Years ago, I was involved in an angry dispute between management and six new employees. I was one of the six new employees. A few months after we were hired, we all realized that many of the things we had been promised simply were not going to happen. As a consequence, every single one of us submitted our resignations.
The CEO of the company quickly summoned us to a meeting, and asked about our grievances. He seemed sympathetic, and quite surprised that the company had lied to us and completely failed to fulfill their obligations. He agreed that we would all be justified in quitting, but asked what it would take to get us to stay. Surprised, we began to lay out our demands. After each demand, he would agree that it was reasonable, and turn to his second-in-command and instruct him to make it happen. Eventually, we all agreed to stay, and walked out of the meeting quite pleased with all that we had gained.
Days went by. Days turned to weeks, and weeks turned to months. NOTHING CHANGED. Not one of our demands was ever met; nothing that the CEO agreed to ever actually happened.
To this day, I do not know what transpired. All of us eventually left. I do not know whether we were consciously deceived, more than once, or if the CEO truly BELIEVED the changes would be made at the time he agreed to them, and then decided against it. Or perhaps the CEO's instructions were never carried out. I truly don't know. Looking back, it has taken on a dream-like quality. It's hard to believe they would agree to ALL of our demands, yet fulfill NONE of them.
Intentional or not, it was an amazing strategy. We entered the meeting disappointed, disgusted, and truly ready to quit. We left the meeting feeling happy, even elated, and ready to resume our duties with renewed vigor. We truly felt that someone had listened, and we had "won", despite all later evidence to the contrary.
When I tell other people about this incident, they seem shocked, even disbelieving, but I have come to conclude it is a variation on a fairly common occurence. Perhaps a more blatant version, but still, something that occurs commonly, and not just in negotiations.
Psychologically, it's much more complicated than simply broken promises. We went from being frustrated, disappointed, angry, and ready for a fight, to being pleased, relaxed, and feeling quite victorious. The fact that these feelings eventually were proved to be unjustified did not completely wipe them away, and the old feelings of anger never completely returned. Actually, it goes back to the idea of "cooling the mark out" -- making the victim of a con feel less bad about being victimized.
I have witnessed the same phenomenon at modern slot machines, when flashing lights and ringing bells convince the gambler that he or she has "won" -- when perhaps the gambler has "won" two cents on a forty-or-fifty cent bet.
Recently, my mind keeps returning to this idea as I watch President Obama, and especially as I watch videos of President Obama from months and years past. Somehow, President Obama seems almost immune from the charge of "broken promises". Instead, he seems to be able to make people feel, at least on some level, that he has done exactly what he said he WOULD do, or at least to feel good about his promises.
For example, he has repeatedly pledged "openness", promising that his administration would be the most open, transparent in history. Objectively, his administration has been one of the least open, at least in recent memory -- but on some level, people remain pleased about his openness. He SAID he would be open, therefore he IS open.
A more specific example: During his first Presidential campaign, he pledged that all potential legislation would be published on the internet for public review days before it was passed. This pledge has simply been ignored, yet on some level President Obama still gets credit for making the pledge.
Especially frustrating to me is the fact that President Obama routinely stresses that there is general agreement about ideas when the ideas are in fact hotly debated and controversial. On some level, the public accepts his statement regarding widespread agreement, just as they accept his repeated claims of a "balanced" approach to solving problems, when in fact his approach is generally totally one-sided.
Perhaps I should be looking back at my earlier thoughts regarding stranded travelers. Perhaps, since there is nothing anyone can DO about the Obama administration, it simply comes down to a choice of being unhappy, or trying to be as happy as possible in a bad situation -- and people are choosing to overlook the disappointing, disturbing facts and instead be happy with promises and misstatements. Examined from that angle, I don't suppose I should criticize anyone for trying to make the best of a bad Presidency.
Truth is complicated.
Wednesday, May 21, 2014
Tuesday, May 13, 2014
Donald Sterling
There's a lot going on in the world right now. I suppose there always is, but this seems to be a particularly dangerous and deadly time, with natural disasters and international unrest. Recently, however, most American news outlets -- newspapers, radio, television, internet -- have included a notable degree of focus on the fallout from the released tape of a private telephone conversation. In the conversation, the wealthy owner of a sports team made comments involving race.
Since the tape was released to the national media -- at this point, the precise details of how and why the tape was made and distributed are murky -- the owner of the team has been universally condemned as racist. Among other punishments, he will be fined, and forced to sell his basketball team. The story has been front-page news on every newspaper, and covered on most radio and television news broadcasts, with the media in a virtual frenzy. By some accounts, the team owner has become the most despised man in America.
Only recently, many days after the story first "broke", have people begun to question the motivations of the person who apparently secretly made and released the tape -- an act which was quite possibly illegal. Still, the overwhelming amount of criticism is reserved not for the person who made and released the tape, but for the person who made the comments.
ANY conversation involving race has become a dangerous minefield. Curiously, the people speaking most freely about this incident on national television are the comedians. All others are simply jumping on the bandwagon of condemning the man and his comments without delving too deeply into the details.
If I was a public figure, or ever hoped to run for political office, or ever hoped to be hired for a job, I would be afraid to write what I am about to write. I am NOT defending the man or his comments, but my words could be twisted to claim that I was.
