Jack’s Blog

The following is a blog I posted five years ago after speaking at length with many wise people - including lawyers - about a seemingly absurd idea I had.  It still seems doable, mainly because it would take care a major problem for many of us and open up a new occupation I believe people would take seriously.  See what you think of the plan.

With all the seemingly endless, nonsensical, pointless law suits that are resulting in obscene awards, I propose a potential cure for this madness.  Professional jurors.  Before you dismiss the idea as some whacky blogger searching for a topic, here me out.

First, make the profession of “juror” a legitimate, honorable and desirable one; then, pay them a competitive wage, educate them (college degrees probably a necessity) in basic areas of the law (certainly in the areas which are the most common grounds for law suits) and what should be expected to come to a proper conclusion, e.g. emotions should (as difficult as it may be) eliminated in the decision-making process and, finally, have them pass a series of tests regarding such areas.

Have panels of retired judges, prosecutors and defense attorneys (or even current ones, if they have the time and are interested in cleaning up the mess we’re faced with) travel throughout the country to interview prospective candidates in order to select the best and eliminate those with built in prejudices or hidden agendas.  Obviously, the person looking to make money through accepting bribes should be dismissed, but who better to be able to recognize these frauds than those who made their living dealing with such types? Some skeptics might say there will still be underhanded people trying to infiltrate the ranks, but aren’t there frauds in any profession?  I can give you the name of a surgeon who operated on me whom I’d call a butcher except that I have too much respect for butchers - and would fear a potential lawsuit.

Who would be prime candidates for this position?  Start with people who are good listeners, feel they are skilled in the area of conflict-resolution and want to see justice properly served.  Naturally, in certain cases where there might exist a conflict of interests due to something in the juror’s background, some would have to be excluded. And, of course, the phrase “a jury of your peers” would no longer apply but, to be honest, are most juries really made up of our peers?  Not likely.  Currently, most people do everything in their power to get out of jury duty, resulting in the old joke - “Your fate rests in the hands of twelve people who weren’t smart enough to find a way out of jury duty.”  Hence, many cases are decided by lawyers who play on jurors’ emotions, resulting in verdicts and awards that are based on the hearts, as opposed to the minds, of the twelve people in the box.  Why not upgrade the decision-making process with people who have been educated in how to do so, rather than “rookies” who’ve been educated by the judge prior to the trial?  Face it, emotion will always play a part in any human decision, but professional jurors lessen the chance of that happening.  What’s also vital to consider is that in many law suits today, it is an individual claiming he or she was used, abused, neglected and/or illegally dealt with by big companies or organizations whom current jurors look at as having “deep pockets.” If you’re having difficulty visualizing this picture, imagine how you’d feel if you were suing your employer (Giant Inc. or State U. or another group with hundreds or even thousands of employees) and the jury box was filled with twelve present or former CEO’s.  How do you like your chances?

As long as today’s mentality - especially here in California - consists of the following when people get into trouble: (1) blame someone else, (2) lie, (3) sue (see my 4/26/08 blog) and, all too often, (4) win! we need to look at changing something that’s worse than broken - it is inherently wrong - and it’s costing tax payers bundles.  Basically, what we now have ain’t workin’, so in the words of Benjamin Disraeli:

“In a progressive country, change is not only constant, it is inevitable.”

I have a very close friend who’s about the same age I am and is also originally from the East Coast.  We constantly kid each other about being Irish (him) and being Jewish (me).  We’ve shared a ton of laughs, and neither of us ever offends the other.  Believe me, if that did happen, the offended party would, in no uncertain terms, let the other know how he felt - and I feel certain an apology would immediately follow.  I can’t say for certain because that scenario has yet to occur.  Apparently, we know the limits. 

Throughout the years, having spent 30 of them in college basketball, I’ve developed countless relationships with minorities (obviously, many of them black, but others from foreign countries around the globe).  Because I’ve worked in nearly every geographic section of the country (East, New England, Midwest, South, Pacific Northwest, California), I have friends with people from each of those areas.  Many of us exchange quips about idiosyncracies and, yes even, Heaven forbid, stereotypes. 

