Against the “Zero Tolerance” Substance Abuse Policy

I oppose the “Zero Tolerance” policy on substance abuse. Yes, even for police officers and firefighters. I always have.

I DO support even more vigorous random drug/alcohol testing, especially for emergency services workers and removing those found addicted to drugs &/or alcohol from active duty until they've recovered...and to be clear, I've never smoked even cigarettes, and I rarely drink alcohol.

I've known people who've had substance abuse issues and have come to accept that addiction is disease. We should at least attempt to treat the disease rather than simply eliminate the diseased person.

I believe that today, in the case of Kevin Simpkins, and for all the others who have been subjected to the “Zero Tolerance” policy. Many seem to argue, “Since others have been fired over “Zero Tolerance,” than people like Kevin Simpkins should be fired too,” but I think that’s exactly backwards. Just because others have been subjected to a travesty, we shouldn't seek future members be subjected to the same travesty. Instead, we should seek redress for all those wrongly terminated over an ill-conceived policy. We don’t hang horse thieves today because, “Lots of people in the past were hung as horse thieves, so today’s offenders deserve no less.”

I think the “3 strikes” policy was a fair way to split the difference. It gave the City the right to remove substance abusers from its ranks, while giving those suffering under the pangs of addiction 2 chances to get treated before being terminated; A 1st offense = treatment, a 2nd offense = a final shot at treatment and a 3rd offense = termination.

I was fortunate. One of the Lieutenants I worked with as a Proby was a guy named Phil Kopp, who did NOT take ANY drinking on duty mildly. He called beer, the alcohol of choice for most guys back then, “dumb juice,” and often made the point, “You wouldn't allow a plumber, or electrician into your home if they arrived impaired, so how can it be OK to do this job where people’s lives are at stake in any state other than your best?”

I did drink with friends when I was younger, but by my late 20's, I’d noticed that even after 3 or 4 beers the night before, I came down with weird muscle aches in my thighs and lower back, “like I had been bracing a wall all night.” When I stopped drinking beer, the muscle aches disappeared. That was enough evidence for me and I just stopped. It wasn't hard for me. I didn't like the taste of beer much at all anyway...AND I never really cared what other people thought of me, one way or the other.

I greatly admired Phil Kopp’s stand and the personal courage it took to do that in an environment where that view was often disdained.

But we live in an age in which there are many such ill-conceived and poorly implemented policies, from “hate crimes laws,” to “the right not to be ‘offended’ by others.” I've always opposed “hate crimes” laws because they are, in effect, “THOUGHT crimes.” IF our goal is to eradicate racial/ethnic violent crime, then we should simply enact harsher penalties for ALL inter-racial violence forthwith. I would certainly support THAT! Of course, “hate crimes” laws don’t do that. Instead, they seek to divine “the intentions” of the attackers, often relying on unreliable and/or embellished eye-witness testimony to do so.

As for any right “NOT to be offended,” it clearly does not exist. I am deeply offended by, among other things, those who claim to support race/gender-based preferences and “hate crimes” laws, but such “anti-harassment” laws don’t protect me. WHY not?

Is it because “a majority of Americans support hate crimes laws?” Does a poor policy’s popularity make it a “proper” or valid viewpoint?

Well, if that’s the case, then supporting race/gender-based preferences DOES NOT meet that criteria, given that well over 70% of Americans oppose race/gender-based preferences.

For me, in any case, the inanity of such rationalizations makes no difference. I have no desire to silence those who disagree with me, nor seek to punish others merely because I find them and their views “offensive.” I am generally interested in WHY those who do disagree with me do so.

Thankfully, ALL such policies are constantly under review and hopefully many will one day (soon?) be drastically reformed, including the “Zero-Tolerance” substance abuse policy, to ones that value workers and see flaws as correctable instead of merely grounds for termination.

James Dolan’s Fan Etiquette 101

James Dolan NY Knicks Owner

First off, I’m NOT a Knicks fan. I liked the Pat Ewing-led Knicks and before that the Bernard King-led Knicks and very much liked the Knicks of my youth – the Reed, DeBusschere, Clyde and Bradley-led Knicks of the late 1960s and early 1970s, BUT the most recent NY basketball team I really liked was the Jason Kidd, Kenyon Martin, Richard Jefferson-led Nets of the early 2000s.

Moreover, James Dolan, as owner of the Knicks, has every right to be a jerk, a poor businessman and an ineffective owner...and he’s been accused of being ALL of these things by many, MANY people, so it probably shouldn’t be at all surprising that Mr. Dolan responded to this message;

“Subject: I have been a knicks fan since 1952

“At one stage I thought that you did a wonderful thing when you acquired EVERYTHING from your dad. However, since then it has been ALL DOWN HILL. Your working with Isaiah Thomas & everything else regarding the Knicks. Bringing on Phil Jackson was a positive beginning, but lowballing Steve Kerr was a DISGRACE to the Knicks. The bottom line is that you merely continued to interfere with the franchise.