The fact is that we are dealing with comments made in a private phone conversation between two people. The man was NOT making a speech, or writing a book, article, or blog, or posting to Facebook. He was simply having a conversation. He did not say anything threatening. He did not lie. He did not slander or libel. He stated horribly-unpopular opinions in what he believed was a private phone conversation. (To be honest, I have not paid much attention to precisely what he said. It was a private phone conversation. It's none of my business.)
This is dangerously close to punishing someone for their thoughts. Actually, I suppose punishing someone for their opinions -- opinions rather than actions -- IS punishing them for their thoughts. (In this particular case, people point out that the team owner had a history of racism, and had actually been charged with racial discrimination in the past -- but the fact remains that at this time he is being punished NOT for past misdeeds, but for this particular conversation.)
The idea of punishing someone for their thoughts, no matter how reprehensible and disturbing those thoughts are, is, to me, even MORE reprehensible and disturbing. I believe that the greatest hope for solving our problems and living in a certain degree of harmony with each other comes from COMMUNICATION. Anything that interferes with that communication, or discourages that communication, poses a threat to our very survival.
I will close with a quote from the great folksinger Arlo Guthrie, whose father Woody Guthrie is perhaps best known for the song, "This Land is Your Land." In a live performance, Arlo stated, "... when people start bein' afraid that they're going to lose a job or lose some of this or that because of what they've got to say, it's gonna start to get dangerous. It's better to say the wrong thing than to feel like you ought not to say anything."
We cannot solve our problems by making people afraid to address them. We cannot bring about racial harmony by making people afraid to mention race. We cannot control our thoughts and opinions, we cannot force others to conform with our thoughts and opinions, and we should not punish others for their thoughts and opinions.
Truth is complicated.
Since the tape was released to the national media -- at this point, the precise details of how and why the tape was made and distributed are murky -- the owner of the team has been universally condemned as racist. Among other punishments, he will be fined, and forced to sell his basketball team. The story has been front-page news on every newspaper, and covered on most radio and television news broadcasts, with the media in a virtual frenzy. By some accounts, the team owner has become the most despised man in America.
Only recently, many days after the story first "broke", have people begun to question the motivations of the person who apparently secretly made and released the tape -- an act which was quite possibly illegal. Still, the overwhelming amount of criticism is reserved not for the person who made and released the tape, but for the person who made the comments.
ANY conversation involving race has become a dangerous minefield. Curiously, the people speaking most freely about this incident on national television are the comedians. All others are simply jumping on the bandwagon of condemning the man and his comments without delving too deeply into the details.
If I was a public figure, or ever hoped to run for political office, or ever hoped to be hired for a job, I would be afraid to write what I am about to write. I am NOT defending the man or his comments, but my words could be twisted to claim that I was.
The fact is that we are dealing with comments made in a private phone conversation between two people. The man was NOT making a speech, or writing a book, article, or blog, or posting to Facebook. He was simply having a conversation. He did not say anything threatening. He did not lie. He did not slander or libel. He stated horribly-unpopular opinions in what he believed was a private phone conversation. (To be honest, I have not paid much attention to precisely what he said. It was a private phone conversation. It's none of my business.)
This is dangerously close to punishing someone for their thoughts. Actually, I suppose punishing someone for their opinions -- opinions rather than actions -- IS punishing them for their thoughts. (In this particular case, people point out that the team owner had a history of racism, and had actually been charged with racial discrimination in the past -- but the fact remains that at this time he is being punished NOT for past misdeeds, but for this particular conversation.)
The idea of punishing someone for their thoughts, no matter how reprehensible and disturbing those thoughts are, is, to me, even MORE reprehensible and disturbing. I believe that the greatest hope for solving our problems and living in a certain degree of harmony with each other comes from COMMUNICATION. Anything that interferes with that communication, or discourages that communication, poses a threat to our very survival.
I will close with a quote from the great folksinger Arlo Guthrie, whose father Woody Guthrie is perhaps best known for the song, "This Land is Your Land." In a live performance, Arlo stated, "... when people start bein' afraid that they're going to lose a job or lose some of this or that because of what they've got to say, it's gonna start to get dangerous. It's better to say the wrong thing than to feel like you ought not to say anything."
We cannot solve our problems by making people afraid to address them. We cannot bring about racial harmony by making people afraid to mention race. We cannot control our thoughts and opinions, we cannot force others to conform with our thoughts and opinions, and we should not punish others for their thoughts and opinions.
Truth is complicated.
Monday, May 5, 2014
Unintended Consequences
Today I read an article on the internet regarding a sex discrimination lawsuit. This is the first time I had heard of this particular lawsuit, and all of my information comes from that one long, detailed article. From the article, it's impossible for me to discern whether or not the lawsuit is justified. A woman worked for a large corporation, rising through the ranks to a vice president there, and earning over a million dollars per year. The article states that in her final year employed with the company, she reported fourteen million dollars of income, including stock options that she cashed in.