We thoroughly enjoy each other’s company and manage to laugh about our differences, whether they be what we like to eat, our different dialects and accents, or most anything native to our heritage or place in which we live.  Often, we are proud of what we tease each other about.  Throw that repartee out and the realtionships become bland, way too serious (especially with all the really important issues going on - individually or globally) and, worst of all, not nearly as much fun!  The PC police would claim such behavior will eventually go overboard, poison the youth who might be subjected to it and cause severe mental anguish to those who become unwilling and unknowing targets of such boorish behavior.

There’s a difference between joking and intentionally attempting to inflict serious emotional harm in a mean spirited manner to someone.  It’s to the point now that society’s created a whole new vocation.  It’s for those lawyers who aren’t physically fit enough to chase ambulances.  They just wait for some terribly distressed person to call them (emails, texts and tweets are accepted too), so they can try to find some absurd loophole where they can file a case, then go about searching for a dozen other woe-is-me losers to pack into a jury box.

Bob Griese’s one game suspension for answering Chris Spielman’s question, “Where’s Juan Pablo Montoya?” when the NASCAR leader board was superimposed on the TV screen and Montoya’s name wasn’t on it, with the line, “He’s out having a taco” is the latest example of people taking themselves way too seriously.  Before everyone starts boycotting and demanding suspensions, fines, firings and everything short of draw-and-quartering, why not ask what the reaction was of the supposedly offended person?  Apparently, in this case, Montoya was more upset over where he finished than where Griese thought he was.

The uproar over what Griese said caused as much moral outrage as the hurtful, asinine comment Don Imus made toward the Rutgers’ women basketball team.  If anyone can’t see the difference between the two, then they are all in need of sensitivity training.  There’s one type for those who don’t see Imus’ comments as ignorant, distasteful and lacking human decency (similar to, as I’ve blogged previously, when Jesse Jackson called the Jews, “Hymies” and referred to New York City as “Hymie-town”) and another, just as necessary type of sensitivity training for those who don’t understand Griese’s remark as off-the-cuff banter (because it wasn’t really very funny, I understand the comedians were the group most offended), intending absolutely no harm.

The reason people such as Chris Rock & Eddie Murphy, Larry the Cable Guy & Jeff Foxworthy, and Billy Crystal and, going way back, Jackie Mason have (and had, in Mason’s case) so much success, is that people actually want to celebrate each other’s differences, not threaten lawsuits as soon as they hear something they can construe as a slur.  You can say anything you please - as long as it’s a comedy act - and, if you’ve ever heard any of these comedians, their material is infinitely more offensive than a throwaway line used during a telecast - usually of a game that’s become so out of reach and boring, it doesn’t deserve commentary. 

These sad advocates, many of whom do not even belong to the offended group (I wish there was a poll taken among Latinos as to what they thought when they heard what Griese said), simply want their 15 minutes of fame, their “Hey, look at me, Crusader for Human Dignity and Fairness,” when the majority of us non-ultrathin skinned humans can let a lighthearted line roll off of our backs - or even have a chuckle with it.  In my book, Life’s A Joke, I have a nearly identical story about the late Craig Fertig (no relation) and me (pages 121-122), that if I had said it in a public forum, someone would be looking to haul me into court. 

Yet, I have heard so many people - especially those who knew Craig, but even those who didn’t - who tell me how funny they thought it was - even though it was clearly syereotyping two groups.  I mean, is there anyone out there who thought Montoya wasn’t on the leader board because he was actually eating a taco?  Or that Griese saw Spielman’s question as the perfect opportunity to defame an entire ethnic group? 

To those of you, I can only quote Benjamin Harrison, who said:

“Irritations of the cuticle must not be confused with heart failure.”    

Note: A story with the same take on it was written by Mike Stone on October 27.  Just for those offended by my post.  You can read what “Stoney” wrote and get lathered up all over again.   �

In the 9/7/09 issue of ESPN Magazine, there is a list of the NCAA’s top 10 revenue producing institutions.  Texas was at #1, hauling in $120,288,370, Ohio State next at $117,953,712, all the way down to another OSU, Oklahoma State, which brought in $88,554,438 (allegedly half of that total coming from T. Boone Pickens).  The source for this list is the Sports Business Journal and the subtitle is “Yet still not enough to pay the players,” proving what we knew all along: one of the easiest things to do in life is spend someone else’s money.  Let’s take a look at the logistics of paying college players.

1) I wonder what the revenue of the 100th school on that list was?  And in Division I basketball, there are nearly 350 colleges “competing.”  March Madness is still the number one watched intercollegiate sporting event, as far as total viewers. 