“As a Knicks fan for in excess of 60 years, I am utterly embarrassed by your dealings with the Knicks. Sell them so their fans can at least look forward to growing them in a positive direction. Obviously, money IS NOT THE ONLY THING. You have done a lot of utterly STUPID business things with the franchise. Please NO MORE.”

Respectfully,

[Aaron Bierman's dad]”

With white-hot anger and vitriol.

OK, it is a very pointed critique of James Dolan’s management of the Knicks franchise, BUT their current record the current state of that franchise doesn’t do much to defend Mr. Dolan against such a critique.

James Dolan replied to that critique of his ball club and management style with this avalanche of ad hominin and personal attacks;

“Mr. Bierman

“You are a sad person. Why would anybody write such a hateful letter. I am just guessing but ill bet your life is a mess and you are a hateful mess. What have you done that anyone would consider positive or nice. I am betting nothing. In fact ill bet you are negative force in everyone who comes in contact with you. You most likely have made your family miserable. Alcoholic maybe. I just celebrated my 21 year anniversary of sobriety. You should try it. Maybe it will help you become a person that folks would like to have around. In the mean while start rooting for the Nets because the Knicks dont want you.

Respectfully,

James Dolan”

(http://deadspin.com/dolan-start-rooting-for-the-nets-because-the-knicks-d-1684489469)

Yikes!

The fact that a billionaire would respond to a powerless fan that way is...let’s say somewhat odd. You might even speculate that some of Dolan’s visceral anger is projection, but that’s another matter altogether.

WHY alienate this fan?

And with this message now getting out there, WHY risk alienating your entire fan base? True Knicks fans have been long-suffering for awhile now, so to, in effect, tell them to “go root for the Nets, if you don’t like the way we’re running things," is about as astute a business decision as a restaurateur, after a spate of bad meal services, telling customers, “Go elsewhere if you don’t like the way I cook!”

There's a very good chance that many of them will do exactly that.

Here’s the thing, James Dolan has every right to respond like a jerk, even to “sink to another’s level,” although Mr. Bierman didn’t personally attack Mr. Dolan, merely his management of the Knicks franchise.

And to be sure, not everyone takes criticism well and indeed, everyone makes mistakes. Hopefully, James Dolan regrets hitting “send” on that particular message, although once hit, it’s out there.

What I find a bit more troubling is NBA Commissioner Adam Silver’s trite response to the escapade with, “Well, Jim Dolan’s a quintessential New Yorker.”

Wha...wha...WHAT?!

Being rude, angry and impolite is NOT being a “quintessential New Yorker.” In fact, it’s really NOT a “quintessential” ANYTHING. There are rude, obnoxious people everywhere and it isn’t a good, decent or even remotely positive trait. Such people DO NOT represent ANY particular place.

So why did Adam Silver say that?

I suppose to downplay Mr. Dolan getting treated better than any NBA player who insulted his fans would be...at least that’s all I can think of.

Look, suffice to say, that response was NOT one of James Dolan’s “finer moments.” In fact he managed to pull off a near magic trick, in making a BILLIONAIRE appear smaller than an average fan.

So, there’s at least SOME entertainment value in that!

WHY Would ANYONE Want THIS Woman to be a MOM?!

Here's an interesting article; FEMINIST ABORTS SON, BECAUSE HE WAS A BOY; "I COULDN'T BRING ANOTHER MONSTER INTO THE WORLD" (http://www.inquisitr.com/1827653/feminist-aborts-baby-because-it-was-a-boy-something-i-wouldnt-wish-on-my-worst-enemy-she-says/)

OK, at FIRST blush it doesn't sound all that believable (at least not to me), but as they say, wonders never cease, STILL, I come away with a VERY different takeaway than the authors of this piece. They seem to lament this woman exercising her right to an abortion for any, or even NO good reason at all. I DO NOT.

Moreover, one of those annoying traits of a free society is dealing with jerks. Yes, in a free society, people have a right to be jerks! We're all "jerks" at one time or another, it's just that some of us are a bit more consistent with it...not to mention better at it! Drats!

Look, IF this tale is true, I personally applaud this woman for her choice. After all, it's my firm belief that an UNWILLING parent is also an UNFIT parent...at least at that moment of "unwillingness." I can think of no worse fate than to be born into a dysfunctional, unloving home. That seems to be a prescription for child abuse/neglect. Let's just admit that not everyone is cut out to be a parent.

