Whose Pocket?

If you're not a large corporation with unlimited funds for lawyers (or if you haven't bribed the judge) it may be difficult for to get prompt and proper adjudication of a lawsuit. The problem is one that most affects a plaintiff who is an average citizen suing a large firm. Two of their (the defendant's) techniques (among others) are delays in trial, and extension of the proceedings in order to make the litigation too expensive for the plaintiff to afford.

On the other hand, we hear, on occasion, of a jury that finds for a plaintiff and awards not only compensatory damages, which may not be large, but punitive damages in an amount that staggers us. The payment of many millions – or tens or hundreds of millions – may be decreed. Of course the defendant will appeal and invoke any legalities that may help it (I'm assuming it's a corporation) from paying the damages – at least not as much as has been determined. So the plaintiff, who may have won the case, remains without compensation for the harm done him, and faces more time in court.

Settlements, of course, will sometimes, shorten the process. The problems with them are that the amounts paid are less and, after the lawyer is paid, may not represent adequate compensation for the damages and for the plaintiff's time and aggravation. Often moreover, the parties are not allowed to disclose the details of the settlement, in the hope that others won't be encouraged to sue in the hope of a windfall.

Another consideration is that the punitive damages may actually be excessive in relation to the harm to the individual, although it may not be small when damages to all of those affected are considered. It winds up as a windfall for the plaintiff and his lawyer – one that may not be warranted. It helps them, but not the public at large. It's not fair.

Can a better system be devised? Perhaps. I'm not especially concerned about corporations that have harmed our citizens and, although aware of the faults, would continue to do so because it helps their bottom line and they don't anticipate ever having to pay the piper – or at least not having to pay very much. (I must admit my view that some companies that are following the rules and are unaware of damage they do should be evaluate differently. I leave that concern for another time.) My unease is with those who feel they have been wronged. I realize that individual suits may be a form of extortion but I'm convinced that the greater fault is on the part of those who wronged them, if that is the case.

I also feel that a large payment for silence, or excessive punitive damages awarded to an individual because a jury is feeling its oats, or for whatever other reason, does not serve the public good, however much we may enjoy the fact that a corporation with deep pockets is being humbled. I am also troubled by the long delays which deprive the plaintiff of justice.

My lack of legal credentials, however, does not forestall me from making some proposals for dealing with this situation. I'm nothing if not all-knowing – even in areas in which I lack knowledge. And I also recognize the fact that at certain levels the rules are decided locally, reflecting local views rather than those of the federal government. If they are deemed reasonable and worthy, one or more of my proposals could be incorporated into state law. There are three areas that I want to address.

The first relates to punitive damages. They should go to the government – to all of us (for tax relief, improved government projects, aid for the needy). They are fines that should not go to the individual suing. Too much of it goes to his lawyer in any case. Decisions about punitive damages should be argued following a decision about responsibility and not be part of the initial findings of the jury, although compensatory damages may, as discussed below. Government lawyers should take over if an initial decision of guilt is made. They'll have more time and backing than the plaintiff's lawyer, and are better prepared to withstand the actions of an opposing corporation's staff.

The second area of note for me is that of compensatory damages. From my perspective they should be generous if the jury believes the defendant to be at fault. In addition to repayment for the actual offense, the following areas should be compensated (assuming they are not factors in that offense): time lost related to the offense itself and the legal actions that followed; legal expenses (and perhaps these should be specified so that they don't come from the overall settlement); embarrassment and damage to the plaintiff's reputation; anticipated future losses and costs likely to result from the wrong; and any other area that the jury considers appropriate. The threat of such damages and of government lawyers in the second phase of the action may convince the wrongdoer that, since there would be no consideration of punitive damages, a quick settlement, even if generous, would be less costly than protracted legal actions. (Of course if the jury decides that the suit was frivolous, costs should be paid by the plaintiff.) Class action suits would not be affected by these rules.