2) This list was just that, a list of ten schools and their revenue.  Not even an article, so it’s not like we could dissect it, but, as with our own personal budgets, expenses play a major role in deciding to spend even a little more, and these expense numbers for the universities aren’t factored into what certainly does seem to be exorbitant income figures.

3) If players, i.e. student-athletes were to be paid (over and above their scholarship money), the field of colleges would definitely dwindle.  To, maybe, 100.  Or even 50.  Possibly, this is what the country truly desires.  The top 50-100 schools battling it out on the gridiron throughout an entire season - one mega-conference, . . . culminating, naturally, with a playoff!

4) Obviously, if student-athletes were going to be paid, it certainly wouldn’t be feasible to pay all of them (not even Texas could afford to do that).  So, a line would have to be drawn somewhere.  Sort of like a guest list at an exclusive party - who makes the cut, and who doesn’t?  First decision: both men and women?  Since football brings in the vast majority of the revenue, it only makes sense that football players get paid (which is, for all intents and purposes, what this debate is all about anyway).  It could be argued that is the fairest way.  Very sound, logical reasoning.  However, where it falls a little short is on the legal side.

Say, though, that this was the case, i.e. that all, as a close friend of mine calls the female zealots, the “Femi-Nazis” were drugged by his version of their male counterparts, the “Helmet-Heads” and fell unconscious - only until the first checks were issued.  Now the Neanderthal-thinking HH’s could claim a precedence had been set.  Doesn’t make much sense, but let’s say the trial was held in California, where not only does God have no place in the classroom, but sense has no place in the courtroom.  The number one virtue a person going to trial needs in this proud, newly bankrupt state is . . . a better lawyer than the opponent.

So now the schools are paying the football players.  But this is limited to only those institutions whose programs are money makers, not money drainers (on the overall budget).  After all, the student-athletes at the colleges that don’t make the cut ought to be grateful they are getting their room, board, books tuition and fees paid for - with a little travel meal money thrown in.  Uh oh, if one university is paying its guys but another institution (possibly from the same conference) isn’t, how could any prospect - and his parents - even consider the lesser (in terms of straight green) college?  True, the well-to-do family could opt for any school of their choice (keep in mind, the kid’s still going to school for free, i.e. on scholarship), but in my experiences in recruiting, how much, e.g. scholarship school vs. Ivy League, junior gets becomes a matter of ego.  This would only widen the gap between the haves and the have-nots.   

Moving along, do subs get the same pay that starters do?  How about starters vs. superstars?  Any book store manager can tell you the hottest selling item and, I’m sure it will not shock you that the returning Heisman Trophy winner’s jersey brings in far more than the school’s all-time leading rusher (even though the running back returned to good ol’ State U, instead of going pro, claiming sheer loyalty - plus the fact the NFL scouts felt his 40 time was too slow, thus dropping him to a second day draft pick).  Everyone else on the squad falls in line after those two (with the possible exception of the good, but not great DB whose father was an All-American alum twenty years ago, during the “Glory Years”).

In other words, pay those who bring in the most cash more than the guys who aren’t so popular.  Wait, we already have that system.  It’s called professional athletics.

If you want to read a microcosm of this theory, get the 8/31/09 edition of SI, which has an excerpted story from Joe Posnanski’s new book, The Machine: A Hot Team, a Legendary Season, and a Heart-stopping World Series - The Story of the 1975 Cincinnati Reds.  In it, manager Sparky Anderson’s speech prior to training camp went as follows (paraphrased): “There are two kinds of players on this team - the four superstars (Bench, Rose, Morgan and Perez) and the rest of you guys.  The superstars get special treatment, play by their own rules.”  Then he said, speaking about the remainder of the team, exactly what a pay (football players)-to-play system in college would make athletes who were not getting paid feel like:

“The rest of you are turds.”       �

. . . as if there haven’t aready been enough people express their views on this topic.  I, for one, don’t plan on making a case either way.  My strategy is to listen to as many opinions as I can and throw them out there in one post.  Then you, the tiny minority who have yet to make up your minds, can piece it together and come up with a belief - not that it will affect the outcome (unless you’re the commish and, although I’ve had friends tell me of some relatively “famous” people whom they know have read this space, no one’s even hinted that this blog has seen the inside of NFL headquarters).  Their loss.

