowingly accept less. No one wants a surgeon, teacher or cop with marginal or mediocre skills or shaky character.

Yet everywhere we see signs of declining standards. Public and private organizations regularly lower their expectations due to political expediency, misplaced loyalty, forced diversity or perceived necessity. Adequacy has become the shifting standard defined as "the best we can get."

Two results are inevitable when we lower standards: The quality of service continually sinks as fewer people strive for the best within them, and mediocrity becomes the norm as good people move up and out, leaving behind a growing proportion of so-so performers.

Two results are inevitable when we insist on excellence: Performance increases as everyone does better than they otherwise would, and some people will be asked to leave. Management can avoid its responsibility, but it can’t dodge the consequences of shirking it. Excellence is achievable, but not without sacrifice and discipline.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Posted by Josephson Institute Editor at 2:38 PM   | Permalink |  Comment (0)

I was just honored to deliver an invocation at the Los Angeles Police Academy. As I shook the hand of the graduates, I could feel their earnestness and eagerness to begin their careers protecting and serving the community and being worthy of the pride and confidence of their families, instructors and classmates.

I don’t think many citizens realize how complicated, demanding and dangerous policing is in today’s world.

TV and movie stereotypes depict it as full of high-speed chases, shootouts, fistfights and roughing up bad guys. We see "one-man-army" avengers who take on incredible odds and "rules-are-made-to-be broken, make-my-day" rebels who flaunt laws and disobey orders.

In fact, professional policing values intelligence over impulse. It requires a high degree of problem-solving and communication skills (often in two languages), self-discipline and unwavering respect for the law.

There’s simply no room for irresponsible, insubordinate or emotionally self-indulgent individuals. Most movie cop heroes would be fired or imprisoned in real life.

The job has changed so much that professional policing associations have changed their designation from "law-enforcement officers" to "peace officers" to better reflect the array of tasks the modern officer performs.

Law enforcement -- chasing criminals, interrogating suspects, making searches and arrests and testifying in court -- represents only a fraction of what peace officers do. Most of their time is spent helping people in other ways, including resolving disputes, dispensing advice, taking reports, regulating crowds and traffic and aiding persons in danger or distress.

Yet despite this commitment to service, these fresh-faced newbies will have to endure physical dangers, verbal abuse and continual criticism. It’s a very tough job, and they deserve our appreciation and support.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Posted by Josephson Institute Editor at 2:33 PM   | Permalink |  Comment (1)

If you use the Internet, I bet you have at least one friend who sends you regular e-mails reporting stuff they think is interesting or funny. I’m on quite a few distribution lists and often enjoy and benefit from the information. Unfortunately, as I’ve reported before, much of it is false.

Take, for example, an e-mail that’s been circulating for years summarizing outrageous lawsuits like the man who supposedly set his 32-foot Winnebago on cruise control, left the driver’s seat to brew a cup of coffee, crashed, then sued Winnebago for not having a warning against the dangers of walking away from the wheel. According to the false story, he won an award of $1,750,000 plus a new motor home.

There’s a humorous quality to these stories of the legal system run amok, but the real purpose is to confirm broadly held prejudices against lawyers and support arguments for tort reform.

Barbara Mikkelson at Snopes.com, a great website for sorting fact from fiction, points out that these cases are carefully crafted with realistic detail to convince the reader they are true. She then offers an excellent summary of the underlying issue.

"Tort reform has advocates and adversaries," she says. "On one hand, we bridle at the thought of the terminally clueless being rewarded for their folly -- that strikes us as just plain wrong. We also fear for the continued well-being of the small- to mid-sized business that can ill afford to fend off one frivolous lawsuit after another and thus stand in danger of being litigated to death.

"On the other hand, we don’t want to see those who have legitimate cause denied their right to sue for an appropriate amount. We also don’t want to see corporations free to turn out whatever dangerous product they like because the combination of capped awards and their deep pockets render them bulletproof."

Her conclusion: "It’s a complicated issue, not made easier by fake cases of horrendous miscarriages of justice. One has to wonder why someone is so busy trying to stir up outrage and who or what that outrage would ultimately benefit."