In going over the paperwork after the company was sold, the woman realized that a man who had previously worked for the company -- a man she identifies as her "predecessor" -- earned significantly more money than she did. The company contends, however, that the man's job was different than the job occupied by the woman, involving far more responsibility, and that both the man and the woman were paid fairly for the particular duties that they performed. The company further contends that the woman was paid a salary similar to what she would have been paid for performing the same duties with a different company. The woman disagrees, and argues that throughout her employment with the company she was subjected to different treatment than the male employees.
From the information available to me, I have no idea whether or not the lawsuit is justified. It's always difficult to compare the pay of two different employees, since employees rarely have precisely the same qualifications, backgrounds, and talents, and since employees rarely perform precisely the same jobs. I think that most people would agree that two identically-qualified and identically-capable people performing the same job in the same region at the same time deserve the same pay, regardless of gender -- but in the real world, there are an infinite number of variables that complicate the issue.
What strikes me, however, was my initial response after reading the article. I immediately thought to myself, "Under the circumstances, it would be a foolish risk for a major corporation to hire a woman, if they could find a man that could perform the job just as well. Why would any corporation open themselves up to the risk of a sex discrimination lawsuit? It would be irresponsible."
I am not proud of these thoughts, and believe that a person's gender should have no role in hiring decisions. At the same time, it's difficult to argue with my initial reaction to the article. Why WOULD a corporation take the risk of hiring a woman, when the risk could be avoided by simply not hiring her in the first place? Of course, then there is the risk of being sued for not hiring her. Here again, since no two people are precisely identical, it's always difficult to say which candidate is truly the best for the job.
I can take some solace in realizing that I will never be involved in the hiring/firing decisions for any company. I have never had any employees, and probably never will. In terms of the people that I pay to perform tasks -- people like doctors and lawyers and barbers -- I have dealt with both men and women in each role, and I have never been aware of their gender playing any role in the job performance, or in the fees I have paid them. Crucially, though, all of these people set their own fees, or at least, they send me a bill, and I pay it. I do not decide how much their job is worth.
Still, I keep coming back to my response to the article. After reading the article, it truly DOES seem irresponsible to even CONSIDER hiring a woman for an important position, and therefore risking a major sex-discrimination lawsuit. And I doubt that I am the only one who would come to that same conclusion. So, by filing the lawsuit, the original plaintiff ends up discouraging employers from hiring female executives.
I am NOT saying she was wrong to file the lawsuit. I AM saying this is a classic case of unintended consequences. By filing the lawsuit, she is contributing to sex discrimination in the workplace -- the very thing she is supposedly fighting against.
I have no answers here. Truth is complicated.
NOTE: This is my first blog entry in a LONG time. The reasons for my long absence, appropriately enough, are complicated ...
In going over the paperwork after the company was sold, the woman realized that a man who had previously worked for the company -- a man she identifies as her "predecessor" -- earned significantly more money than she did. The company contends, however, that the man's job was different than the job occupied by the woman, involving far more responsibility, and that both the man and the woman were paid fairly for the particular duties that they performed. The company further contends that the woman was paid a salary similar to what she would have been paid for performing the same duties with a different company. The woman disagrees, and argues that throughout her employment with the company she was subjected to different treatment than the male employees.
From the information available to me, I have no idea whether or not the lawsuit is justified. It's always difficult to compare the pay of two different employees, since employees rarely have precisely the same qualifications, backgrounds, and talents, and since employees rarely perform precisely the same jobs. I think that most people would agree that two identically-qualified and identically-capable people performing the same job in the same region at the same time deserve the same pay, regardless of gender -- but in the real world, there are an infinite number of variables that complicate the issue.
What strikes me, however, was my initial response after reading the article. I immediately thought to myself, "Under the circumstances, it would be a foolish risk for a major corporation to hire a woman, if they could find a man that could perform the job just as well. Why would any corporation open themselves up to the risk of a sex discrimination lawsuit? It would be irresponsible."
I am not proud of these thoughts, and believe that a person's gender should have no role in hiring decisions. At the same time, it's difficult to argue with my initial reaction to the article. Why WOULD a corporation take the risk of hiring a woman, when the risk could be avoided by simply not hiring her in the first place? Of course, then there is the risk of being sued for not hiring her. Here again, since no two people are precisely identical, it's always difficult to say which candidate is truly the best for the job.
I can take some solace in realizing that I will never be involved in the hiring/firing decisions for any company. I have never had any employees, and probably never will. In terms of the people that I pay to perform tasks -- people like doctors and lawyers and barbers -- I have dealt with both men and women in each role, and I have never been aware of their gender playing any role in the job performance, or in the fees I have paid them. Crucially, though, all of these people set their own fees, or at least, they send me a bill, and I pay it. I do not decide how much their job is worth.
Still, I keep coming back to my response to the article. After reading the article, it truly DOES seem irresponsible to even CONSIDER hiring a woman for an important position, and therefore risking a major sex-discrimination lawsuit. And I doubt that I am the only one who would come to that same conclusion. So, by filing the lawsuit, the original plaintiff ends up discouraging employers from hiring female executives.
I am NOT saying she was wrong to file the lawsuit. I AM saying this is a classic case of unintended consequences. By filing the lawsuit, she is contributing to sex discrimination in the workplace -- the very thing she is supposedly fighting against.