In an earlier blog (8/21/07), I mentioned no team would ever give Vick a chance, mainly due to the negative pub and potential boycotts that would be inevitable.  But, two years is a long time.  Ask Vick.  I’ve never had - and hope I never do - the experience of two years in prison (except for the tradition my high school had of sending our basketball playing juniors to play a game against the inmates at Rahway State Penitentiary, I’ve never set foot in one).  The feeling I got hearing the door close behind us was enough to make up my mind as to which side of those bars I decided to be on - which was, obviously, why our school had the tradition in the first place.  I couldn’t fathom, nor would I want to spend any time doing so - what a couple years on the wrong side must feel like.

That’s the side many of the Vick supporters are taking.  The legal system is designed to punish people for whatever crime was committed.  There can’t be only one form of punishment, e.g. a motorist running a red light can’t be given the same amount of prison time as a mass murderer.  For that matter, a motorist running a red light can’t be given the same amount of prison time as another motorist running a red light - who hit school children crossing the street - and then, subsequently, is found to be intoxicated.  Vick’s penalty was served and now he’s out.

That doesn’t mean anyone has to like him, or even forgive him, but to say he shouldn’t be allowed to play in the NFL sounds a bit like jealousy (as if anybody would have volunteered to trade places with him two years ago).  I saw a lady on television who was holding a poster that read something to the effect, “Vick should be allowed to get a job, but not in the NFL,” clearly intending that although he may have paid his dues, he shouldn’t be have the opportunity to do something he likes to do or, more to the point, get a job that pays so much!  As if the justice system wasn’t flawed enough, we need this lady to fix it.

Another take I heard was Chris Rock’s, who is as witty and quick on his feet as anybody.  On this one though, Chris might be guilty of generalizing a little bit too much - whether it was for the purpose of getting a laugh, helping out a friend or trying to minimize what Vick did.  Rock’s logic was that the same people who are saying the punishment for Michael’s dog-fighting (and killing) wasn’t enough are the very same who hunt.  One major difference might be that, yes, the hunters certainly do intend to kill what they’re shooting at.  However, it’s done during the proper “hunting season” which, I’m led to believe, has the purpose of thinning out the species -and don’t give me the “how would I like it if people were thinned out” BS since I’m pretty sure there was never any deer that had the possibility of making an impact on society that any human did.  Another reason is that hunters don’t torture the animal until it dies. 

Believe me, I am the very last person who would ever consider being a member of the NRA, but Chris Rock’s defense, while amusing on the surface, has little similarity to that of hunting - and, yes, I eat red meat, chicken and fish.  Even though I have a biger than normal appetite, I can safely say that I would not eat any of those if it meant the animal had to be hanged, electrocuted, body slammed or whatever else Bad Newz Kennels did with its “losers” in order for me to enjoy a meal.  If you say killing is killing, think about (as absurd as it might be) if you were ever with some psycho and knew you were about to die, would it matter to you if it was with one quick shot, or if you were to going to be treated in the manner those dogs were.  If you say there’s no difference, I truly hope you’re never actually faced with such a decision - because at that time, I’d bet the (Bad Newz Kennel) ranch you’d change your mind.  

And about that comparison to Leonard Little killing a person (and is still in the league), while Michael killed animals, if someone can’t see the difference in a traffic accident that resulted in manslaughter and intentionally training dogs to kill other dogs (while being mauled themselves), all for the purpose of entertaining your customers, your sense of humor - and reasoning - might need some work.   

Some in Vick’s corner say he’s sincere about changing and he has attended some kind of education program - be it about the viciousness of cruelty to animals (which he said was simply part of his life growing up where he did - and who are we to judge, unless we lived the childhood he did) or just a plain old human decency class.  He is also now a spokesman against the types of dastardly deeds he committed.  I don’t think he can “phony it up” for as long as he’s going to have to perform his community service so, on that count, we’ll have to wait and see.  

An extremely wise move on his part - or whoever decided to enlist someone to guide him - was bringing in Tony Dungy.  Nowhere has a man in that high profile a life “walked the walk” like Dungy did.  From allowing his assistant coaches to bring their wives and kids to the Bucs’ and Colts’ training facilities, to knocking off early, to the way he got through the suicide of his son - with such dignity - puts him in a class that might not have another pupil.  There is absolutely nothing in this mentoring program for Tony (other than what he claims, i.e. helping another human he happens to know).  He’s already won the biggest game of all, retired from a job on his terms, few in his line of work can claim and is as “agenda-less” a soul as there could possibly be.

