"Cowards die a thousand deaths. The valiant taste of death but once." William Shakespeare wrote this and how true it is. I think we have created a society that is now populated by a majority of cowards. I am not talking about those unwilling to fight and risk death defending the country. That is a matter for another article. I am referring to the number of people that live in mortal terror of being sued. They govern their lives according to how not to get sued. These poor people scurry about refusing to make decisions until they have referred to an ad hoc committee that consists of at least one lawyer and, usually, several other practitioners in the field in which the decision is to be made.
The first step in this process, when confronted with the need to make a decision, is to find out how everyone else is doing it. I understand that there is rarely the need to re-invent the wheel in most decision-making processes, but it goes too far when it is done for every decision, no matter how minute. It is also too much when the motive for which this "survey" is being done is with the idea that it somehow avoids or reduces legal liability in the event of a lawsuit. I am not sure I have ever heard the "everyone else does it this way" defense work when the decision is fundamentally flawed. Just because everyone does it wrong does not make it right. It really serves only to give the decision-maker some sort of false security. I say false security because I am sure Lemmings figure out real fast that just because everyone else went that way does not make it a great idea. (Note: Lemmings committing suicide is a popular myth, but the stereotype works here.)
The second step is, of course, to consult the attorney. Unfortunately, the attorney and the decision-maker are often working at cross-purposes. The lawyer wants to avoid all risk. The decision-maker wants to, hopefully, get something accomplished. Having operated a couple of businesses in my life, I can tell you that there is no way to make a decision, get something done and avoid all potential risk. The decision-maker says to the lawyer, "This is where I want to go." or "This is what I want to do." The lawyer will invariable respond, "You can't get there from here." or "You can't do that." The lawyer attempts to eliminate all potential risk, particularly in the form of lawsuits. There is very rarely such thing as a zero risk-reward ratio in life.
Let me assure you that, in the private sector, there is no way to do business without risk. By definition, businesspeople take risks for financial reward. That is why they make money. The good businessperson does a risk-reward analysis and determines he will take the risk, hoping the reward is worth it. In the public sector, instead of risk-reward ratio, the public sector decision-maker should do a cost-benefit analysis. Unfortunately there is rarely any way to accomplish a public-sector goal without upsetting someone and thus, eliminate the possibility of a lawsuit. It has been said that the true goal of the public administrator is to equally apportion dissatisfaction, because there is no way to please all the people all the time.
The public sector "coward" tries to do everything so he does not piss off anyone; an impossible goal, but he will try, nonetheless, for fear of the potential of being sued. Each decision becomes an excruciating analysis of how do I not get sued, with all the accompanying angst and anguish, each, one of a thousand deaths described by Shakespeare. Most of the time, a decision is made that only gets part of the job done, but satisfies most everyone, a process called "satisticing", a decision-making strategy that attempts to meet criteria for adequacy, rather than to identify an optimal solution. Why should anyone do the best and take a chance on getting sued, when they can do what is just adequate and lessen the risk? I believe the latter choice is cowardly.
Those in our society, dictated to by political correctness and the fear of lawsuits, live in mortal terror of being sued and taste of death a thousand times. We do what is called for by "the crowd," avoiding doing our best or what is right in order to avoid the possibility of conflict. What this has caused is that people that can either afford to litigate an issue, or have the knowledge to litigate it themselves, have the power to make the rest of society use a dumbed-downed decision-making process. They can even force decision-makers, pre-emptively, to make a less-than-right decision in order to avoid a threatened litigation. The really unfortunate thing is that it does not take an actual, filed lawsuit to make this change. Can anyone see how such a tenuous prospect can have significant impact; a "perceived or insinuated" threat of a "potential" lawsuit that "might" be filed. The threat of a lawsuit, no matter how frivolous, has such significant costs associated with the defense of the suit, that decision-makers will bow to even the perceived or insinuated threat of a potential lawsuit that might be filed in the future in response to a decision they need to make. We are forced, or more accurately choose, to react in a cowardly fashion.