I have no answers here. Truth is complicated.
NOTE: This is my first blog entry in a LONG time. The reasons for my long absence, appropriately enough, are complicated ...
Thursday, August 15, 2013
Ridiculous
One of the tricks in life is knowing the difference between the ridiculous and the reasonable.
My community has weekly outdoor municipal band concerts during the summer, as they have had for most of the last century. The concerts are financed by "the city"; band members are considered temporary city employees. Recently, the city council announced they were making various budget cuts, including ending the concerts. The concerts don't cost much, so cutting them from the budget didn't save much money, but it was a high-profile cutback -- something that everyone noticed. A concerned citizen stepped forward with enough money to finance the concerts for several years. Since that time, more citizens have come forward with cash, and the concerts have continued uninterrupted with no more city funding. It has all been quite reasonable.
My favorite high school teacher used to regularly include some "joke" answers on his multiple choice history exams. So, for example, even if a student did not know precisely who the "condottieri" were, he or she might be able to correctly rule out that they were the Superbowl champions from 1970. You would THINK that this would make the exams slightly easier. Imagine my surprise in learning that the CORRECT answer to one of the questions was an answer that I had ruled out as a joke, "the Venerable Bede".
This points out the fact that it is not always easy to distinguish between the ridiculous and the reasonable. People hold a wide variety of beliefs. I have known for some time that the "Flat Earth Society" continues to exist, at least on paper, but I only recently learned it is not strictly a joke. There really ARE people who claim to still believe that the earth is flat, just as there are even more people who claim to still believe that the earth is only a few thousand years old, despite overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary.
Then there is politics. Some of the positions taken by politicians and their parties and supporters seem to defy all logic, yet there are large numbers of people who accept these positions as reasonable.
The United States government is trillions of dollars in debt, and that debt is growing at a shocking rate, yet many politicians, and regular citizens, argue that we do not have a spending problem. Meanwhile, President Barack Obama fights any effort to cut spending, arguing that the IMPORTANT thing is to raise taxes on "the rich". Perhaps after we do THAT, he will be willing to consider spending cuts.
Now we have "the sequester", a set of government spending limits (not necessarily cuts) that kicked in automatically after the various political bodies were unable to reach any better compromise. Critics of President Obama argued in advance of the sequester that he was misrepresenting the potential impact of the sequester, and would purposely TRY to make the impact as painful as possible.
When the sequester came, it was soon announced that there would be no more tours of the White House, due to funding cuts caused by the sequester. In response to the public outcry, billionaire Donald Trump eventually offered that he would personally pay for continuing the White House tours (an amount which it seems he could easily afford, based on the available information about his wealth and income, and the cost of the tours).
I would have thought this would be the end of this part of the story. The American people want to be able to tour their White House, many people want to reduce government spending, President Obama wants "the rich" to pay more, and Donald Trump is rich. The tours would continue, government spending would be reduced, and the rich would pay more. Everybody wins.
I was wrong. A White House "senior adviser" rejected Donald Trump's offer, stating that it is important that the American public learn that there are real consequences of the sequester. Apparently, we have misbehaved, and now must face the consequences, rather than have rich Donald Trump take care of the problem.
To me, this seems quite ridiculous. IF cutting the tours was truly necessary for economic reasons, and a rich person is offering to pay for the tours, then why haven't the tours already been restored? Is the Obama administration really willing to continue to block the tours, just to attempt to teach the American people a lesson?
Perhaps the most ridiculous aspect of this issue is that there are those who attacked Donald Trump for making the offer, and defended President Obama. I am not saying there is nothing to attack about Donald Trump, but if a rich person offers to pay for something, no strings attached, and the President continues to argue that we don't have enough money to pay for it ... it all seems quite ridiculous. But perhaps I am missing something. I MUST be missing something. It CAN'T be that ridiculous.
Trump's offer was many months ago. Someday soon, the tours will resume, at least on a limited basis, and the Obama administration will take credit, and ask for gratitude, for dealing with a problem that they themselves created. THAT seems ridiculous.
Truth is complicated.
My community has weekly outdoor municipal band concerts during the summer, as they have had for most of the last century. The concerts are financed by "the city"; band members are considered temporary city employees. Recently, the city council announced they were making various budget cuts, including ending the concerts. The concerts don't cost much, so cutting them from the budget didn't save much money, but it was a high-profile cutback -- something that everyone noticed. A concerned citizen stepped forward with enough money to finance the concerts for several years. Since that time, more citizens have come forward with cash, and the concerts have continued uninterrupted with no more city funding. It has all been quite reasonable.
My favorite high school teacher used to regularly include some "joke" answers on his multiple choice history exams. So, for example, even if a student did not know precisely who the "condottieri" were, he or she might be able to correctly rule out that they were the Superbowl champions from 1970. You would THINK that this would make the exams slightly easier. Imagine my surprise in learning that the CORRECT answer to one of the questions was an answer that I had ruled out as a joke, "the Venerable Bede".
This points out the fact that it is not always easy to distinguish between the ridiculous and the reasonable. People hold a wide variety of beliefs. I have known for some time that the "Flat Earth Society" continues to exist, at least on paper, but I only recently learned it is not strictly a joke. There really ARE people who claim to still believe that the earth is flat, just as there are even more people who claim to still believe that the earth is only a few thousand years old, despite overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary.