The woman in question here ("Lana") comes off as an EDP (emotionally disturbed person), as the story goes; "The description of the argument is straight forward: Lana was flying to San Francisco to participate in an Occupy Wall Street rally. When the person sitting next to her found out about it, he swore at her, to which Lana responded by screaming at the top of her lungs “ASSAULT.”

"After “contemplating” lying to the flight attendants and telling them that the man struck her, Lana decided to tell the truth. The flight attendants told her that they couldn't force the man to move in response...."

SERIOUSLY?!

The author is lamenting THIS woman NOT bringing this obviously unwanted child into the world and subjecting it to life with someone like Ms. Lana for a Mom? Anyone who'd "contemplate lying" to get someone else they disagree with into trouble has some very serious mental and emotional problems.

Come ON! IF this story is at all true, that child "dodged a HUGE bullet." Seriously, if you "saved" me by somehow forcing Ms Lana to have me and be my (unwilling) Mom, I'd want to grow up really fast, so I could punch you right in the mouth!

Honestly, this is the kind of story that only serves to BOLSTER why I support abortion-on-demand, at least up until the child can survive outside the womb (appx 21, or 22 weeks?)

Again, according to this report, the woman in question relayed that, "Soon after, she went to the doctor and was told that she was pregnant with a boy. Her immediate response, she writes, was “my body had betrayed me even worse than the misogynistic suit jockey on the airplane so many months before. I was in shock, I started crying, weeping at the thought of what I was about to curse the world with.”

"Over the course of several days, she decided that she could not bring another male into this world. She explains, “I couldn’t bring another monster into the world. We already have enough enemies as it is.”

“I knew what I had to do,” she adds."

"Lana writes that she has no regrets for what she did and was “happy” that she did something “positive,” explaining, “It went off without a hitch. My body’s betrayal was no more, I was free, and for the first time since the airplane incident, I felt strong. I had done something positive, something that would actually make a difference, something good, even though as I would find out, many others wouldn’t see it that way.”

"She continues later, “I stand by my decision to abort my baby because it was a male.” And if she is ever pregnant with a boy once more, “I would do the exact same thing all over again.”

SERIOUSLY, would you wish ANY child have someone like THIS as a parent? I wouldn't.

Come on! This woman was reportedly heading to San Francisco for an "Occupy Wall Street rally." Apparently unaware that Wall Street is on the other Coast. I mean that right there makes her an unfit mother in my book!

The Crusades?...Who is Responsible for the President’s Talking Points???

"Unless we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ."  (Barack Obama, February 5^th, 2015)

Wha-wha-wha WHAT?!

Some other PLACE?

How about some other TIME?

About 1,000 years ago to be precise!

Funny story...OK, maybe not so funny; You know how those truly opposed to Islamic jihadism often say, “These radical jihadists have a Medieval mindset?”

Yeah, they’re talking about the prevailing mindset of 1,000 fucking years ago!

Europe apparently has evolved. No Crusades, no Inquisitions in nearly a Millennium. Sadly, the same CANNOT be said for Islam.

But somehow, at least in Obama’s speech writer’s mind, 1096 is yesterday and the Inquisition, which targeted primarily European “heretics,” the Knights Templar were among the most prominent of the Inquisition’s victims, was somehow “the same as” today’s ISIS inspired atrocities.

In other words, “Don’t worry about it. It ain’t that bad. After all we did the same sort of things ourselves just a short while ago.”

Some have tried to be kind and chalk this up to Barack Obama’s “need to lecture,” BUT if you’re going to lecture folks, at least have a few points that at least...make some sense.

This inane search for some modern moral equivalency to Muslim jihadist state sponsored terrorism only serves to make fools of those who engage in it. Recently WCBS Radio News aired an editorial that compared Islamic jihadists to American Mafioso who were devout Church-going Catholics even as they engaged in their gangsterism.

Here’s the rub there, NONE of those mobsters committed their mayhem in the name of their religion, or with the sanction of the Catholic Church! Weird huh! Moreover, these gangsters seemed completely motivated by profit and not at all by religious ideology.

It’s kind of strange huh. I mean the closer you look, the LESS such moral equivalencies seem to make sense!

What’s the genesis of this idiocy?

Does it spring from the same culture in which everybody gets a trophy and nobody ever loses...everyone’s “right” in their own way?

If so, there’s all the proof we need of how degenerate that idea really is.

That degenerate idea has tragically spawned a malignant culture that sees “ALL humans as more or less, the SAME,” even as history, anthropology and biology scream to us that NONE of that is so. In fact, the various cultures of the earth differ widely on almost every level and across all units of measure.