Now a word about those few, but loud, people out there who are saying this is about race.  Can’t you for just once leave race out of it?  Do you loudmouth, publicity-seeking blowhards think for one nanosecond that if a white player (or a Latino or an Asian or a Martian) was caught bankrolling the heinous acts that Bad Newz Kennels was, for as long as they were doing it) that they would have gotten off?  Can you actually say -with a straight face - that if it wasn’t for the fact that Michael Vick is black, that PETA wouldn’t be up in arms about his return to the NFL?  Do you not realize how much you are hurting the black cause?  You’re the people who really need Tony Dungy.

Whether Michael Vick should play or not is out of all (but one) of our hands, and after hearing all the evidence I have to date, I’m thankful I’m not that one - because I still can’t decide.  As one of the great philosophers of our time, Jimmy Buffett, said:

“Indecision may or may not be my problem.”

 �

The book on OJ Simpson, at least the one deciding his future, is now complete.  It ended tragically, with a jury and a judge deciding the former Heisman Trophy winner should spend up until his 70th birthday (at a minimum) in an orange jump suit with others just like him - and nothing at all like him.  Here is a guy whose life was full of winning moments and meeting dignitaries, now reduced to one final defeat and a life of meeting people at the opposite end of the human spectrum - or worse, not meeting anybody, but rather spending up to 23 hours a day by himself.  He was a star on TV, now he won’t even own one; has gone from being idolized to being vilified; people used to argue vehemently he was one of, if not the best, running backs in the history of intercollegiate and professional football, now the argument has turned, with equal vehemence, to whether he is one of, if not the slimiest, creatures in history (if, in fact, he did murder two people, one of them his ex-wife and mother of two of his children - and displayed more remorse for himself and what happened to him in Las Vegas than he did over the death of his ex-wife and kids’ mom), basically experiencing a life style change that could be described as moving from alpha to omega.

Is it my imagination or has his public perception swung to the point where a far greater percentage of people today think he is guilty of double homicide than did shortly after those grisly murders took place?  Or is it that his supporters still believe, but have simply stopped talking publicly about it?

I worked as associate head basketball coach at USC from 1991-95 so I was working for the Trojans when the dastardly event took place.  Boy, did I ever experience a different perspective!  If I heard one person who worked or went to school when the Juice was playing for SC, tell how he or she couldn’t believe he could have done something that horrific because of how hard he cultivated his image shortly after his NFL career (TV broadcasting, commercials, acting), I heard twenty.  People just refused to believe it.

They’d cling to every scrap of evidence that may have shown his innocence - the main one being, if the victims had their carotid arteries slashed, there would be blood everywhere, that OJ would have to be drenched in blood, not a droplet here or there.  This man was an honest-to-goodness icon.  

And now he’s just a con.

He’s a case of his own success overtaking the reality that, no matter how big you get, there are still societal rules we all have to live by.  He certainly could have used Norman Vincent Peale’s belief that:

“The man who lives for himself is a failure.  The man who lives for others has achieved true success.”

The blog I did on 7/12/07 details how I got to Fresno - that my boss, friend and mentor, George Raveling, was in a near fatal car accident which forced him to retire, that my wife’s job was being terminated and moved to Fresno (which happened to be one of my options) and how I’d heard the community support was fantastic.  The blog also explains how, coincidentally, on our family’s “let’s explore Fresno” trip, we awoke on Sunday morning to the front page headline of the Fresno Bee, entitled “DOG HOUSE DIVIDED” and the inner turmoil that was going on in the athletics department between the men’s and women’s programs.

What I found infinitely interesting was, at that exact same time, USC was in court dealing with former women’s basketball coach, Marianne Stanley, who was suing the university, claiming she was entitled to the same money George Raveling was making.  After reading the Bee article (which was, I believe, at least a page and a half), it struck me that at SC, Stanley’s case really had no effect on the comraderie of the department.  Maybe it was because USC is so heavily endowed that money problems seldom exist, maybe because the contract offer Stanley had turned down would have made her the third highest paid head coach (male or female) on campus or maybe it was due to the fact that the case had no merit (Stanley lost it, appealed to a higher court and lost that, then appealed again to the state’s highest court whereupon the judge dismissed it in a “summary judgment,” which I found out later meant the judge felt the suit was so frivilous, he decided to act on it himself because bringing it to a jury would be a waste of time).