Then there is politics. Some of the positions taken by politicians and their parties and supporters seem to defy all logic, yet there are large numbers of people who accept these positions as reasonable.
The United States government is trillions of dollars in debt, and that debt is growing at a shocking rate, yet many politicians, and regular citizens, argue that we do not have a spending problem. Meanwhile, President Barack Obama fights any effort to cut spending, arguing that the IMPORTANT thing is to raise taxes on "the rich". Perhaps after we do THAT, he will be willing to consider spending cuts.
Now we have "the sequester", a set of government spending limits (not necessarily cuts) that kicked in automatically after the various political bodies were unable to reach any better compromise. Critics of President Obama argued in advance of the sequester that he was misrepresenting the potential impact of the sequester, and would purposely TRY to make the impact as painful as possible.
When the sequester came, it was soon announced that there would be no more tours of the White House, due to funding cuts caused by the sequester. In response to the public outcry, billionaire Donald Trump eventually offered that he would personally pay for continuing the White House tours (an amount which it seems he could easily afford, based on the available information about his wealth and income, and the cost of the tours).
I would have thought this would be the end of this part of the story. The American people want to be able to tour their White House, many people want to reduce government spending, President Obama wants "the rich" to pay more, and Donald Trump is rich. The tours would continue, government spending would be reduced, and the rich would pay more. Everybody wins.
I was wrong. A White House "senior adviser" rejected Donald Trump's offer, stating that it is important that the American public learn that there are real consequences of the sequester. Apparently, we have misbehaved, and now must face the consequences, rather than have rich Donald Trump take care of the problem.
To me, this seems quite ridiculous. IF cutting the tours was truly necessary for economic reasons, and a rich person is offering to pay for the tours, then why haven't the tours already been restored? Is the Obama administration really willing to continue to block the tours, just to attempt to teach the American people a lesson?
Perhaps the most ridiculous aspect of this issue is that there are those who attacked Donald Trump for making the offer, and defended President Obama. I am not saying there is nothing to attack about Donald Trump, but if a rich person offers to pay for something, no strings attached, and the President continues to argue that we don't have enough money to pay for it ... it all seems quite ridiculous. But perhaps I am missing something. I MUST be missing something. It CAN'T be that ridiculous.
Trump's offer was many months ago. Someday soon, the tours will resume, at least on a limited basis, and the Obama administration will take credit, and ask for gratitude, for dealing with a problem that they themselves created. THAT seems ridiculous.
Truth is complicated.
Thursday, August 8, 2013
Trayvon Martin
A young man named Trayvon Martin was shot and killed by another man during an altercation. The details of the altercation, and the events leading up to the altercation, will never be precisely known. The shooter claimed self defense; the law allows the use of deadly force to protect your own life. The man was placed on trial for murder and/or manslaughter, and found "not guilty" of breaking the law.
Given that we are a nation of laws, and a nation that embraces the principle of "innocent until proven guilty", the man is therefore innocent. Not just "not guilty", but INNOCENT. Those are the ONLY relevant facts in this case.
I have not stated the shooter's widely-known name, because I believe that it would be better if the names of those charged with crimes were withheld, and only published if they were found guilty. There is no compelling reason for the name of an innocent person to become public knowledge -- but that is a separate issue, involving freedom of the press.
There are many who would argue that other facts are relevant to this case. The race, clothing, age, and other attributes of both men MAY have played a role in their thoughts and actions -- but this is not relevant to the outcome of the trial. One or both may have made questionable or even wrong decisions, but this is not relevant to the outcome of the trial. The precise events leading up to the moment of the shooting may be relevant, but, as nearly as they can be legally determined, they do not disprove the idea that the shooter was defending himself.
Given the limitations of human perception and memory, not even the shooter himself knows precisely what happened. Had Trayvon Martin survived, he also would not know precisely what happened. IF there was some way of knowing precisely what happened, perhaps the shooter would have been found "guilty". The jury did their best with the available evidence. The case SHOULD be closed.
The verdict has been controversial and unpopular. As I have stated elsewhere, we are facing an epidemic of personal certainty, and many are convinced that THEY know the truth of the case, regardless of the outcome of the trial. The verdict is politically unpopular, and people in positions of power are threatening to re-examine the case, to try and come up with SOMETHING for which the shooter can be found "guilty". I fear those people who place their own opinions above the law, and I fear those authorities who feel free to try a case over and over until they can find the defendant guilty of SOMETHING. It is tragic that a young man died. It is also tragic if large segments of our society decide that their opinions outweigh our legal process.
Since the verdict, I have heard people loudly complain that the case has negatively impacted race relations and civil rights in America. At first, I disagreed, but now I find myself totally disgusted by those who would use the tragic death of a teenager to further their own agendas, and I find myself wrongly viewing all black people with suspicion -- NOT with suspicion that they will harm me, but with suspicion that they will ignore the legal truth of this and other cases, and instead focus on all those true but irrelevant details. Certainly, there is still racism in America -- but there has been no evidence that this case involved racism.
