A lull in the Action
link

I had intended to post the sixth section of the Personal Responsibility essay today, but I haven't finished it. It was going pretty good last night before I went to bed, but today is a different story. I would like to imply that I'm having trouble working out some last minute details, thereby implying that I have been working on it, but that isn't what's going on. The Head Rat has been sick all day, Rat Jr.has a migrane and her car won't start. (apparently the starter, which I don't think I can get to, because I don't have the wherewithall to raise the engine. It's not that I can't do it, I just don't have room out in the parking lot to move around. That, and crawling around on a black asphalt parking lot in August in Kansas is down real close to the bottom on my list of favorite things to do.) And then, I've been having some inner ear problems, which makes focusing and walking in a straight line kind of an adventure. So I mostly haven't done anything today. I did manage to tear apart a junk computer tonight. By the way, although my wife doesn't read this site regularly, she knows that I refer to her as the Head Rat and she is basically OK with it. Rat Jr. is 19. She'll get over it. Last night, I discovered that nothing I've written on this site is accessible via search engine. Kind of depressing, actually. Not that I ever expected massive readership, but I always thought someone might stumble across it accidentally while looking for something else. That's the way I've discovered most of the stuff I like most on the internet, so I guess I always hoped that maybe one person would stumble across my stuff and then let me know about it. What's worse, an earlier version of this site I put up at Radio Weblogs is still accessible, but I don't have anything good there, and no way to point anyone here. I've been thinking about registering a domain name and moving the site to a web host independent of my ISP. I was going to do it anyway, because I'm getting ready to get a higher speed connection and give up my dial-up service. I guess I'll just be doing it a little sooner than I planned. I've been talking to a guy I know (who is in basically the same line of work as me) about some basic web design and site maintenance. If I can work out the details, I may be able to get him to register the domain name and purchase the hosting services for me as part of a package deal with his site. We'll see. I may just have to bite the bullet and cough up the money myself. Anyway, while I was looking at search engines, I typed in "personal non-responsibility". (I have this undying fear that as soon as I publish it I will discover that someone else has said the same thing before me and more eloquently. For example, I noticed that Steven Den Beste had an article a couple of days ago where he quotes Ralph Peters extensively about victim culture in the middle east.) I got dozens of pages of hits. But I was a bit relieved to find that only half a dozen or so were articles about the topic and my articles don't seem (to me, at least) to be substantially worse than any of them. The rest (page after page) were court records, legal notices and contracts bestowing, claiming and requiring (respectively) "non-responsibility" and/or "non-responsibility clauses". Which, of course, would tend to lend credence to my claims of the pervasiveness of the phenomenon.by Cziltang 
Posted: Saturday, August 09 2003 10:06:22 PM

