Frivolity

Frivolous, as defined by Webster, describes a silly or whimsical activity. The term can be applied by others witnessing a behavior or individuals describing the motivations for their specific actions. Today, we talk only of the former, so how can anyone use this word in conjunction with "lawsuit". Suing someone is anything but fun and I find it hard to believe that anyone would frivolously leap into the legal pool. We have been duped, you and I both, and allow me a few minutes of your time to explain.

I have long thought that a big piece of needed reform within our legal system is the seemingly astronomical awards given to foolish people suffering from poor judgment. The lady and the hot McDonalds coffee is the poster child for such reform. Truth be told, this attempt at tort reform can be traced back to corporate board rooms and that, my friends, is generally not in our best interests.

Should you get the chance to view HBO's "Hot Coffee", don't pass it up. This documentary chronicles the slow, yet steady, strategy employed to limit our access to courtrooms or justified damage awards. Some states have imposed penalty caps on awards while corporations prefer arbitration clauses in contracts with their customers, all in the name of tort reform. The former makes legal action financially unfeasible while the latter bars us from the courtroom altogether.

OK, it should come as no surprise to learn of corporate America's desire to keep you and me from seeking redress for their shenanigans, but why is the campaign so successful? I'd say good marketing aimed at fair-minded folks. And aren't we all fair- minded? Well, I'm fair-minded, anyway, but I'm not so sure about you.

And just like that, we've all been hornswoggled into this high pitched, hot tempered, tort reform fever as we fall prey to the misconception that frivolous lawsuits will be our undoing. Get rid of them, we're told, and all costs go down: medical, insurance, merchandise, and the like. After all, the prices are high to cover the costs of such frivolity. (In states that have instituted reform by limiting awards, no evidence of lower premiums, etc. has been found.)

In so doing, though, we bypass an integral part of our judicial system: the jury. Left to their deliberation, they are in the best position to separate the frivolous from the serious and render appropriate verdicts. Otherwise, we've allowed politicians and CEO's to define the term and one needs little time to decide who's best interests would be served. (Hint: it's not us!)

It's not my place to rule on the merits of your complaint unless, of course, I'm a member of the jury hearing your case. Nor is it your place to rule on mine. I think we can also agree that any foray into the legal arena is something far from frivolous. That being said, let's temper our rush to tort reform by remembering the two important letters in frivolous: u and i.

Hope vs Pessimism

I recently promised to delve into the seeming dichotomy of hopeful pessimism and there’s no better time, I’d say, what with events swirling about at a hectic pace and threatening to overtake us. I wish I could say that this idea sprung from my own musings, but the credit goes to Dr. Cornel West. Dr. West is a regular guest on HBO’s "Real Time with Bill Maher" and, on a recent show, he described himself as a pessimist with hope. This stuck with me because the two, while rarely sharing the same sentence, are far from mutually exclusive.

It is difficult indeed to feel optimistic when looking at current events. Political, corporate, financial, environmental, you-name-it: the obstacles are overwhelming in trying to get our arms, let alone heads, around issues that collide and confuse. No, optimism isn’t number 1 on today’s hit parade and for good reason. But our absence of rose-colored glasses does not necessarily mean we’re ready to throw in the towel. That's where hope comes into play and I’d venture to say that it coexists in each of us regardless of whether we’re optimists, pessimists, or pragmatists. How can that be?

Could it be that they occupy different venues within our psyche? Pessimism, et al, represents a state of mind that shapes our view of the world and short term outlooks. And we can be all at the same time as we contemplate the different challenges and potential solutions. Hope, on the other hand, can be found only in our heart. It is more of an emotion than mental process and, as such, ignores facts and the reality of our daily life. As such, it allows us to look past the warts and envision a world of possibilities.

There are hopeless creatures out there, to be sure, and you can bet they’re pessimists of the first order. No surprise, though, because without hope there can be nothing to temper the doom and gloom in our thoughts. Hope, however, can thrive in spite of the mind’s eye and finds cohabitation with pessimism more than doable.