Yet, here was a school, Fresno State, where coaches were comparing the number of pages in each team’s press guides!  I still ended up a Bulldog and worked at FSU for seven years.  In 1998, the women’s softball team won the National Championship, the first in school history.  The 7/12/07 blog explains the idea I presented to honor the team and coaches in an attempt to reach out and unite the community with the champs and, also to possibly create some revenue for the department.

The reaction between the national championship at Fresno and those at USC (about a week prior to signing the contract to be associate head basketball coach, the men’s tennis team won it all) were strikingly different - just as strikingly different as the daily moods at each institution.  George insisted our staff go to the acknowledgement of the tennis championship and while there, it seemed I met, if not every coach in the department (male and female), at least a representative of each sport’s coaching staff.  That’s when I found about about “the Trojan Family.”  Sure, there are problems at SC, but as far as coaches and players getting along, the atmosphere at SC was much more similar to the other seven colleges I’d been than that at Fresno State.

Fresno State’s winning the College World Series was followed, deservingly so, by a parade and ceremony for the guys after they returned from Nebraska - similar to the one they had when the ladies won their championship and flew back from Oklahoma. I’m not sure how long the entire ordeal lasted, but I’m sure somebody had a stopwatch on it (as well as how much money was spent on each - to the penny).  It’s odd that there have yet to be quotes from other coaches and athletes at the school regarding the grandest possible accomplishment a college team can achieve, the ultimate goal of each sport.

I’ve mentioned on numerous occasions in meetings and to friends that the number one rule of any organization - “What’s right is more important than who’s right“ is violated way too often at Fresno State.  How much it’s changed in the six years I’ve been gone I don’t claim to know, but the quote from F. Lee Bailey always struck me as pertaining (on a lesser scale) to the situation within the Bulldogs’ athletics department:

“Can any of you seriously say the Bill of Rights could get through Congress today?  It wouldn’t even get out of committee.”

When absolutely insane things happen in the world, a great many of which lead to the most tragic events imaginable, the “lunatic fringe” of society is usually who gets the blame, and rightfully so.  To perform the actions these obviously deranged people do make us wonder about their upbringing for one and their, to compare the brain to a computer, “circuitry” for another.  Did something happen in their childhood or is there a “wiring” problem?  Why is it, when nearly all of us know right from wrong, there’s a segment, however minute, who strays from the norm?

One good thing about the world of sports is it’s a great “getaway” for many of us.  Cheer like mad for your team, but whatever happens - other than your employment being directly tied to one of the participants, wagering large sums of cash, or winning the office pool, your life tends to return to normal the next business day.  If you’re asking yourself where in the heck is this lunatic blogger going with this, I’ll (finally) come to the point (and it is intended to be comical, in no way making light of tragic events that have occurred.  Of course, if the world we currently live in wasn’t so overly sensitive to each and every syllable uttered by anyone these days, there would have been no need for this disclaimer). 

On the “crawl” at the bottom of the television screen, ESPN has poll results of each NCAA Tournament game.  On the opening day of March Madness (with apologies to Mt. St. Mary’s and Coppin State, the “play-in” game - caused by the break up of the old WAC into the WAC and Mountain West - just doesn’t qualify as the true first day), the poll results for the UCLA-Mississippi Valley State game had 99.5% of those asked to pick a winner select UCLA.  What I wonder about is, “Who exactly comprised the 1/2 of one percent who chose MVSU?”  (I assume there are no abstentions allowed).  UCLA won the game, 70-29.

Then, on the Tournament’s second “first” set of games, for the poll results of the UNC-Mt. St. Mary’s game, 99.6% correctly had the Tarheels as the winner and they cruised to a rather convincing - pretty much expected - 113-74 victory.  When I saw the poll results, I couldn’t help but wonder if the Bruins’ demolishing their opponent the night before had any influence on that 0.5% who picked Mississippi Valley State, resulting in a drop to only 0.4% picking the Mount?