Finally there is the consideration of time. “Justice delayed is justice denied.” Trials should be swift. There should be short time limits set for consideration of the facts prior to trial, for appeal of verdicts, preparations for appeals since the one appealing will already know why he is dissatisfied, and any subsequent actions. At some point the awarded damages should be paid, irrespective of the stage of litigation. Whoever considers the decision unjust would have to initiate a new suit at that time, and the rules would be the same.

The purpose of such procedures would be to speed the judicial process and ensure the rapid payment of whatever is due – whether to the plaintiff or defendant. And it is aimed at the payment to the government of sums that will be available for costs that later result from the actions that prompted the suit.

If “deep pockets” are going to cover the costs of damages they've done – both to the individual and to society, and to pay them in a reasonable time, it may be appropriate to change the rules of “the game.”

May 25, 2017

Mixed Grill XXXV

I know you've been waiting for this. Perhaps to read, perhaps to trash it. Your choice.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Your place or mine – I prefer yours. The mine is wet and drafty. Or there's always a motel, but that costs

I give at the office – But I'll take anywhere

Only the good die young – Before they can be bad

Dance on the grave of an enemy – Footloose and fancy free

“Many smart men have come out of Indiana. And the smarter they were, the faster they came out.” (George Ade)

Suffer little children – Do I have to? They're really pains in the *** who make me suffer

A Midsummer Night's Drama – Post Shakespeare staging

Ring around the collar – Joint venture of Jacques Cartier and Steampunk

The soft underbelly – I won't touch it. It's up to NOW

Odds bodkin – OMG. He's an egotist and he's in Corpus Christie

Rainbow coalition – There's no white or black in the rainbow. This sounds like the Simpsons

Can't make head nor tail – I can understand not making head, but tail?

A penny for your thoughts – For two cents I'll give it to you

Don't stand nest to the apple tree – With anyone named Tell

Too late to make dessert – But I always have time for you

You don't say! – Anything worth hearing

We're all on the same page – Unfortunately we're using different books

Kscrslhv Brothers Mzrshkk & Mzrgnmpp Circus – The greatest show on Pluto

The rain won't hurt the rhubarb – Boy do you have another think coming

I've got your back – With a gun. Your money or your life

Check mate – A good place for pea coats

Rome wasn't built in a day – Actually it was in Lazio

Cut off your nose – To spite the plastic surgeon

The U. S. Constitution – Precedent of the United States

If you can't beat them, join them – Unless the heat's up, it's difficult to make scrambled eggs that way

We stand behind every door – Motto of the Acme Door Company

That's above my pay grade – Go away. You bother me

They're new paradigms – Don't give me that crap. Twenty cents is twenty cents

Anywhere I hang my hate is home – For a bigot, home is where the hate is

Close Encounters of the Third Kind – Your place or mine? And should we get someone else?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

OK. You read it. That was your responsibility and I take no blame.

May 29, 2017

Passing On (Advice)

You know you're getting old when you start dispensing advice to those younger than you, and I accept the adjective. I'm old. I wobble some, but I still think. And while I can, I regret that I must inform you that you get to be subject to my “wisdom,” if you choose to be. So I'll tell you how I've lived my life – and it's worked out pretty well. Perhaps some of my personal rules (“my” is an overstatement since they're hardly original, but they worked for me) will resonate with you.