Fact is, European morality IS superior to the Sharia morality that condones (even encourages) Honor Killings, prescribes amputations and public executions for various “crimes,” including adultery (mostly for female adulterers) and homosexuality. Those who can’t see that don’t deserve to be a part of Western society, simple as that.

Even MORE Troubles for NBC’s Brian Williams

NBC's Brian Williams

By now virtually everyone’s heard of NBC’s Brian Williams claims of being in a helicopter hit by enemy fire and forced to make “a quick, hard landing” in Iraq, being eviscerated by witnesses, including the helicopter pilot of THAT flight, but as usual, such mistakes always seem to grow bigger and become worse...and WORSE!

This one seems to be no exception.

Now, folks are vetting some of Brian Williams’ Katrina claims, including the one about his seeing bodies floating by his hotel window when he was covering the event.

The New Orleans Advocate has challenged this piece of reporting by Brian Williams on Katrina:

“When you look out of your hotel window in the French Quarter and watch a man float by face down, when you see bodies that you last saw in Banda Aceh, Indonesia, and swore to yourself that you would never see in your country.”

The Advocate alleges that Williams, who covered the aftermath of the devastating hurricane from the city’s French Quarter, could not have seen a body float by, as that section was never flooded.

A former city health director who was in the French Quarter after the storm said that Williams’ account was not possible, “We were never wet. It was never wet,” Dr. Brobson Lutz told the Advocate.

Compounding matters even further, Brian Williams also claimed that while he slept at the Superdome during the storm, that he swallowed flood waters and suffered from severe dysentery. He also claimed to be curled up in the fetal position because of the illness which causes acute bloody diarrhea. The same Dr. Lutz did not recall any reported cases of dysentery after Katrina. “I saw a lot of people with cuts and bruises and such, but I don’t recall a single, solitary case of gastroenteritis during Katrina or in the whole month afterward.”

The additional “inaccuracies” seem to indicate a pattern here, making Williams’ penchant for embellishment and personal aggrandizement more a character trait than mere “memory lapses.”

Williams’ embellishments have fueled a LOT of online bits, from, “Dan Rather just found the photos of Brian Williams’ downed Chinook,” to, photoshopped pictures showing him reporting from the moon and riding shotgun with O.J. Simpson in his Ford Bronco.

This is going to be a very hard ordeal for Williams to live down and if even more “false memories” come out, he’s probably done. Personally, I’m betting on done.

Wow! Corporations Can Even Make “Lovin” Seem Creepy

For those who haven’t heard, McDonalds has come up with a new marketing campaign, “Pay with lovin’.” I had to read about it myself, despite it being rolled out during a Super Bowl ad. It’s not as though I NEVER hit McD’s, albeit it is a rare event, but it’s probably more a matter of my hitting the Drivethru those times I do visit the Golden Arches and this campaign doesn’t lend itself to drivethru customers.

At first blush, it sounds really nice – a free meal for “paying” for our meal with some act of kindness, or connection - however, in practice, I can’t imagine it not coming off phony, awkward and often a tad bit creepy.

THAT, in and of itself, is no mean fete. It can’t be easy making “love” creepy, but chalk up yet another modern “miracle” up to Corporate America.

McDonalds sure paid a LOT to unveil its new marketing strategy that allows random customers to “pay with lovin!” Those Super Bowl ads cost a record $4.5 MILLION per 30-second spot. Sometimes the “lovin” is as simple as asking another customer to dance, or telling a stranger that you love them, but in most cases it seems to result in awkward, forced and sometimes downright creepy moments.

An intriguing question is, why are such ideas so readily embraced in Corporate America? Are their marketing departments that alienated from reality to not be aware of how such campaigns will morph into creepiness in real life?

Apparently so, but HOW?...WHY?

Probably because their marketing people “never eat there,” so they can’t really imagine how awkward a casual diner might be with finding themselves unexpectedly being coerced to interact with strangers in a faked, awkward exchange with a stranger, manipulated by an overly enthusiastic cashier.

Some have chalked this apparent desperation to McD’s losing market share (McDonalds share of the  19 – 21 year old market has dropped almost 13 percentage points over the past four years and it’s 4^th quarter profits for 2014 fell by nearly 15%), but this just seems like an ill-conceived plan to combat that drop off.

McDonald’s would seem to be better off putting the money they’ve earmarked for this campaign into something...ANYTHING else.

In the end, McDonald’s has a niche, fast, casual food. They are not and should not look to be another Shake Shack, or Five Guys, that SN’T their niche and in the end no one, nor any Corporation can be all things to all people.