PNRP, part 5
link

I try not to let these things turn into rants. Sloppy reasoning for the sake of verbal impact may be cool, but it isn't what I'm trying to achieve. I am trying to be calm, concise and at least marginally well-reasoned. I was not entirely successful in this next section. V. The Personal Non-Responsibility Paradigm taken to the next level Unfortunately, it is no longer enough that "victims" must be compensated. Now we must prevent others from being "victimized". For example: since children are easily victimized, let's talk "child safety" in general and bicycles in particular. In a world of personal accountability, we would simply acknowledge that bicycles are inherently dangerous and hold the owner/user responsible for what they do with their bicycles, the unpleasant consequences of misuse, and understand that occasionally kids will get hurt riding bicycles. In the current "victim's world" we try to prevent all bad things from happening by loading up kids with helmets, elbow pads and knee pads, trying to eliminate all risk. In my opinion, that was part of the fun of riding a bike: going way too fast. And I would never have ridden all the places I did as a child if I had to load up on safety equipment, and I certainly would never have gone anywhere in the 100 degree Kansas summers. Then, there's McDonald's coffee. In a world of personal accountability we would assume it is the consumer's responsibility to assume that coffee (unless you're buying iced coffee) is a hot liquid and that hot liquids are dangerous, assume it is the consumer's responsibility to be careful with hot liquids and hold the consumer responsible for the unpleasant consequences of not being careful. In the current "victim's world" we try to prevent unfortunate consequences for all future customers by requiring that McDonald's serve their coffee lukewarm or plaster warning labels all over every available surface a customer might look at prior to taking possession of a hot cup of coffee in a drivethrough. Or, let's talk "gun safety." In a world of personal accountability we would simply honor the individual's choice to own or not own a gun and hold the owner responsible for what they do with their guns and the consequences if someone else gets access to their gun (other than theft, of course). In the current "victim's world" we try to prevent bad things from happening by restricting access to guns, banning guns, or eliminate guns by sueing manufacturers out of existence under the premise that the company (one of the entities which by definition can't be a victim) is responsible for damage done to the victims of gun crimes (by definition, misuse by an individual) and accidents (also by definition, misuse) and should therefore compensate the victims. "Victim," in some lawsuits, is twisted to define the victim as a city government, the premise being the city should get money from the gun manufacturer because of the increased cost of law enforcement caused by individuals misusing guns. By this logic, cities should sue all car manufacturers because they have to have emergency services and law enforcement to deal with car wrecks. Or better yet, because we like cars but alcohol (like tobacco) is evil, maybe cities should sue all brewers and distillers for the costs of dealing with drunk drivers? Or, better still, why don't some fat people sue fast food restaurants for selling greasy, cholesteral-laden, heart-attack-on-a-bun hamburgers that made them fat and caused health problems? (Oops, sorry, that one's already been tried.) by Cziltang 
Posted: Friday, August 08 2003 04:02:24 PM

More from the Ratlands
link

The Personal Non-Responsibility Paradigm in Action The Infamous McDonald's Coffee case A 79 year old woman, a Ms. Liebeck, ordered coffee in a McDonald's drivethrough. It was served in a styrofoam cup. After getting his order, her grandson (who was driving) pulled up and stopped so she could put cream and sugar in the coffee. She put the cup between her knees and tried to take off the lid. As she removed the lid, the entire contents spilled in her lap. Her sweatpants absorbed the coffee and held it next to her skin, causing 3rd degree burns over 6 per cent of her body. She spent 8 days in the hospital. The burns required skin grafts. She asked McDonald's for $20,000 for medical expenses. McDonald's had the unmitigated gall to refuse her request. So, in the finest American tradition, she sued them because the coffee was "defective". The trial did not focus on whether a 79 year old woman (or anyone else, for that matter) should try to hold a styrofoam cup filled with hot coffee between her knees and pry the lid off. It did not focus on whether it is physically possible to exert enough pressure on the sides of a styrofoam cup to keep it from dropping and still take the lid off without crushing the cup (thereby dumping the contents in your lap). Instead, it focused on McDonald's "callous, reckless" behavior. There was documentation of more than 700 incidents of McDonalds coffee burns in a 10 year period previously, many similar in nature to this incident. Testimony revealed that McDonald's coffee is held at 185 degrees, and at that temperature, 3rd degree burns can occur in 2-7 seconds. An expert testified that if the coffee had been 155 degrees, she wouldn't have been burned. Basically it came down to the facts that McDonald's knew their coffee was really hot, because they keep it that way deliberately, even though other people had been burned by it and they didn't warn anyone that it was dangerous. The jury awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages. Because of McDonald's "callous" attitude about the incident, the jury also awarded Liebeck $2.7 million in punitive damages, which equals about two days of McDonalds' coffee sales. (most of this information came from a summary of the case I found online www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm although there are hundreds out there.) In all the write-ups I've seen, there is one common thread: It wasn't frivolous, it was really, really very serious because the burns required skin grafts. There is never any consideration of the possibility that this was just an unfortunate accident. And on top of everything else, McDonalds committed the unpardonable sin of being "callous" by not immediately admitting the coffee was "defective" and taking full responsibility for Ms. Liebeck's pain and suffering. For that reason the jury thought it was justified in awarding $2.7 million in punitive damages. Contrary to popular opinion, I am only a cold, unfeeling, heartless bastard part of the time. I am truly sorry that Ms. Liebeck got burned. I'm sorry she was in pain. I have nothing against her. I'm sure she's probably a really nice person. I'm not saying that this was an abuse of the legal system. But what's legal and what's right aren't always the same thing and from my perspective, this is a nearly perfect example of the Personal Non-Responsibility Paradigm. This case demonstrates the unspoken assumptions that nothing is an accident. It can't be an accident. If it truly was an accident, there would be no one to blame. Someone is to blame because there has to be someone to blame; suffering without blame is not allowed. And, it can't be the victim because she suffered. So who is left to blame? McDonalds. (although I was surprised to discover that the original compensatory damages awarded by the jury were reduced from $200,000 to $160,000 because they found her "20% responsible" ???. I also discovered that a Judge reduced the whole award to around $450,000 (which a number of writers championed as a triumph of the legal system...). I also found that the matter was later settled out of court in a secret agreement, so no one outside the parties involved really knows what the settlement was.) The unspoken assumptions are so pervasive that the assumption that someone is at fault is taken as a given. So there is no sense of "why should we even consider why it might be McDonalds' fault?" in any of the write-ups. And there is no sense of "what were you doing putting a cup of hot coffee between your legs and trying pry the lid off, anyway?". Just the notion that she shouldn't have had to endure unpleasant circumstances, someone was to blame for those circumstances, it couldn't be her fault because she suffered, so she should have been compensated. It occurred to me after I wrote this that maybe I was wrong about the notion that we are looking for someone to blame more than we used to. Perhaps we have always had to have someone to blame, but in an earlier, more religious time we accepted misfortune with a more Job-like resignation because it was "God's will." In our current lawyer-dominated society, we have to find someone else, because God isn't likely to cough up $2.7 million in punitive damages. by Cziltang 
Posted: Thursday, August 07 2003 08:42:46 PM