What type of person would select MVSU or MSMU - an alien, a Tibetan monk, a Duke graduate (and, really, the last one only explains the vote against the ‘Heels)?  Obviously, someone who’s not in their right mind or, as we’ve seen in today’s society, a complete antagonist, i.e. someone who wants to zig if everyone else is zagging (insert your own Davidson reference here) or someone who looks at his or her job as a “what-can-I-do-to-make-the-workplace-as-miserable-as-can-be” sort of environment.  After all, some of those people - the antagonists, not those out of their mind - after under- or non-performing and justly getting pink-slipped, sue their employers and end up with big jury awards if their lawyers are skilled enough.

The comedian David Brenner long ago told a story of a guy who has a meeting and parks his car on a street which happens to be next to an insane asylum.  When he gets out of the car, he notices one of his tires has none of the four wheel nuts on it.  He worriedly says out loud, “Oh no, what am I going to do now?”

A voice says, “Why don’t you take one the wheel nuts off of each of the other three tires and put them on the fourth?  It wouldn’t be perfectly safe, but it certainly would be good enough to get you as far as a mechanic.”

The man says, “Thank you,” then turns around and sees it was one of the asylum’s residents who made the suggestion.  He sheepishly says to the patient, “But I thought you were … you know, …”

“Oh, I know what you thinking and you’re right,” replies the asylum resident:

“Sure I’m crazy, but I’m not stupid.”

With all the seemingly endless, nonsensical, pointless law suits that are resulting in obscene awards, I propose a potential cure for this madness.  Professional jurors.  Before you dismiss the idea as some whacky blogger searching for a topic, here me out.

First, make the profession of “juror” a legimate, honorable and desirable one; then, pay them a competitive wage, educate them (college degrees probably a necessity) in basic areas of the law (certainly in the areas which are the most common grounds for law suits) and what should be expected to come to a proper conclusion, e.g. emotions should (as difficult as it may be) eliminated in the decision-making process and, finally, have them pass a series of tests regarding such areas.

Have panels of retired judges, prosecutors and defense attorneys (or even current ones, if they have the time and are interested in cleaning up the mess we’re faced with) throughout the country to interview prospective candidates in order to select the best and eliminate those with built in prejudices or hidden agendas.  Obviously, the person looking to make money through accepting bribes should be dismissed, but who better to be able to recognize these frauds than those who made their living dealing with such types? Some skeptics might say there will still be underhanded people trying to infiltrate the ranks, but aren’t there frauds in any profession?  I can give you the name of a surgeon who operated on me whom I’d call a butcher except that I have too much respect for butchers - and would fear a potential lawsuit.

Who would be prime candidates for this position?  Start with people who are good listeners, feel they are skilled in the area of conflict-resolution and want to see justice properly served.  Naturally, in certain cases where there might exist a conflict of interests due to something in the juror’s background, some would have to be excluded. And, of course, the phrase “a jury of your peers” would no longer apply but, to be honest, are most juries really made up of our peers?  Not likely.  Currently, most people do everything in their power to get out of jury duty, resulting in the old joke - “Your fate rests in the hands of twelve people who weren’t smart enough to find a way out of jury duty.”  Hence, many cases are decided by lawyers who play on jurors’ emotions, resulting in verdicts and awards that are based on the hearts, as opposed to the minds, of the twelve people in the box.  Why not upgrade the decision-making process with people who have been educated in how to do so, rather than “rookies” who’ve been told and reminded by the judge prior to the trial?  Face it, emotion will always play a part in any human decision, but professional jurors lessen the chance of that happening.  What’s also vital to consider is that in many law suits today, it is an individual claiming he or she was used, abused, neglected and/or illegally dealt with by big companies or organizations whom current jurors look at as having “deep pockets.” If you’re having visualizing this picture, imagine how you’d feel if you were suing your employer (Giant Inc. or State U. or another group with hundreds or even thousands of employees) and the jury box was filled with twelve present or former CEO’s).  How do you like your chances?

As long as today’s mentality - especially here in California - consists of the following when people get into trouble: (1) blame someone else, (2) lie, (3) sue (see my 4/26 blog) and all too often, (4) win! we need to look at changing something that’s worse than broken - it is inherently wrong - and it’s costing tax payers bundles.  Basically, what we now have ain’t workin’, so in the words of Benjamin Disraeli:

“In a progressive country, change is not only constant, it is inevitable.”¼/p>