There are, of course, many answers to this "problem." There are systemic answers; in any lawsuit that is filed, the loser pays all the prevailing side's legal fees and expenses. In cases in which the Court determines that the case was frivolous, as a matter of law or fact, then there could be monetary sanctions imposed on the plaintiff, or even better, the attorney for the plaintiff. I have a more immediate response; people should develop a set of...okay, I won't go there...shall we say guts? Individual decision-makers should stand behind their decisions and proudly and loudly say, "I am going to do the right thing. Go ahead and sue me." They should immediately, and very publicly, file a counter-suit for whatever they can, among which should be defamation and/or libel, pointing out that actions have consequences, even to plaintiffs. The consequences can, and should be, public humiliation for trying to use the Courts for stupid things, as well as financial.
Cowards of the world, stand up and and say (to quote Howard Beale), "I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this anymore!" or taste of death a thousand times more.
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Monday, June 21, 2010
"Settlers" and "Reachers"
I have found that wisdom comes from many unexpected places. I have a friend that believes there are no life situations the answer to which cannot be found among the dialog within the Godfather trilogy. While I do not hold to that particular version of the reality of wisdom, I do find that it does comes from some pretty strange places. "A man's got to know his limitations" is a great line spoken by the character "Dirty Harry" Callaghan in the series that bore his moniker. It may have come from a fictional character in a movie, but this makes it no less true and good advice.
I was watching a television show a couple of weeks ago and got another flash of genius. It was posited that in every romantic relationship there are two roles; "The Reacher" and "The Settler." The idea is that in a romantic relationship the Reacher is the one that has managed to have established a relationship with someone outside their class, or someone better than they deserve. This half of the pair is therefore always trying to remain worthy of the other. The Settler, on the other hand, is the person that has entered into a relationship with someone that is less than who they could have and they therefore have settled for less than what they could have. The theory goes that the Settler is so profoundly secure in the relationship, knowing that they are so deeply loved by the Reacher, that they never worry about, nor do they have to worry about, their partner fooling around on them. The Reacher, however, always wonders why the Settler is with them and can be prone to bouts of intense jealousy, born of that insecurity.
I initially thought the premise ridiculous, but upon further thought, I found that it does have merit. In fact, I think most of us have a tendency to define ourselves in relationships, albeit unknowingly, within one of these two roles. I think we actually define ourselves long before we have met the individual with whom we establish a relationship. That is, we are Settlers or Reachers looking for our opposite number when we are seeking to establish a relationship, but I think it also depends a lot on where we are in our lives at the time we are seeking the relationship.
I have been at different points in my life a Settler or a Reacher. I have settled, later to find I settled for far too little and actually became quite insufferable. I owe a great apology to those women I "settled" for as I entered into relationships with a certain dishonesty. I knew, at least in the back of my mind, that the relationship would not last, but I entered into it anyway. This was incredibly unfair of me and later became hurtful when my partner and I separated as a result of my dissatisfaction in the relationship. I guess, by virtue of the fact that I recognize it now, I have grown some (better late than never?).
I have also been in relationships where I was the Reacher, but I find that it was interesting that my partner, at least in one case, was trying to fulfill the role of the Reacher as well. While I thought myself to be less worthy of her, she thought herself to be less worthy of me. It made for an interesting situation to say the least. Both of us were working as hard as we could to be worthy of each other. It would have worked out too, but the insecurity part got us in the end. Since neither of us could figure out why the other was in the relationship, one of us ended it pre-emptively to avoid what was obviously going to be a broken heart with all the accompanying pain, anguish and suffering.
I think that relationships involving two Reachers can work because each of them is putting in more than 50%. Thus, there is always a little bit of slack to cover when one partner is not quite up to equal participation, which happens in every relationship from time to time. A Reacher can certainly assuage a Settler's ego. I think that relationships between a Settler and a Reacher can work, but, more often than not, they are time limited. I am not sure, however, if a relationship can ever work out between two Settlers; they just seem to dissolve within the egos of the people involved. Two people who look at each other, just knowing in their heart of hearts that they could have done better does not make for a lasting relationship.
I am not sure about my analysis, but if a function of wisdom is that it makes us consider, analyze and think about something, then I found some pretty good wisdom in a prime-time sitcom.