More of the Same
link

I've picked up a couple of basically positive comments on the essay so far. I also had a couple of interesting discussions about it today. Part 3, post haste. The "Personal Non-Responsibility" Paradigm Our basic impulse is that one should not be held accountable for, or have to endure the consequences of things that one is not responsible for. We protect Juveniles from the full consequences of their actions because we believe they are not fully responsible for their actions. We protect the Mentally Ill from the full consequences of their actions because we believe they aren't fully responsible. We allow that injuring or killing someone is self-defense may be justified because the person defending himself was not responsible for creating the situation. However, from that basic impulse, we have progressed (or degenerated, as the case may be) to a new impulse. In the words of Susan Martinuk:

A fundamentally wrong assumption now governs our society: No one should have to endure difficult circumstances. Every aspect of our human situation has become the responsibility of society at large, and when one has a difficult life, one is instantly transformed into a victim of evil societal forces. Where there is difficulty, there is a victim; where there are victims, there must be compensation. Feb. 18, 1999 - from "Cashing In on Victimhood", published in Reader's Digest Magazine, originally published in the National Post

Stated differently, the paradigm is this: It is not fair or right that I should have to accept the consequences for things that are not my responsibilty. There is always someone out there explaining why it isn't my responsibility. I shouldn't have to endure unpleasant circumstances. Any consequences for my actions are unacceptable. There is no such thing as bad luck. Someone is always to blame. By definition it can't be my fault, I'm a victim. by Cziltang 
Posted: Tuesday, August 05 2003 09:55:41 PM

Victim Culture and Personal Responsibility, pt. 2 and other notes
link

Not too much going on now. Really enjoyed the Manchester United vs. Barcelona game from Philadelphia last night. I'm almost finished with all of the Personal Responsibility essay, so I'm posting part 2 tonight. The Erosion of Personal Responsibility It seems to be human nature to want to blame others for our problems; it makes us feel better about ourselves, sometimes it allows us to avoid the unpleasant truth that we did something stupid, and it has also become lucrative ( see notes in later sections). Historically, individuals, groups, institutions and leaders have all been willing to divert our attention by blaming someone or something else for our problems. In the past century we tried to come to grips with the primacy of science. Science could do anything; we could split the atom after all, surely, science could solve any problem. As the social sciences developed, we had faith that we could use them to solve problems too. We found more and more causes for behavior and circumstances, both on the individual and societal level. Being basically decent people, we found out what was wrong and we tried to fix it using the knowledge our science brought us. We found more and more reasons why individuals should not be held accountable for their actions due to the horrific circumstances they had endured. We decided that in a land of plenty, no one should be "disadvantaged" so we started a war on poverty. The more social ills we found the more we tried to fix, and we used the tool that seemed most logical: money. Over time, the process escalated. But somewhere along the line, the process became less about rectifying what was wrong, and more about financial compensation. There were lots of people telling people it was not their fault, and since the obvious solution was money, there were always lawyers around to help victims get compensation for their suffering. (Please note that I am not suggesting that there was some golden time in our culture where everyone was personally responsible and no one blamed anyone else for their problems. I am only suggesting that our current culture makes avoiding personal responsibility socially acceptable for most segments of the population.) by Cziltang 
Posted: Monday, August 04 2003 09:04:52 PM