My conclusion: Truth does matter, and it’s the responsibility of people of character to identify and reject sources willing to lie to make their point.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Continue reading "Ridiculous Lies About Ridiculous Lawsuits 468.3" »

Posted by Josephson Institute Editor at 9:06 AM   | Permalink |  Comment (0)

Our nation was conceived by idealistic and courageous political leaders, but it was created by the immense and immeasurable sacrifice of thousands of soldiers who fought and died to transform the democratic principles embodied in the Declaration of Independence into a country we proudly call the United States of America.

Foremost among these principles is this profound and poetic proposition: "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." This is what our flag stands for and, over our history, what more than 600,000 men and women have died for.

Unfortunately, democracy is neither neat nor easy. Thus, whenever our leaders have sent American warriors to fight under our flag, there has been controversy about their policies. It’s every American’s right, and possibly patriotic duty, to stand up and be counted on such momentous issues. The hard thing is to do so with humility, remembering that even the long lens of history does not always reveal clear truth about the propriety of a war.

This Memorial Day occurs in the midst of continual news of fresh wounds and fatalities suffered by men and women who put their lives at risk doing their duty to defend our safety and ideals. I have been, and remain, a critic of our policies and practices in Iraq, but there should be no controversy about our duty to be unified in devotion to and support of our troops. While enjoying your holiday, please find some time to express unconditional gratitude and reverence for their noble service.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Posted by Josephson Institute Editor at 3:41 PM   | Permalink |  Comment (0)

When I was young, it was important and natural to have heroes, people to look up to and admire. And I had plenty. I admired cowboys, baseball players and presidents. But by the time I got to college I looked at the world through a more cynical lens. I was taught that everyone had flaws and that hero-worship was naive. The white-hat warrior for truth and justice was replaced by the antihero, the flawed but interesting character motivated by crass but very human motives.

This cynicism still darkens our worldview and today many young people don't have heroes. Instead they admire -- even worship -- celebrities, superstars and manipulative winners of televised elimination contests. Consequently, today's American idols often fall short of American ideals, and no one seems to care.

Cynics think their negative worldview is just an accurate reflection of the way things are; idealists are naïve and foolish. Yet cynicism is more of a delusion than optimism. Sure, there are and always will enough examples of human weakness to justify despair, but there is and always has been more strength than weakness. And when light confronts darkness, light always wins.

Our world is full of everyday heroes. And I don't just mean folks who risk their lives in great acts of valor. Every man and woman who overcomes temptations and fear to live a noble and worthy life is a hero. Everyone who chooses to light a candle rather than the curse the darkness is a hero.

Well, there are lots of parents, teachers and coaches as well as cops, soldiers and firefighters who are lighting candles. Turn off the TV news for awhile and take a moment to identify and appreciate them. Then dedicate yourself to becoming one of them.

This is Michael Josephson, reminding you that character counts.

Posted by Webmaster at 12:35 PM   | Permalink |  Comment (0)

There are great similarities between high-level sports and the practice of law, especially regarding the gap in both fields between ideals and realities. The ideals of sports are embodied in the concept of sportsmanship and notions like fair play and respect for opponents in the pursuit of athletic excellence. The ideals of law are similar in the pursuit of truth and justice.

Yet the reality is that too many athletes and attorneys disregard these ideals in the blind and ambitious pursuit of victory. Striving mightily to win is not the problem. It's wanting to win so badly that principles of decency, ethics and honor are ignored. It's the brazen adoption of gamesmanship strategies and the "whatever it takes to win" attitude that's the problem. It's valuing cleverness so highly that those who get away with breaking or bending rules are admired. So athletes fake fouls and taunt or illegally hold opponents, while lawyers assert groundless claims, confuse honest witnesses and use delay.

Gamesmanship tactics are so prevalent that some find it hard to imagine anyone being effective without them. But that's self-serving nonsense. Many people in both fields believe that no victory is real or worthy if it's achieved without honor.

The game of sports is about playing by the rules, not fooling referees or intimidating opponents. And law is not a game at all. The high road is not the easier road, but it's the only road for a person of character.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Posted by Webmaster at 3:02 PM   | Permalink |  Comment (0)