I was watching a television show a couple of weeks ago and got another flash of genius. It was posited that in every romantic relationship there are two roles; "The Reacher" and "The Settler." The idea is that in a romantic relationship the Reacher is the one that has managed to have established a relationship with someone outside their class, or someone better than they deserve. This half of the pair is therefore always trying to remain worthy of the other. The Settler, on the other hand, is the person that has entered into a relationship with someone that is less than who they could have and they therefore have settled for less than what they could have. The theory goes that the Settler is so profoundly secure in the relationship, knowing that they are so deeply loved by the Reacher, that they never worry about, nor do they have to worry about, their partner fooling around on them. The Reacher, however, always wonders why the Settler is with them and can be prone to bouts of intense jealousy, born of that insecurity.
I initially thought the premise ridiculous, but upon further thought, I found that it does have merit. In fact, I think most of us have a tendency to define ourselves in relationships, albeit unknowingly, within one of these two roles. I think we actually define ourselves long before we have met the individual with whom we establish a relationship. That is, we are Settlers or Reachers looking for our opposite number when we are seeking to establish a relationship, but I think it also depends a lot on where we are in our lives at the time we are seeking the relationship.
I have been at different points in my life a Settler or a Reacher. I have settled, later to find I settled for far too little and actually became quite insufferable. I owe a great apology to those women I "settled" for as I entered into relationships with a certain dishonesty. I knew, at least in the back of my mind, that the relationship would not last, but I entered into it anyway. This was incredibly unfair of me and later became hurtful when my partner and I separated as a result of my dissatisfaction in the relationship. I guess, by virtue of the fact that I recognize it now, I have grown some (better late than never?).
I have also been in relationships where I was the Reacher, but I find that it was interesting that my partner, at least in one case, was trying to fulfill the role of the Reacher as well. While I thought myself to be less worthy of her, she thought herself to be less worthy of me. It made for an interesting situation to say the least. Both of us were working as hard as we could to be worthy of each other. It would have worked out too, but the insecurity part got us in the end. Since neither of us could figure out why the other was in the relationship, one of us ended it pre-emptively to avoid what was obviously going to be a broken heart with all the accompanying pain, anguish and suffering.
I think that relationships involving two Reachers can work because each of them is putting in more than 50%. Thus, there is always a little bit of slack to cover when one partner is not quite up to equal participation, which happens in every relationship from time to time. A Reacher can certainly assuage a Settler's ego. I think that relationships between a Settler and a Reacher can work, but, more often than not, they are time limited. I am not sure, however, if a relationship can ever work out between two Settlers; they just seem to dissolve within the egos of the people involved. Two people who look at each other, just knowing in their heart of hearts that they could have done better does not make for a lasting relationship.
I am not sure about my analysis, but if a function of wisdom is that it makes us consider, analyze and think about something, then I found some pretty good wisdom in a prime-time sitcom.
Friday, June 11, 2010
A Rant...Wah, Wah, Wah
At the risk of seeming just a little egotistical, allow me to first say something about me to put my rant in perspective.
I have been a professional investigator for almost 35 years in one form or another. I have been a Police Detective, an Investigator for Public Defenders at both the state and federal level, a private investigator, having owned and operated my own private investigative agency and been a medical-legal forensic investigator. While it would seem that I can't hold a job, it is really a progression up a ladder of experience, as well as a financial ladder.
Due to the economy and the fact that it became impossible to make a living in aviation, my most recent endeavor, I was forced to go back to work in the public sector. In this economy, government employment, with all its benefits and relative job security, was perfect. Thus, I went back into investigations at a government agency I shall not name for reasons of both job security and discretion. I am now wondering what I could possibly have been thinking when I made this decision. Oh, the money is not bad and the benefits are outstanding. The fact that I was forced to come out of retirement and re-enter the field from which I felt like I had escaped sucked, but it is a paycheck. I now have a post-it note on my bathroom mirror that reads, "WHY?" - "Because You Need The Money Idiot!" This reminds me every day why I do not rant to the people that employ me. So, why do I need to vent?