I can’t say for certain that one can train the heart to be hopeful. I do know that, in spite of my daily dose of wonder at the dismal state of the human condition, I remain hopeful that mankind can somehow wiggle its way out of the various messes it currently finds itself enmeshed. We’ve always seemed to do it before and, while the pessimist in me thinks we may be coming to the end of our streak, my hope keeps me searching for that elusive rainbow. I also accept the fact that having hope is harder work than adhering to a pessimistic viewpoint.

Feel free to bemoan the state of affairs, but leave room at the end of your diatribe for a small serving of hope. After all, without it we’re not left with much, are we? And thank you, Dr. West, for drawing the important distinction between the two.

Recovery or Reinvention?

It's hard to watch or read any news report without some mention of the ongoing economic "recovery". Jobs, housing, production, productivity, and similar statistics inundate us in trying to explain the continued malaise while searching for some sign of improvement. Nothing surprising there, I'd say, but I can't help wondering whether the term "recovery" is appropriate. I won't waste your time (nor mine) re-plowing the ground in describing how we got to where we are. We all know that song, so let's spend a few minutes looking at how this extrication differs.

In past recessions, workers were laid off as production was reduced. Then, as the economy rebounded, workers were recalled and production returned to previous levels. In other words, the economy recovered. This time is different for a myriad of connected reasons. I'm not an economist so many of the subtleties escape me, but bear with me as we take a look at some of the major pieces of our dilemma.

Housing: It all started with offering unqualified buyers the opportunity of owning their own home. "Don't worry. The value goes up so fast that you can sell when your payment becomes too high and still walk away with money in your pocket." As the economy slowed, buyers became scarcer, adjustable mortgage payments went up, and the foreclosures began. It didn't stop there, though, because construction fueled much of the economy so, as it slowed, other jobs were eliminated. Today, more stable, qualified, buyers are slipping into the world of foreclosure, short-sale, or bankruptcy.

Many distressed properties are yet to be placed on the market by the banks to prevent even deeper cuts in selling prices so we can expect this glut of under-valued homes to continue for a good time. Many caught up in this whirlwind may never buy a home again. Some won't be able to even consider it for years until their credit reports improve, but that may still not be long enough for the demand to outpace supply. 

Banks: Banks are not in business to loan us money. They're in business to make money. Presumably, the TARP funds were meant to be used as a primer for our economic engine. That wasn't part of the contract, though, and the banks hoarded their funds to cover future losses connected with the toxic assets incurred during the mortgage binge. In the meantime, they could be used to inflate the bottom line and provide even larger bonuses to the executives.

No, banks are not our friend, nor will they ever be. Do not expect the loan requirements to suddenly vanish. Money will continue to be loaned under highly restrictive terms resulting in a prolonged period of stagnation.

Jobs: While many of us are still working, wages have stagnated. Discretionary cash is scarcer and most are now limiting purchases, big and small. The ability to draw from a home equity line of credit is all but gone as home values have lowered and the equity terms have been altered commensurately. As we reined in our spending, the economy shrank further, resulting in more job losses. And, as more lost their job, foreclosures and their related vehicles soared. Unemployed and underwater: a lethal combination, financially speaking. In looking for new work, many considered relocation, but how does one relocate when one cannot sell their home? And, should they be able to sell, it will fetch a price so low that no gain can be realized to finance the relocation.

And, when better times arrive, many of those lost jobs will not return. Some were replaced by technology...others by the increased productivity of co-workers afraid of finding themselves on the street, too.

Uncle Sam: Historically, government stepped in and provided jobs and benefits to those caught up in the clutches of a recession or, worse yet, a depression. But our generous Uncle has no money, either, and seems unwilling to “borrow” from a future where better days lie. So no short-term assistance, no long-term investment seeking the next best thing since sliced bread. Just a promise of better days to come.