Another troubling fact is that some are using the case to attack "stand your ground" laws. The case does not involve "stand your ground" laws in any particular way, other than that I suppose ALL laws are somehow related.
The case is complicated and tragic, but the legal truth is straightforward. The shooter was rightly found not guilty, based on the evidence presented in court. Given the evidence, any other verdict would have been a miscarriage of justice. The case is, and should be, closed.
Given that we are a nation of laws, and a nation that embraces the principle of "innocent until proven guilty", the man is therefore innocent. Not just "not guilty", but INNOCENT. Those are the ONLY relevant facts in this case.
I have not stated the shooter's widely-known name, because I believe that it would be better if the names of those charged with crimes were withheld, and only published if they were found guilty. There is no compelling reason for the name of an innocent person to become public knowledge -- but that is a separate issue, involving freedom of the press.
There are many who would argue that other facts are relevant to this case. The race, clothing, age, and other attributes of both men MAY have played a role in their thoughts and actions -- but this is not relevant to the outcome of the trial. One or both may have made questionable or even wrong decisions, but this is not relevant to the outcome of the trial. The precise events leading up to the moment of the shooting may be relevant, but, as nearly as they can be legally determined, they do not disprove the idea that the shooter was defending himself.
Given the limitations of human perception and memory, not even the shooter himself knows precisely what happened. Had Trayvon Martin survived, he also would not know precisely what happened. IF there was some way of knowing precisely what happened, perhaps the shooter would have been found "guilty". The jury did their best with the available evidence. The case SHOULD be closed.
The verdict has been controversial and unpopular. As I have stated elsewhere, we are facing an epidemic of personal certainty, and many are convinced that THEY know the truth of the case, regardless of the outcome of the trial. The verdict is politically unpopular, and people in positions of power are threatening to re-examine the case, to try and come up with SOMETHING for which the shooter can be found "guilty". I fear those people who place their own opinions above the law, and I fear those authorities who feel free to try a case over and over until they can find the defendant guilty of SOMETHING. It is tragic that a young man died. It is also tragic if large segments of our society decide that their opinions outweigh our legal process.
Since the verdict, I have heard people loudly complain that the case has negatively impacted race relations and civil rights in America. At first, I disagreed, but now I find myself totally disgusted by those who would use the tragic death of a teenager to further their own agendas, and I find myself wrongly viewing all black people with suspicion -- NOT with suspicion that they will harm me, but with suspicion that they will ignore the legal truth of this and other cases, and instead focus on all those true but irrelevant details. Certainly, there is still racism in America -- but there has been no evidence that this case involved racism.
Another troubling fact is that some are using the case to attack "stand your ground" laws. The case does not involve "stand your ground" laws in any particular way, other than that I suppose ALL laws are somehow related.
The case is complicated and tragic, but the legal truth is straightforward. The shooter was rightly found not guilty, based on the evidence presented in court. Given the evidence, any other verdict would have been a miscarriage of justice. The case is, and should be, closed.
Saturday, May 18, 2013
100 years old
Last Monday, I celebrated Mother's Day with my mother and a few other relatives. There was a special meal, cards, flowers, and other gifts.
The "official" Mother's Day was Sunday, but Sunday was one of those days when my mother had trouble waking up. My mother is one hundred years old. Technically, one hundred and a half -- slightly closer to one hundred and one; somehow, the half years seem significant again in the very old, as they are in the very young. She has lived a good, happy, long life, and now her time is drawing to a close. She is weak and frail, both mentally and physically, and is slowly declining.
When anyone asks me about her health, the hardest thing to describe is the dramatic variability in her mental status from day to day. She has several different types of "bad" days. Some days, she is almost comatose, and almost impossible to rouse at all. Very rarely, she does not recognize the people closest to her. On the very worst days, she is agitated and worried, often about things that cannot be defined, or that seem impossible to worry about.
On her best days, she is almost crystal clear, mentally -- though I doubt she is ever one hundred percent clear now. There are also those days when she approaches mania, and finds it almost impossible to stop talking. Those are not horrible days, since she is sometimes able to tell long-forgotten stories or sing long-forgotten songs.
(Music has always been important to Mom, and seems almost more important now. She will often sing a fragment of a song, and then wonder what the rest of the song is. Armed with a certain amount of musical knowledge and the internet, she has yet to stump me.)
Most days, she is somewhere between these various extremes. When people inquire about her condition, and I attempt to tell them, I often feel that they suspect I am being evasive, or sugar-coating the situation, when I tell them her condition constantly changes, but is always declining.
Crucially, she is uncommonly pleasant and happy almost all of the time, except on those few days when she is agitated and worried. Even when she cannot seem to wake up, she will smile when someone speaks to her.
Physically, she grows weaker and thinner each day. She does not eat much, or enough, and is in danger of falling when she walks, even with a cane -- though until recently she has been able to get out of bed and walk to the bathroom without assistance. She also has a "walker" and a wheelchair for different occasions.
Which brings up the fact that she can no longer live without the assistance of others. For now, she lives with family members, though it is altogether possible that she may someday live in an institution of some sort. This gets complicated, as caring for her is simultaneously a blessing and an almost-unbearable burden. Among other things, there are never-ending philosophical questions involving issues of whether to keep her alive or let her go -- such as how hard to try to get her to eat more, and whether to urge her to get out of bed.