Given that I have been at this a while, as well as done it for a living and run a business doing it, you would think that I might be given at least a bit of consideration for knowing what I am doing. This is not the case where I am employed. This office has less than a dozen people working in it. They are guided by two, three-inch, three-ring binders of policies and procedures. In addition there is a a four-inch binder of forms that are required to be used, with instructions as to how to use each and every one, as well as how to fill in each and every blank on them. Instructions like, exactly, word-for-word, how to answer a telephone, how to write a letter (BTW - There is NO external written communication allowed without a sign-off by the boss, for any reason, no matter how routine.), lunches are a half hour, no more, no less, and are strictly controlled regarding the time you can take lunch. The office rule is that if you are five minutes behind on taking your lunch, you can't go! I am not sure how the Wage and Hour Division of the Labor Department would feel about this, but I need to get through a probationary period before I can complain.
Constructive criticism here is criticism, but rarely constructive. It is fundamentally a method of making the supervisors feel better about themselves at the expense of another. The type of criticism is given in a manner that is demeaning and condescending both in its nature and delivery. The fundamental assumption is that is that, since you have not been here as long as I have, you can't possibly know what you are doing. Having served in the military, I can assure you that I have seen this kind of supervisor before, and in a job where subordinates carry guns and small explosive devices, supervisors like this have extremely short life spans in the field. The term "fragging" comes to mind. (Please note that as a young 2nd Lieutenant in a combat zone, I learned to be a good supervisor as a matter of self-preservation. Respect is required because no one feared you enough not to shoot you in the back, and the epitaph given by your men could always be..."oooops.")
Criticism is also given in a manner that seems to assume that you are eight years of age, in both content and tone. Before you get the explanation for how you should do things a different way or adjust your style, a long and involved demeaning description of why you could not possibly understand why you are wrong precedes the explanation. The explanation of how you should proceed in the future is then given in a manner that would make a child feel stupid; again, both in tone and content.
The other thing that just apalls me is the level of intellectual dishonesty that pervades the agency. An investigative agency, regardless of what type of agency it is or what it investigates, should have as a primary mission, stated or otherwise, the search for the truth. In this agency, the primary, fundamental and overriding goal is to come to a conclusion that is least likely to piss anyone off, the truth be damned. The mental masturbation that ensues is incredible and hideous. Conclusions are predetermined on this standard and then the facts are massaged to bolster the conclusion. This is done for administrative utility as well as political convenience.
The administrative implementation of this mission is also manifested in a prohibition of any personnel in the agency to make any expression of a professional opinion of any kind. The reasoning behind this is that such an opinion might be different from that of the agency head. This, in turn, could cause the agency head's opinion to be brought into question. Let us ignore for the moment that opinions developed during initial stages of any investigation can easily be changed or appended based on further investigation, no other opinion, no matter how accurate or correct, can exist if it is not that of the boss. By the way, this includes written or spoken opinions. I am not sure of a more frustrating situation for a thinking, analytical and intelligent individual, the kind of person that makes a really good investigator. It is clearly an exercise in pure power by an individual lacking self esteem and confidence.
These are people who clearly view life as a zero-sum game and in order for them to feel better about themselves, they must somehow diminish another. They take from others by demeaning so they can give to themselves in a psychological sense. In another circumstance, I suspect these were the people that were the nebishes and dweebs that were picked on by others, or may have been part of the "in-crowd" or bullies that just got off on picking on people, in their younger years. The latetr being highly unlikely.
While the Cro Magnon part of my brain just wants to bitch slap these people and explain to them that they are what they are, I doubt they would be smart enough to understand the tone and content of my criticism. They clearly do not understand the concept of respect for anyone else, apparently having never been respected themselves. This educational technique, bitch slapping, while excellent at eliminating frustration, would result in my incarceration in all probability. I have to remember what is written on the post-it note on my mirror; at least until the economy improves, I win the lottery or another job becomes available.
I have been a professional investigator for almost 35 years in one form or another. I have been a Police Detective, an Investigator for Public Defenders at both the state and federal level, a private investigator, having owned and operated my own private investigative agency and been a medical-legal forensic investigator. While it would seem that I can't hold a job, it is really a progression up a ladder of experience, as well as a financial ladder.
Due to the economy and the fact that it became impossible to make a living in aviation, my most recent endeavor, I was forced to go back to work in the public sector. In this economy, government employment, with all its benefits and relative job security, was perfect. Thus, I went back into investigations at a government agency I shall not name for reasons of both job security and discretion. I am now wondering what I could possibly have been thinking when I made this decision. Oh, the money is not bad and the benefits are outstanding. The fact that I was forced to come out of retirement and re-enter the field from which I felt like I had escaped sucked, but it is a paycheck. I now have a post-it note on my bathroom mirror that reads, "WHY?" - "Because You Need The Money Idiot!" This reminds me every day why I do not rant to the people that employ me. So, why do I need to vent?