The economy that we all grew up within was based on consumerism. I'm not so sure that the immediate future will include masses of folks scrambling to buy the latest and greatest doodad. We’re in for a major realignment of our economic model as folks consume less regardless of their personal bank balance. I'd say that we're entering a period of reflection, reorganization, and reinvestment in our own quality of life. Smaller homes, greater savings, new careers. In other words, a reinventing of how we define ourselves, our economy, and what is important to each.

Such a transformation takes time under the best of circumstances, but the continued mantra of "economic recovery" seeks only to delay any real progress as it attempts to reassure us that things will soon return to normal. Only when we accept the fact that established definitions of jobs and housing and standards of living are passé will we begin the process of economic reinvention. And the sooner we get started, the better. 

Commitment

It has been said that marriage and insanity have at least one thing in common: commitment. So why not spend a few minutes in exploring both phenomena. Marriage entails many more relationships than between two individuals. Employees are married to their employers, for instance, in that both need the other to exist and thrive. Similarly, our government needs constituents to function. So why is so much time spent to alienate the very folks needed the most?

Let’s start with the latest example of corporate dysfunction: the NBA. So far as we can tell, the owners are bad businesspeople and can’t make a profit. And the players, thought to be overpaid and molly-coddled, want more, too. So the lockout threatens the financial futures of all involved. The NFL is similarly embroiled in a contractual dispute. While professional athletes contribute mightily to the astronomical cash flows that their teams enjoy, their skill set is limited. As such, they’re in a tough spot seeking ever higher salaries for a job that is viewed as non-essential to our everyday life. And the owners, while perhaps enjoying other revenue streams, stand to lose, too.

The political polarization we see at just about every level of government also serves no productive purpose. Much like fiddling while Rome burns, both sides of the Congressional aisle flirt with disaster in delaying a solution to the raising of the national debt limit. Should the worst-case scenario come to pass, most, if not all, citizens will be affected. And they will take their wrath out on their elected representatives. Once again, everybody loses.

Negotiating has taken on a new cachet where no-blink, high stakes poker has replaced meaningful dialogue with a pragmatic realization that each side has much to lose. Historically, in such scenarios, a compromise where neither side is overjoyed yet finds some sunshine amid the clouds was to be expected. Today, though, we’re all in vehicles playing chicken with oncoming traffic. And that, I’d say, is insane.

Most of us know that such obstinacy in a domestic setting leads to certain disaster. Why then, do we refuse to acknowledge the same danger in the corporate or political arena? I’d suggest it’s due to the lack of commitment when it comes to matters outside the home. We hear “take this job and shove it”, but have you ever heard the same philosophy in personal relationships? True, at the end of a hopeless coupling words to that effect are said with great feeling, but no one says it earlier except in an attempt to speed up the arrival of that ill-fated day. But we hear it regularly elsewhere.

Perhaps if we added a pinch of commitment to our commercial and legislative dealings things would progress more smoothly. Perhaps, if we saw the bigger picture, including those dependent upon our best effort, would we move from the far corner to a point closer to the center of the room. Perhaps, if we got over ourselves, the glimmer of hope might grow into a flame. There are times when compromise is fruitless and discretion is no longer the better part of valor. But these times come upon reaching the end game. What we see now is an opening position of intransigence and no one is served by that behavior.

One need look no further than those that signed the Declaration of Independence: five were captured by the British and tortured before they died. Twelve lost their homes to looting and arson. Two lost sons in the Revolutionary army and two more had their sons captured. Nine fought and died in the Revolutionary War. These were men who saw the greater picture. They committed themselves to an ideal and suffered great personal loss as a result. Was their effort in vain?

Isn’t it time to refocus on a more distant point and find ways to recapture the spirit that brought us so far and so well? Shouldn’t CEO’s look beyond quarterly results? Shouldn’t politicians disregard lobbyists? How about recommitting to the relationship held between bosses and worker bees, representatives and constituents. And what better time than the 4th of July?