Anyone who has cared for her -- that is, who has taken care of her -- in recent years has had the experience of suspecting she would not survive the next few hours, let alone days. So far, she always rallies and bounces back from the edge of life. Logic dictates that she grows closer to death every day, as all of us do. Logic also dictates that her death, when it comes, should not come as a shock to those she leaves behind, but I suspect that it still will.
Personally, I have long realized that one of the ways I cope with difficult situations is by becoming increasingly analytical -- I step back from the situation, mentally, and view it as a scientist would, noting my own responses and emotions, and thinking, "Isn't that interesting!"
Truth is complicated.
Thursday, February 28, 2013
Stranded Travelers
A few weeks ago, an engine fire on a cruise ship left over four thousand passengers and crew essentially stranded, dead in the water, onboard ship in the Gulf of Mexico. Once the initial fire was put out, no one was in any immediate danger, but there was no particularly safe way to get the people off of the vessel in the middle of the water, so the ship had to be slowly towed to port with everyone still aboard. The details are controversial, but the ship was left with only emergency generators providing minimal electricity. Food and other supplies were delivered from other sources, but there was no air conditioning, and basic sanitation was said to be a problem. It took almost a week for the ship to reach land.
The entire incident was covered by the news media. I watched live on television as the ship finally docked. Several of the passengers were interviewed by cell phone as they prepared to disembark. Most of the interviews that I heard were quite similar. The interviewer would ask the passengers about their horrible ordeal, and the passengers would reply that it really wasn't that bad. They stressed the fact that the crew did everything it could to alleviate their discomfort. When interviewers asked about the lack of food, the passengers responded that food was regularly delivered, and plentiful and quite good, though they mentioned having to wait in long lines for their food. The interviewers became frustrated, trying to get the passengers to complain and discuss their "hellish experience". Now and then, a passenger would agree that the experience was indeed horrendous, but most would dispute that idea and attempt to correct the interviewer.
This response was not universal. Some of the passengers complained bitterly about their experience. As I type, lawsuits are pending.
I got to thinking about my own experiences with being a stranded traveler. I am NOT saying I have ever experienced anything like being stranded on a cruise ship for a week. I was not there, and I do not know the details, and I do not know how bad it was. I am in no position to offer an opinion on their particular ordeal.
(I have elsewhere discussed my general position on those seeking monetary awards for "damages". Since any money awarded will come from insurance premiums and ultimately from the shared resources of the entire population, I continue to question why being stranded on a cruise ship entitles anyone to a large cash award.)
On more than one occasion, I have been stranded in airports. Once, while awaiting departure from Paris, a mechanical problem was found on board our plane (well, technically, a jet). The passengers had already cleared customs, and were kept in a large waiting room while they tried first to remedy the problem, then bring in a fresh aircraft. All in all, we were in that waiting room for six to eight hours -- not much of an ordeal, especially since we had access to bathrooms and water; I do not recall having any access to food, other than that already possessed by the passengers.
The thing that stands out in my memory about that experience, and others like it, was that the stranded travelers ended up falling into two groups. One group made the best of a bad situation, producing and sharing whatever they had to make the experience more pleasant -- food, drinks, playing cards, other games, even musical instruments. The other group sat glumly when they were not complaining or demanding that the situation be immediately rectified. Perhaps most interestingly, that group became quite irritated with those of us who were NOT complaining, and who were happily making the best of a bad situation.
I have happy memories of that day stranded in the Paris airport, and of another day stranded at the airport in Asuncion, Paraguay, and of a night spent stranded on a train in the middle of nowhere -- a train which did, by the way, run out of food and drink. All of those experiences were adventures for me, and all of those experiences also included glum, angry travelers complaining bitterly.
I must acknowledge that my personal experiences with being a stranded traveler never involved a feeling that I was being mistreated by those responsible for my well-being. When our plane was grounded due to a mechanical problem, I was GLAD that they had discovered the problem before takeoff. When our train had to remain motionless for hours while a team arrived to investigate a collision, I understood the need to wait for the investigators. Things happen.
I COULD expand this discussion into other areas of life, beyond being a stranded traveler, but I would rather not. The nice thing, in terms of discussion, about being a stranded traveler is that you really only have two choices: You can do your best to be happy, or you can be unhappy. There's not much else you can do. You generally cannot personally fix the airplane or the train or the cruise ship (although, in the case of the airport in Paraguay, I was eventually able to secure cold water for all the waiting passengers ... not by complaining, but by being helpful and friendly and using my minimal Spanish).
The rest of life gets more complicated.
Regarding the large amounts of cash being sought by some of the cruise ship passengers:
The passengers may have had horrible experiences; possibly worse than I can imagine. At the very least, they were deprived of their expected pleasure cruise, and kept at sea for longer than they expected to be there -- and their extended period at sea may have caused countless problems, including missed work, lost wages, and other unanticipated expenses. IF it can be shown that human error was involved in their misfortune, then the humans involved should be fined, fired, or otherwise penalized. Still, I fail to see where the large sums of cash are supposed to come from, or why the passengers are entitled to large sums of cash based on having had a horrible experience. Perhaps if human error was involved, they should at least be compensated for any monetary expense that they incurred. IF there was no clear human error -- if it was just a horrible accident -- then I believe we all should offer them our sympathy, but nothing more.