Given that I have been at this a while, as well as done it for a living and run a business doing it, you would think that I might be given at least a bit of consideration for knowing what I am doing. This is not the case where I am employed. This office has less than a dozen people working in it. They are guided by two, three-inch, three-ring binders of policies and procedures. In addition there is a a four-inch binder of forms that are required to be used, with instructions as to how to use each and every one, as well as how to fill in each and every blank on them. Instructions like, exactly, word-for-word, how to answer a telephone, how to write a letter (BTW - There is NO external written communication allowed without a sign-off by the boss, for any reason, no matter how routine.), lunches are a half hour, no more, no less, and are strictly controlled regarding the time you can take lunch. The office rule is that if you are five minutes behind on taking your lunch, you can't go! I am not sure how the Wage and Hour Division of the Labor Department would feel about this, but I need to get through a probationary period before I can complain.
Constructive criticism here is criticism, but rarely constructive. It is fundamentally a method of making the supervisors feel better about themselves at the expense of another. The type of criticism is given in a manner that is demeaning and condescending both in its nature and delivery. The fundamental assumption is that is that, since you have not been here as long as I have, you can't possibly know what you are doing. Having served in the military, I can assure you that I have seen this kind of supervisor before, and in a job where subordinates carry guns and small explosive devices, supervisors like this have extremely short life spans in the field. The term "fragging" comes to mind. (Please note that as a young 2nd Lieutenant in a combat zone, I learned to be a good supervisor as a matter of self-preservation. Respect is required because no one feared you enough not to shoot you in the back, and the epitaph given by your men could always be..."oooops.")
Criticism is also given in a manner that seems to assume that you are eight years of age, in both content and tone. Before you get the explanation for how you should do things a different way or adjust your style, a long and involved demeaning description of why you could not possibly understand why you are wrong precedes the explanation. The explanation of how you should proceed in the future is then given in a manner that would make a child feel stupid; again, both in tone and content.
The other thing that just apalls me is the level of intellectual dishonesty that pervades the agency. An investigative agency, regardless of what type of agency it is or what it investigates, should have as a primary mission, stated or otherwise, the search for the truth. In this agency, the primary, fundamental and overriding goal is to come to a conclusion that is least likely to piss anyone off, the truth be damned. The mental masturbation that ensues is incredible and hideous. Conclusions are predetermined on this standard and then the facts are massaged to bolster the conclusion. This is done for administrative utility as well as political convenience.
The administrative implementation of this mission is also manifested in a prohibition of any personnel in the agency to make any expression of a professional opinion of any kind. The reasoning behind this is that such an opinion might be different from that of the agency head. This, in turn, could cause the agency head's opinion to be brought into question. Let us ignore for the moment that opinions developed during initial stages of any investigation can easily be changed or appended based on further investigation, no other opinion, no matter how accurate or correct, can exist if it is not that of the boss. By the way, this includes written or spoken opinions. I am not sure of a more frustrating situation for a thinking, analytical and intelligent individual, the kind of person that makes a really good investigator. It is clearly an exercise in pure power by an individual lacking self esteem and confidence.
These are people who clearly view life as a zero-sum game and in order for them to feel better about themselves, they must somehow diminish another. They take from others by demeaning so they can give to themselves in a psychological sense. In another circumstance, I suspect these were the people that were the nebishes and dweebs that were picked on by others, or may have been part of the "in-crowd" or bullies that just got off on picking on people, in their younger years. The latetr being highly unlikely.
While the Cro Magnon part of my brain just wants to bitch slap these people and explain to them that they are what they are, I doubt they would be smart enough to understand the tone and content of my criticism. They clearly do not understand the concept of respect for anyone else, apparently having never been respected themselves. This educational technique, bitch slapping, while excellent at eliminating frustration, would result in my incarceration in all probability. I have to remember what is written on the post-it note on my mirror; at least until the economy improves, I win the lottery or another job becomes available.