1. Hope for the best. I'm optimistic by nature. Pessimism doesn't improve anything. It just makes you worry about it.
2. Prepare for the worst. For many of us the worst isn't so bad. I'm far better off than most of the world's people but I know there are going to be problems. There are always problems, and only you can guess what they might be. So, as the Boy Scouts say, “Be Prepared.” (For the Coast Guard it's “Semper Paratus.”)
3. Play the hand you're dealt. It is what it is. Fix it if necessary and if you're able, but you can't hide from a situation just because you don't like it. Deal with it. It's not only about you, so it's important to react to what's happening around you. Do something. Remember that things are only inevitable if you don't change them.
4. Plan for the future, but act in the present. The past is informative so you should use it. But don't let it paralyze you. Act when you must act. Never confuse what you want with reality.
5. Trust small, but verify large. The promises of others aren't always kept.
6. Do everything you can for others (and that includes cheering them up)– as soon as you can – but,
7. For better or worse, family comes first.
8. Honor your obligations, whether a promise or a note on the calendar. (Remember that appointments are promises, and schedules should be respected and followed.) Your word should be your bond.
9. Remember that others may not be as reliable as you. Cut them some slack.
10. Never give up.

“Pablum.”

Admit it. That's what you're thinking. (Cover your mouth when you yawn.)

And that's what I would have thought when I was young. A lot of sentimental advice of an old man. And it is. But that doesn't invalidate it. You may not agree with it all and you may not follow it, but it's worth considering. As time has gone by I've realized that life is not simply a series of isolated experiences that you can finesse but a sequence of challenges that all bear on each other, and which, with a reasonable amount of thought and preparation, you'll find a consistent and effective way you can meet.

There's more that I wanted to say, but I can't remember what it is. Which brings me to a final bit of advice. It's hardly new, but it's very effective. I learned it from my father. He didn't consciously teach it to me, but it was easy to see what he was doing. In his shirt pocket he had a stack of index cards which contained lists of what needed to be done. Nowadays all those things would be listed on some sort of battery-operated pocket device. I'm sure there's an app for it. But I'm a troglodyte and I scorn such devices. I still use paper and a pen. The older I get the more I forget. I still remember, however, how to write, while I have doubts whether I'd be able to learn enough about the “smartphones” and their equivalents to make them worth both the expense and my time.

In any case, however, I've presented a few rules by which I live. Perhaps they're of interest to you. Perhaps not. I suggest that it might be of value to you to give some thought to how you might conduct your own affairs in a manner that will reflect reasonably well on you at a time when you're too old to make significant changes. We don't live forever. There are no do-overs, so we might as well get it right the first time.

Enjoy.

May 22, 2017

A Well-Deserved Reward

I just searched for the lyrics of a tune recorded by many artists in 1942. And I found them on line. I don't know how I would have discovered them otherwise since I didn't remember the name of the song. Remembering some of the words, I used Google^®, which is amazing. But I suspect that I would also have found what I sought using one of the other “search engines” instead.

Clearly the person who conceived of the concept, made it practicable, and found a way to display it to the rest of us, is a genius – both in computer skills and in his entrepreneurship. And he's (or she's – I didn't bother to Google^® it so I don't really know) helped us all. I assume he's been well rewarded and he deserves it. He's opened up a new world to us by providing a means of negotiating the information highway. By now he's probably in the “1%” (actually the 0.1%) and everybody hates him. Not what he did, but him. He's rich and we're not.

Not me. All I have for him is praise. He earned what he earned. And computer users (that's a lot of us) benefit directly from his work. He should be rich. He's enriched the rest of us. I'm especially happy that the service is free, even if I have to tolerate the ads.

I wonder if, whoever he is, he took “shortcuts” along the way – both in the development and in the implementation. If he did anything unethical or criminal, he should be punished appropriately, but that does not take away from his accomplishments. For those he should be rewarded. And the reward should be his, not one that is shared. He did it, and he should profit from it.

It's not a unique story. Creativity – originating something that no one thought of, or could figure out how to implement – is a rare commodity. And it's something that seems to be part of American DNA, which is why so many new ideas originate here. There are creative ideas in all fields, and we're all better for learning what they are and utilizing those that help us. There are ideas in all fields: new medicines and medical techniques have increased our life spans; new ideas in agriculture have made nutrition available to more people; and better mouse traps have made for both improves aesthetic and health situations.

