9.7.07 |
Shaky Ground
In a record-shattering bout of procrastination earlier today, I had the opportunity to read a variety of archived articles on the San Francisco Chroncicle’s website. One in particular, titled “Empite Built on Sand” made me think about certain peculiarities of human nature.
Basically, the stuff he mixed up could be loosely defined as “concrete,” but contains more recycled material than is safe for load-bearing structures. The article outlines how, over time, he became more and more brazen in cheating clients out of the materials they had ordered. Given that the recycled cement he sold cost 10% of the price of the safer kind, he made a small fortune in doing so. Of course, all of this is yet to be proven, legally speaking. I’m not interested, though, in getting into a discussion of who “alleged” this, and what happened “according to” that person. Aside from the fact that I hope to not be on the Bay Bridge when the cement gives out, the facts aren’t really what interest me. I’m more fascinated by the idea that people like this “alleged” scam artist do actually exist. As I read the story, I couldn’t help wondering what makes a person endanger the lives of thousands of people and cheat public agencies out of millions of dollars. Is it some sort of character flaw? A traumatic childhood? Cultural oppression (a theme in the article)? Obviously, greed must play a large factor. I can understand the need for money - I’ve learned over the past year that it’s very useful in procuring basic necessities, but seriously? Luxury cars? Designer cowboy boots? How do these items become indispensible? How do they become more important than others’ safety? The only answer I can come up with is that a person like this must have a truly monstrous ego. Only a person rating a 10 on the self-absorption scale would think his own trivial desires supersede the basic needs of everyone else. Selfishness is a useful quality in some situations, i.e. getting ahead in life, and it makes sense to embrace it here and there. Some people do so more than others, and they are the ones who are seen as having stepped on everyone else to get to the top. This guy is the perfect example of this approach, but taken to the nth degree. On a more twisted level, this scenario also speaks to a need for control. What could be a better euphoria for the power-hungry than secretly playing Russian Roulette with strangers’ lives? I’m thinking that, if you’re this guy, there’s probably a sadistic thrill that comes along with watching people blithely drive over substandard structures. He knew exactly what he was doing, was told by numerous people that he should stop, and kept doing it. He had power, and liked it. A couple of basic psych classes in college and two years working as a crisis counselor lead me to speculate that the character flaw theory and the traumatic childhood theory are equally possible, and not mutually exclusive. Cultural oppression, which is suggested in the article as either a cause for his behavior or the reason for his legal “persecution,” could be significant as well, whether it was actually present or simply perceived to be. Feeling victimized generally leads to the desire for control, and this guy’s unhealthy ego channeled that into an approach that could probably win an award for passive-aggressiveness. This is a real shame, because various forms of oppression are everywhere. The idea that this man’s actions could be excused by either real or imagined victimhood is an insult to people who work in healthy ways to combat injustice. A better solution? Try community organizing, or therapy. You know what they say about the eye for an eye approach - it’s childish, and it doesn’t work. And something about leaving everybody blind. 1 Response So FarSay your words |
Safety Neal said,
September 8, 2007 @ 5:09 pm
You raise some interesting questions about the psychological factors that played into Ramirez’s decision-making.
Your eye-for-an-eye analogy is even more interesting in this case because of the worker (Mercado) who lost vision in one eye because of the illegal contaminants in the concrete.
All the money Ramirez made with his shoddy materials on that job was probably wiped out by the settlement with Mercado.
I wonder if this fraud would have been uncovered earlier if there were better whistleblower protections (as well as incentives) in place to encourage Ramirez’s workers to narc him out.