Ode to Late Summer?
link

I bought a new wallet the other day. Nothing special, just a basic leather wallet, but the smell reminded me of my favorite baseball glove when I was a kid. Not the first one. (It may have been used when I got it, but I don't remember a particular smell.) Not the catcher's mitt. (It always smelled dusty.) I remember my second fielder's glove. I worked on it a lot to break it in, so perhaps that's why I remember the smell. I haven't thought about baseball for a long time. When I was a kid, it seems a lot of my life was tied up with baseball. Dad listened to games on the radio in the evening. We spent time practicing in the vacant lot across the street. I played Little League in the summer, complete with the hot, scratchy, heavy wool flannel uniforms and the goofy colored stirrup sock things. My Grandpa liked baseball, and Dad got him a subscription to the Sporting News every year and I spent as much time as I could on the weekends when we were at the farm reading the stats and looking at the pictures of my favorite players. We also went to Kansas City every summer to see the A's play (back before the Athletics move to Oakland), then later the Royals. One year we even got to go to St. Louis to see the Cardinals and I got to see Lou Brock. (Lou Brock was my baseball hero, partly because his birthday was on the same day as mine.) As an adult I watched a lot of games on cable. I remember watching the Kansas City Royals and the St. Louis Cardinals the year they played in the World Series. I watched it in the kitchen with my daughter (she as very little then, and dinner was a cross between a food fight and finger painting). We fixed hot dogs and broccoli; she liked broccoli, called it 'trees'. (I asked her about it the other day, she still remembers it.) Then came the problems with baseball. Expansion, dilution of talent, the strike. I haven't watched a game since. (OK, I did watch most of the game where McGwire broke the home run record, but I rationalized that as 'history in the making.") In the summer of 1990 I developed pneumonia. I couldn't lie down without coughing my guts out. I spent several weeks sleeping in an easy chair. I missed more than 3 weeks of work. Being around the house all day, I was desperate to find any excuse not to watch soap operas with my wife. Luckily, the World Cup was happening at that time, so I watched it. In the process, I got fascinated with what the rest of the world calls Football. Once I got knowledgeable about soccer, I started having problems watching American football. I can't stand the rigidity. I can't stand the constant interruptions of play, and I can't stand the incessant commercials. I basically haven't watched an American football game in several years. Now I watch Football. With extended cable I get to see games from all over the world. I am partial to european football, especially the English Premier League. So summertime is kind of bleak for a football fan. I do watch the odd south american game to get my fix. And sometimes I catch the MLS games from here in the States, but generally speaking usually about this time of year I am jonesing. But this year is different. With the european championships scheduled for next summer, the european leagues are all starting early this year: the French started on August 1, the German Bundesliga started yesterday, and the EPL starts in a couple of weeks. I find myself almost giddy with anticipation. It is very much like I remember feeling about baseball as a kid. It is kind of sad, really. For sentimental reasons I wish I still felt this way about baseball. I wish I was writing an "ode to spring" like so many baseball fans and writers have done in the past. I don't. I'm not. It isn't and I'm not. I'm into Football now. The sense of anticipation is for Liverpool and Blackburn and Bayern Munich and Leverkeusen instead of the Royals and the Cardinals. But "Ode to Late Summer" just doesn't have the right ring to it, does it? by Cziltang 
Posted: Sunday, August 03 2003 03:52:37 PM