But I want to focus on the ones whose primary purpose is to make a buck. Those are the ones that are most apparent to us and most likely to earn our anger. Even if the product is something we need and the originator has produced something that makes our life easier, we resent the fact that we have to shell out the money that makes him rich. He should be paying higher taxes. He should be helping the poor by supporting entitlement programs. He has taken advantage of the rest of us.

Such penalties of the creative, however, are counter productive. They are our way of convincing ourselves that there are others whose main aim is to take advantage of us. They are creating what we consider useless variations of already existing products – variations that we don't need. But we buy them anyway. We don't need them but the guy down the block has them and we don't want to be left behind. And, of course, we'll pay anything for something that makes us healthy.

We tolerate the developments that don't cost us money – like Google^®. We know that its developers are making lots of money from ads and fees – money that should be taxed and given to the needy – but we don't realize that our tax money is going into the same programs. So since the new tools that others develop are free and of value to us, we use them.

We don't realize that the use of economic penalties lessens the likelihood that creativity will continue. Creative people are like the rest of us – they want to earn (or “get” if they don't want to work) as much as they can, however they can. Thomas Edison didn't spend his 99% perspiration simply out of the goodness of his sweat glands. He expected, and received, a reward for it. And modern drug companies don't develop drugs that will lose them money. Perhaps they overcharge; perhaps they could get by with smaller profits, but we'd be less healthy as a society if we discouraged their development of new products. Suppose, for example, that drug companies, in fear of taxes, opted not to develop antibiotics. We'd all suffer.

That's not to suggest that there is no room for tax law review and change, but stifling the impulse to be creative, by taxing the rich to help the poor. is not the best idea. Let's start our search engines and look at the ways creativity has been encouraged around the world, and look as well at the policies that discouraged it. Lest we dissuade the creative from their activity, it's better to support their efforts to help us all. Society will get its cut even if taxes aren't raised.

Global Warming And Arrogance

The world has been around for billions of years. At least that's what I've read. I can't testify to it personally. I haven't been around for quite that long.

I've also read that there have been changes over time. Darwin and others have expounded on evolution and how plant and animal life have varied, and life on earth has been severely impacted by extraterrestrial phenomena, sometimes with severe effects on the mortality of our terrestrial life forms. A good example is the extinction of dinosaurs (and who knows what else) following our being hit by a meteor. Things can happen, and they do.

We are now entering a period characterized by increasing temperatures – Global Warming – that has provoked great debates. Many believe that human actions are responsible for what is happening, and they're focusing their attention on what steps we must take to repair the world. Without any intent to question their concern, I think their view is a little narrow, and there are several questions that need answers:

1. How do we define such “warming?”
2. Should we be concerned about it?
3. What causes it?
4. Does human action contribute to it?
5. Can we stop it or at least limit it?
6. At what cost?
7. What are the likely effects of our actions?

It's a lot to consider, but I thought I'd start with a quote from the Wikipedia article on the subject:

The idea that Global Warming is a natural cycle is well understood from paleo data covering the past 1 million years. Is there a difference between current climate, and the natural cycle? For the past million years the natural climate has oscillated between warm periods and ice ages. This shifting in and out of warm periods and ice ages is correlated strongly with Milankovitch cycles.

I don't pretend to understand the subject all that well – especially Milankovitch cycles – but it's clear that warming happens. It's an anticipated feature related to the earth's position relative to the sun and happens without human actions. According to NASA, the earth has warmed 0.9^o Celsius since 1880 – almost 140 years. It seems like a small number, and it's below the peaks in some other periods of warming, but it's significant, and how much higher the peak it will go if it continues to rise is uncertain. There is certainly justification for concern.

And we're concerned. But many think that we're responsible for global warning. It's just like us humans to be so arrogant, so chutzpadik. We weren't around billions of years ago, but everything went on without us. Including global warming. We're not to blame for it.

