A claim against excess
On the corner of the cardboard insert that comes with batteries was a little cartoon and a caption reading, “Cat in the Hat / See the movie!” Prior to its release this movie has already received high profile promotion on numerous entertainment channels, hosted shows, and television commercials, in movie theaters though trailers, posters, and displays, in newspaper advertisements, reviews, and informational blurbs, and doubtlessly through some toys offered by a fast-food chain.
The advertising of a totally unrelated consumer expense on this product is unnecessary and excessive, serving more as a simultaneous patting on the back between Rayovac and Hollywood. As consumers become numbed to the level of advertisements at the current moment, the commercial world ups the ante by further infiltrating every aspect of an average citizen’s life with its presence. There is no opportunity for individuals to avoid the extraneous contact employed, and so many get used to it, even expect it.
I’ve known people whose sole source of conversation was repeating segments of commercials and sitcoms from TV. It becomes a way of life–just like letting the faucet run, leaving multiple lights on in the home, or driving when the destination is within walking distance is a way of life for many. There is an affluent notion that what we want is what we need, and what we need is what we deserve. And with a consumer driven economy–what we deserve is either things or money.
In the third case of which I was a prospective juror, a young woman accused her middle-aged employer of sexual misconduct. She allegedly experienced continuous humiliation and shame during her employment, and yet did not complain about it or seek a minimum wage job elsewhere. Now she wants monetary compensation for feeling embarrassed. Now, I understand that not all lawsuits are frivolous, and that inappropriate behavior in the workplace should be addressed. But, you’d be hard pressed to find any young woman who hasn’t been ogled by a superior or heard a joke she didn’t like. I worked briefly for someone who repeatedly called me “honey” in a way that was obviously meant to be derogatory and degrading, but how would collecting some of his cash right that wrong? Money can not help you regain a sense of integrity or restore lost confidence. Money isn’t going to prompt a revelation on the part of the employer about the appropriateness of his actions. There is just no correlation between financial restitution and psychological amends. I think that if that young woman working at the doggy daycare really did suffer from her employer’s treatment what she should have wanted was a contrite apology.
Maybe this is why I was dismissed as a juror. If the claimant suffered no financial loss from the situation, whether due to injury and medical bills or damaged property, I cannot feel that monetary compensation is justified. The caliber worth of money has slid liberally into the judicial system from a society that values money even when no tangible thing is damaged, ignores what would be sufficient redress for that intangibility, and feels they deserve that money wad to excess. I mean, think of all the things she could buy with her victory. Or maybe she really believes a new wardrobe will repair her roughened self-worth. It won’t. It never will.
Continue Reading…