We Are Becoming a Society of Cowards

"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 been 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. 

After this process is followed, they usually ask someone making a tenth what they make, “That’s what I should do, right?  What do you think?”  This is not an effort to really get the opinion of someone, but to somehow absolve themselves of responsibility, for if the decision they make turns out to be wrong, they are going to point there finger directly at the person they asked and tell them, “It’s your fault.”  In the realm of politics, this is the scapegoat that loses their job because the big man needs to slough off some insulation to cover his proverbial butt.

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 lawyers 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 the 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 "satisficing", a decision-making strategy that attempts to meet minimum 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, preemptively, 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, directs the decision maker?  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, in the interest of self-protection.

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 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.

Political Correctness....We Need to Get Real !!

I cannot help but wonder when we will get to the point that we don't have to be "politically correct."  We have gotten so incredibly concerned with the use of language, and in particular slang, that we are beginning to reduce our ability as a society to communicate.  There are ridiculous examples.

Two of my best friends in the world, you know the kinds you gladly take a bullet for, are graduates or Florida State University.  I happen to be a graduate (twice, actually) of the University of Florida, so our friendship can have limitations, like at football season, during the Florida, Florida State game.  However, there has been a recent move to try to prevent Florida State from utilizing the name "Seminoles".  Apparently there are those that believe this is not proper, to have a sports team named after a tribe of Native Americans.  I guess, based on this line of thinking/logic, we need to change the name of all sorts of teams, like the Cleveland Indians or the Washington Redskins.

First, in a world with so many problems, do we really want to have to worry about the names of our sports teams?  Is the world such a great and wonderful place that we have nothing better to do than argue about these kinds of issues?  Please, people, get real.  Second, when we name a team after a group, such as "Indians" or the less approved of name "Redskins", we are naming the team after a group that we think to be inspirational and having good qualities; tenacity, strength, fairness, endurance, skill, teamwork,  You know all those attributes that make a winning team?  So why should we be screaming foul?

Can you just imagine what a team like the Houston Homeless would inspire in us?  How about the Dallas Deadbeats?  Even worse, the Denver Dropouts?  I could go on and on with this sarcastic view of name-calling.

My Mother, God rest her soul, told me that I was somehow descended from the Cherokee Nation.  In a weird sort of way, when I hear that song "Cherokee People" by of all groups, Paul Revere and the Raiders, I am a little bit proud.  Never mind that the song itself is fairly well done, it outlines the history of a proud people, and I am, at least on a genetic level, related to that proud people.

Today, the President is catching Hell for using the term "Geronimo" in reference to Osama bin Laden.  Geronimo was a venerated leader of the Apache Nation.  He managed to avoid being captured by forces of the United States for almost 30 years, a site better than Osama managed to do, but then the U.S. didn't have all that fancy satellite and radio tracking stuff back then, either.  Geronimo eventually died, while still in the custody of the U.S. at the tender age of 76.  Just a note, he died as a result of complications of injuries he suffered falling off his horse!  Just so I am clear, he was 76 years old and still riding around on a horse!!!  How tough is that?  Personally, I think that the mistake was made in code-naming ObL because he was a far lesser man than Geronimo.

Now, I will admit that there are words that are so emotionally charged to a particular people, that it just cannot be overlooked or excused.  We all know that we never, never, never use what has become euphemistically called, "the 'N' word."  I understand, and I would probably be a little bent out of shape at the use of the word that was used to reduce an entire population to the point where they could be kept and sold as chattel property.  We do have to acknowledge that every defined group, whether it is by race, nationality or religion has these epithets attached to them.  We are all very familiar with the terms used to refer to groups like the Irish, Jews, Latins...Hell even the British have a few.

Admittedly, I am using the worst examples here, and they are very easy to define as bad, but hey, where do we draw the line?  I happen to be bald and there are all sorts of terms that can be used to refer to me in a derogatory fashion.  I have started to use the "politically correct" references as jokes; follicly impaired, hair challenged, etc.  I also happen to be a bit overweight...Hell, I'm downright fat, but don't dare be overheard referring to me as such.  Everyone else cares, not me, however.   In our society, I might get a lawyer and sue you for damaging my poor little psyche; how dare I be called exactly what I am, a fat, middle-aged, bald guy.  I like who I am, if you don't, take a pill or something.  I am so often reminded of my youth when we responded to bullies trying to pick fights with "stick and stones...."  What can't we do that anymore and get over ourselves?