But we're not off the hook altogether. We ought not wallow in hubris, but we do have some effect on the heavens and on earth. There's much argument about the existence of global warming and its cause(s). Some think that over the long haul we're in a period of cooling. Not likely, but it doesn't change anything. We don't cause cooling either.

There's much evidence, however, that we can affect the degree and the rate of warming. Without debating all the scientific equations and computer models – especially since I don't understand them – it's hard to ignore the predominant opinion of the scientific community that some of what we're producing is driving up the temperature. Whether what we do results in increased levels of carbon dioxide, an enlarging hole in the ozone layer, or something else, they're convinced that we can cause harm. How much? I don't know. I certainly wouldn't postulate on behalf of those who fear cooling that we accelerate programs that cause warming in order to fend off another ice age. Thinking that we can do so is more arrogance.

Recognizing the disagreement, it appears that our approach should be prudent. Proposals to change the nature of those products that appear to be contributing to warming are reasonable. But the changes should themselves be reasonable. Disruption of our lives and industries in the hope of an improvement in the situation is not the answer. (It is not arrogance to suggest that we're able to make many aspects of our situation worse. We've proved we can do that.) Improved utilization of natural forces (eg wind power) is expensive, but perhaps that is only in the short range. Substitution of products less likely to disrupt our earth and its environment makes sense as well.

What makes less sense is the mandate for rapid changes that will greatly unsettle our lives and industries. Inducements for improvements are warranted, but rapid, unthought-out, actions often lead to harmful results. It is presumptuous to believe that we can change the course of global warming quickly – or even at all. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't try.

With humility.






May 22, 2017

Too Much Information

Capital One, in advertising its credit card, asks everyone “What's in your wallet?” Mostly garbage, I assume. Including too many credit cards. We live, at least in this part of the world, amidst excess. There's too much of everything – at least the things you would be better off without.

Let me give an example. The last time you looked at your snail mail, how much was pertinent and how much was junk mail? (And the same is true of e-mail, which is the reason that so many people have stopped looking at it.) If it's anything like mine it's primarily junk – catalogs, ads, bulk mailings from organizations that somehow or other got my address, political mailings, and wrong addresses – with very little of any consequence. Most of the envelopes go on the recycle pile (apart from form letters with blank backs that we recycle in our printer) after wasting too much of my time. In all fairness I have to admit that it's my wife's time. I wouldn't waste mine on the junk.

Perhaps if that were the extent of the problem it would be tolerable. But it isn't, so it isn't. Don't answer your telephone. It's a “robo” call or some other kind of auditory spam. Especially during “silly season.” Political calls seem to come in every few minutes – usually robot calls not blocked by mechanisms that stop other robo calls. I'm glad I still have the strength to get up and answer them – and hang up immediately – but I resent them. My electoral choice is often the one who bothers me least by 'phone or mailing, and the one whose message is positive rather than a rant about the other candidate. Even after my visit to the polls I get calls from the party in which I enrolled (stupidly) years ago to ask me if I have voted. It's the most active time of year for politicians who never seem to be interested in getting any kind of useful legislation passed. They're too busy. (Try calling them and you'll only get an aide whose salary you, as a taxpayer, are supplying.) Except for catering to the needs of contributors and those who can assure them of lots of publicity. (A significant number of laws named after unfortunate individuals fall into this category. Call something “Gretchen's Law” and there's certain to be wide coverage. One of the things of which we have an excess are named laws.)

It shouldn't be surprising. Scientists tell us the Universe is expanding, so shouldn't we expect the same of everything else? Since I don't know (or, frankly, care) how fast that is I can't determine if the rate of junk mail is or isn't exceeding it. Whether or not it is, it's clearly coming too fast.

But the most rapd expansion is in one of the products of science and technology – the internet and its children. Search for something on Google^® for example and, unless the search terms are very restrictive, you'll get more responses than you can deal with. And they're not always reliable. Too many are sucked into the trap of accepting what they read as fact and ignoring the advice of real experts as they defer to the views and prejudices of loud-voiced and opinionated correspondents. The same occurs in other applications. The various social media are absorbing all the free time of too many people. There are, for example, too many useless blogs by those who think they have something to say immediately and need a platform. (I should point out that this is not one of those blogs. Mine, of course, is useful.)