Friday, June 4, 2010
Life Is Too Precious To Waste
This week a woman drove her car on I-95. Her rear tire blew out and caused her to lose control of the car causing it to flip over twice. Her husband, two daughters, ages 25 and 19, and her eldest daughter's boyfriend were all ejected from the car as it rolled over. All four died, three at the scene of the crash and the youngest daughter yesterday while in the hospital. Mom survived the crash. Why? No, it was not God punishing her or anything so existential or philosophical. It was because, for whatever reason, she was the only one wearing a seat belt. Mom not only survived, but the only reason she went to the hospital was to get sedated enough to deal with the tragedy. She spent the night in a motel.
So why do I write about this? First because I think it to be absolute proof that seat belts save lives and failure to use seat belts gets people killed. A simple lesson with which we are all familiar, at least intellectually. To those of you that offer up every excuse known to man, fires, canals, etc., I say you are morons and idiots and good luck with that; you will be eliminated from the gene pool soon enough if you drive long enough.
The second thing I am reminded of is that life is too precious to waste. I want you to stop reading for a moment and count to three. Go ahead, just do it....
Okay, back with me? Those three seconds are seconds that are gone. You cannot get them back. There is no refund or exchange on time. Once it is gone, it is gone forever. You cannot buy minutes in life, unlike cell phones. The lesson, or as I love to say, the take-home point, is don't waste time, It is far too precious and once gone, it is just that, gone. It is therefore a finite resource, too precious to waste.
I have tried to cheat death, and thus the finite limit of time, just a bit by trying to be memorable. I actually believe in the concept that we live on in the memories of others; some good memories and some bad memories. I would like to think that most are good memories, but I am too much a realist not to acknowledge that there are just some people that I pissed off, some intentionally, in fact. However, I still live on in their memories, be they good or bad. In the meantime, I am still alive and will still keep trying to impact people and become part of their memories, for one day I shall leave this mortal coil and no longer have that opportunity.
Life, at least on an individual basis, is a non-renewable resource. We will all run out of it one day. It will end. We will die. I m reminded of a young man that asked, to no one in particular, upon reading of man that was 100 years old, "Who wants to live to be a hundred?" I did not know the kid, but I looked at him and said, "A guy who's 99." I am not sure if he got my point. There is one thing that God has an absolutely perfect record on; all things die. So, treat life like what it is, a limited time offer and make the best possible use of it. Life is far too precious to be wasted. Now, go get on with yours...
So why do I write about this? First because I think it to be absolute proof that seat belts save lives and failure to use seat belts gets people killed. A simple lesson with which we are all familiar, at least intellectually. To those of you that offer up every excuse known to man, fires, canals, etc., I say you are morons and idiots and good luck with that; you will be eliminated from the gene pool soon enough if you drive long enough.
The second thing I am reminded of is that life is too precious to waste. I want you to stop reading for a moment and count to three. Go ahead, just do it....
Okay, back with me? Those three seconds are seconds that are gone. You cannot get them back. There is no refund or exchange on time. Once it is gone, it is gone forever. You cannot buy minutes in life, unlike cell phones. The lesson, or as I love to say, the take-home point, is don't waste time, It is far too precious and once gone, it is just that, gone. It is therefore a finite resource, too precious to waste.
I have tried to cheat death, and thus the finite limit of time, just a bit by trying to be memorable. I actually believe in the concept that we live on in the memories of others; some good memories and some bad memories. I would like to think that most are good memories, but I am too much a realist not to acknowledge that there are just some people that I pissed off, some intentionally, in fact. However, I still live on in their memories, be they good or bad. In the meantime, I am still alive and will still keep trying to impact people and become part of their memories, for one day I shall leave this mortal coil and no longer have that opportunity.
Life, at least on an individual basis, is a non-renewable resource. We will all run out of it one day. It will end. We will die. I m reminded of a young man that asked, to no one in particular, upon reading of man that was 100 years old, "Who wants to live to be a hundred?" I did not know the kid, but I looked at him and said, "A guy who's 99." I am not sure if he got my point. There is one thing that God has an absolutely perfect record on; all things die. So, treat life like what it is, a limited time offer and make the best possible use of it. Life is far too precious to be wasted. Now, go get on with yours...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)