Life involves risk. When you sail on a cruise ship, YOU dramatically increase the odds of being stranded at sea. The crew and company executives have nothing to gain by you becoming stranded, and will strive to prevent it, but it may happen anyway. OR you may fall off the ship, or the ship may wreck, or you may have a medical emergency and be far from a hospital. All of these risks can be minimized by not boarding the ship in the first place. It's up to YOU.
The entire incident was covered by the news media. I watched live on television as the ship finally docked. Several of the passengers were interviewed by cell phone as they prepared to disembark. Most of the interviews that I heard were quite similar. The interviewer would ask the passengers about their horrible ordeal, and the passengers would reply that it really wasn't that bad. They stressed the fact that the crew did everything it could to alleviate their discomfort. When interviewers asked about the lack of food, the passengers responded that food was regularly delivered, and plentiful and quite good, though they mentioned having to wait in long lines for their food. The interviewers became frustrated, trying to get the passengers to complain and discuss their "hellish experience". Now and then, a passenger would agree that the experience was indeed horrendous, but most would dispute that idea and attempt to correct the interviewer.
This response was not universal. Some of the passengers complained bitterly about their experience. As I type, lawsuits are pending.
I got to thinking about my own experiences with being a stranded traveler. I am NOT saying I have ever experienced anything like being stranded on a cruise ship for a week. I was not there, and I do not know the details, and I do not know how bad it was. I am in no position to offer an opinion on their particular ordeal.
(I have elsewhere discussed my general position on those seeking monetary awards for "damages". Since any money awarded will come from insurance premiums and ultimately from the shared resources of the entire population, I continue to question why being stranded on a cruise ship entitles anyone to a large cash award.)
On more than one occasion, I have been stranded in airports. Once, while awaiting departure from Paris, a mechanical problem was found on board our plane (well, technically, a jet). The passengers had already cleared customs, and were kept in a large waiting room while they tried first to remedy the problem, then bring in a fresh aircraft. All in all, we were in that waiting room for six to eight hours -- not much of an ordeal, especially since we had access to bathrooms and water; I do not recall having any access to food, other than that already possessed by the passengers.
The thing that stands out in my memory about that experience, and others like it, was that the stranded travelers ended up falling into two groups. One group made the best of a bad situation, producing and sharing whatever they had to make the experience more pleasant -- food, drinks, playing cards, other games, even musical instruments. The other group sat glumly when they were not complaining or demanding that the situation be immediately rectified. Perhaps most interestingly, that group became quite irritated with those of us who were NOT complaining, and who were happily making the best of a bad situation.
I have happy memories of that day stranded in the Paris airport, and of another day stranded at the airport in Asuncion, Paraguay, and of a night spent stranded on a train in the middle of nowhere -- a train which did, by the way, run out of food and drink. All of those experiences were adventures for me, and all of those experiences also included glum, angry travelers complaining bitterly.
I must acknowledge that my personal experiences with being a stranded traveler never involved a feeling that I was being mistreated by those responsible for my well-being. When our plane was grounded due to a mechanical problem, I was GLAD that they had discovered the problem before takeoff. When our train had to remain motionless for hours while a team arrived to investigate a collision, I understood the need to wait for the investigators. Things happen.
I COULD expand this discussion into other areas of life, beyond being a stranded traveler, but I would rather not. The nice thing, in terms of discussion, about being a stranded traveler is that you really only have two choices: You can do your best to be happy, or you can be unhappy. There's not much else you can do. You generally cannot personally fix the airplane or the train or the cruise ship (although, in the case of the airport in Paraguay, I was eventually able to secure cold water for all the waiting passengers ... not by complaining, but by being helpful and friendly and using my minimal Spanish).
The rest of life gets more complicated.
Regarding the large amounts of cash being sought by some of the cruise ship passengers:
The passengers may have had horrible experiences; possibly worse than I can imagine. At the very least, they were deprived of their expected pleasure cruise, and kept at sea for longer than they expected to be there -- and their extended period at sea may have caused countless problems, including missed work, lost wages, and other unanticipated expenses. IF it can be shown that human error was involved in their misfortune, then the humans involved should be fined, fired, or otherwise penalized. Still, I fail to see where the large sums of cash are supposed to come from, or why the passengers are entitled to large sums of cash based on having had a horrible experience. Perhaps if human error was involved, they should at least be compensated for any monetary expense that they incurred. IF there was no clear human error -- if it was just a horrible accident -- then I believe we all should offer them our sympathy, but nothing more.
Life involves risk. When you sail on a cruise ship, YOU dramatically increase the odds of being stranded at sea. The crew and company executives have nothing to gain by you becoming stranded, and will strive to prevent it, but it may happen anyway. OR you may fall off the ship, or the ship may wreck, or you may have a medical emergency and be far from a hospital. All of these risks can be minimized by not boarding the ship in the first place. It's up to YOU.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)