Accompanying the varied, and excessive, postings are too many uninteresting or insipid pictures and videos dealing, mostly, with “cute” children, “amusing” animals, and the views of the same politicians you can't reach. And ads. Targeted ads. Designed to induce your purchase of something you don't need.

Too much. Too much junk mail and telephone calls; too much political blather; too much time wasted on the computer: too many advertisements – not only on the internet but everywhere you look. And they're all detracting from the time that used to be spent thinking, or reading some worthwhile material. Things are moving too fast.

We've lost our focus. Rather than spend our time on activities of value to us we're overwhelmed by everything going on in society, whether or not it's of any consequence. And there's too much that doesn't matter. We're more interested in an idiotic “fact” from the Guinness book than in speaking to our children, or spending time in contemplation. Sadly our children aren't interested in talking to us. They're too busy on their own devices. And they have no interest in contemplation.

Is there any solution to the problem? Not really. The mail and telephone problems will get worse. Portable smartphones will increase and increase the time we spend away from thought. Politics remain as certain as death and taxes. And advertising will only increase over time as it has been doing.

I'm too pessimistic. There is a solution, but very few will follow it. Isolation. That's my approach, and, to a degree, the approach of many families. Don't answer your phone unless you want to speak to the one calling. That takes “caller ID” and some kind of answering machine, but it's worth it. Ditto your mail. Open it only if the return address is that of someone from whom you want to hear. Throw the rest of the mail out. Don't watch television. Resign from Facebook^® and its analogues. Read a classic every now and then. Think.

I suspect you'll view me as a troglodyte. That's OK. The concerns in previous generations were probably similar, but they didn't act on them and we suffer because of it. Shouldn't we protect future generations from society's advances?






May 1, 2017

Mixed Grill XXVIII

It never ends. My bad. I suspect you agree.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The king is dead. Long live the king – Alternative versions of the Elvis saga

What ho. The grad – Time to buy another used car

“Gun rights advocate” – Hate speech by some

Wearing your hate on your sleeve – Pacifists' new creed. Ditto moralists and other protesters

My funeral – Wouldn't miss it

Checkmate – Pen or typewriter

Facebook – Frontal lobe vanquisher and major cause of blindness

Self-driving cars – Smarter than most drivers

The Puritans nobly fled from a land of despotism to a land of freedim [sic], where they could not only enjoy their own religion, but could prevent everybody else from enjoyin [sic] his. (Artemis Ward)

The year of too much writing – Every year (my writing excluded)

Where's Carmen Santiago? – She seems to have disappeared

Rube Goldberg – Disoverer of chaos theory

Maid in the shade – No comment

If you can read this you're too close – And you're wise not to try anyway

Fit to be tie dyed– A good remedy for stained items

People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use. (Søren Kierkegaard)

Can you top this – It used to be feature of radio. Now we need to stop almost everything.

The picture of health – Nutritionists' text. Science fiction. Graphic novel. Mostly novel

Let's turn out the lights and go to sleep – Or find something else to do

Four Freedoms – Freedom to shoot my mouth off, Freedom get whatever I want (it's all about me), Freedom to silence whoever offends me, Freedom to violate law of which I don't approve

Erin go broke – The Irish economy isn't exactly flourishing

Give me liberty or give me death (Socrates – Sir Oracle translation)

Bach to basics – The Well Tempered Clavichord

Random killing – Proof of quantum theory however sad it may be

One thing leads to another – Watch out for things

If you can't stand the heat – Better not go to Hell

Turn the other cheek – Moon from another angle

The ties that blind all men – Unless they wear zoot suits

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

My worse. But just wait. The worst is yet to come.

April 5, 2017