Some things in the news lately can really make a guy's blood boil. Here are some examples:

The former police chief of Medina, Washington, an enclave of wealthy business people, was recently awarded $2 million by a jury for a perceived affront. The chief, of Chinese extraction, had been fired by the mayor of that rich little burg on Lake Washington. He was fired by the female mayor for reasons not connected to the jury award, but because of alleged malfeasance.

He was awarded the two million bucks because someone on the staff at Medina characterized him as "a real Charlie Chan" for his police work and because on another occasion in his presence someone asked if Chinese people ate turkey on Thanksgiving.

These are not politically correct comments by any means. And to come up in a civil suit against the city shows that the chief remembered the comments well. Then he got fired.

He was mad. He probably figured he would have a hard time getting a job like the one he had if other cities knew he had been axed. And he was humiliated. And may have figured that had hadn't done anything wrong in his performance as a top cop in Medina (although his personnel record did not support that).

So he sued, not for wrongful dismissal, but because someone uttered a slur and he felt aggrieved. He sued for the only reason he had left to fight back, to sting the little city that had stung him.
And he won. Two million.

This seems way outsized to me for the affront. I get that his feeling might have been hurt because someone reminded him that he is Chinese and that that reminder was taken as an insult to him because it was delivered in a way that was belittling. But it two million dollars worth of hurt?

Don't tell me I have no grounds for understanding this because I am a member of the white majority. I get that he was insulted. What I don't get is why the insult should have a value of two million dollars. How about $2 thousand? And a letter of apology from the person who made the remark.

Then there is the weird aspect of the law that puts the onus for the award on the city, when the comment was made by an individual. I find this particular nuance of the law to be absurd and wrong. Shouldn’t the affronted person be allowed to sue only the one who affronts him? Instead, the law allows the jury to punish the citizens of the city where the idiot who made the remark works.

Had the remark been made off-hand and off premise by a stranger, there would be not grounds for suit. This would not make the slur any less biting to the who at whom it is leveled, but it would disappear in the wind.
To compound the ridiculous award, the attorney for the chief has now asked the city to give him an additional $400,000 to cover the tax bill he will get on the original award. (And, of course, the attorney will dredge her fee from the original award too and that is likely the inspiration for the request).

What was already over the top has now put the icing on it. I hope the city challenges the original award, never pays it and settles for a very modest smaller amount.

Note to public and private employees: If you are going to make a stupid comment to someone from a minority race, don't do t in the office where there are witnesses.

***

And now, why we still need newspaper reporters:

There is the story about the small town of Bell, California where city council members and the mayor figured out how to turn $1,800 in part-time stipends as public officials into $100,000 a year jobs. The Los Angeles Times investigated this nasty little conspiracy and now those same public officials are on trial. The Times stories set in motion a recall of these crooks and refund for residents.

Could it happen here? Yes. And if we do not continue the watchdog function that is the classic role of the press, it will. There are honest and forthright individuals who are elected to public office. There are also those who have private agendas that lead to lining their own pockets and there probably always will be.