Real Communication is HARD....

Let me start off by saying that Max Fleming (who’s posted a few things on my timeline) is a very nice guy...and a true believer in Conservatism.

As I’ve often made very clear, Max and I differ on a number of issues and more importantly on the best strategy in advancing those views we each may support.

A good of example of what I see as “WHAT NOT to DO,” is the “Department of Obama-Security” picture posted here:

I find such things embarrassing to conservatism.

Apparently, Max does not.

Here’s the thing, WHAT, exactly constitutes “advancing one’s views?”

Is it “stoking up the base,” or “preaching to the choir,” OR is it trying to make the best case for your ideas to those who may be predisposed to opposing your ideas?

I believe it is the latter, while Max apparently thinks the former is the way to go.

When I see things like that, I’m reminded of the gleeful taunts of “McChimp” that many extreme G W Bush opponents were fond of throwing around.

My response to BOTH is, “HOW, exactly, does that advance your ideas?”

The short answer is they DON’T.

So WHY do it, then?

Quite simply, because it’s so damned much FUN!

It’s fun to mock, insult and slime those you disagree with. Who cares, if it only further alienates the opposition and gives those on the fence, he may have been leaning your way, pause? The choir LOVES it! AND you're a “hero” for “having the guts” to “take on the enemy,” even if the “enemy” is really just your neighbor down the street. I know, you never much liked him anyway.

There’s really no competition between such clowning and real communication. It’s like the competition between broccoli and chocolate....Chocolate, like FUN, wins every time! SAME thing here, real communication is HARD, it takes work, while sliming and insulting those you disagree with is easy...and FUN, to boot.

So what? What’s the problem with that? Fun is good, right?

FUN really IS good. I mean it’s FUN, after all! BUT when “fun” comes at someone else’s expense, or worse yet, at the expense of the truth...then that kind of fun isn’t very harmless.

Most people, contrary to popular belief are NOT dogmatic “liberals” or “conservatives.” Their views tend to be an amalgamation of the things that make sense to them at the time, based on the prevailing information they have on hand. Our beliefs tend to be much more fluid and malleable than most of us would like to think.

A well-reasoned argument may NOT immediately convince or “convert,” BUT it may well help someone think a little differently about an issue...and THAT should be our goal.

Sure, it’s not nearly as much fun as getting a bunch of Yuks from the choir of true believers, but it’s far more useful, not to mention far more effective.

I’ll give a personal example. I was an original member of Merit Matters, a group dedicated to high standards for the Fire Service (specifically the FDNY) within the Civil Service Merit System.

That issue, as you can well imagine, can often be a contentious one. There is a tendency on BOTH sides to see the other as motivated by malice and bad intentions.

I see the issue clearly as a health and safety issue, both for the FDNY and the public at large.

My wife was born into grinding poverty in Kingston, Jamaica. Fortunately for her, she’s smart...very smart. She skipped two grades in Grammar school and went on to get a Chartered Accountancy (in the English system), then came to the U.S. and went back to Baruch College, got an accounting degree and passed the grueling 4-part CPA exam, an exam that has the SAME “disparate impact” (vastly differing passing rates for Asians, blacks, Hispanics, whites, etc.) that other such standardized written exams have.

It is my belief that preferences only serve to erode the competitive abilities of the recipients AND they foster the toxic view that “the recipients are unable to compete, especially against whites and Asians without such a crutch.” THAT indeed is the view promulgated when proponents of such preferences argue things like, “Written exams are discriminatory against black candidates.”

What I did was to look at the demographics of New York City’s Municipal workforce (http://citylimits.org/multimedia/257/new-york-city-s-agencies-by-race-ethnic-breakdown#.UVH-UheG2z4) and found that NONE of New York City’s agencies look anything like New York City and that the ONLY group over-represented by MORE than 10%in New York City’s Municipal workforce is non-Hispanic blacks (a federal designation) with that group representing 23% of the city’s population and 36% of the Municipal workforce ( a 58% over-representation). Whites are about 8.8% over-represented, representing appx. 35% of the city’s population and 38% of its workforce. SEE: http://citylimits.org/2010/05/27/the-whitest-city-agencies/#.UVH9tReG2z4 BOTH Asians and Hispanics are under-represented in New York City’s Municipal agencies.

That helps put the issue into a clearer perspective. I also went over the demographics of the surrounding Volunteer Fire Departments and found that even in predominantly African-American areas, like Hempstead and Wyandanch, Long Island, the Volunteer Fire Departments in those areas tend to be over 90%, often over 95% white. That would seem to go to the level of interest in that profession in the respective communities.

It IS true that New York’s municipal agencies SHOULD “look like New York City” WITHOUT sacrificing necessary standards. An extremely disproportionate workforce can make applicants from other groups feel unwelcome. That’s something that must be taken into account and with at least 7 other NYC agencies MORE ethnically imbalanced than the FDNY, it’s an issue across the board in NYC’s municipal hiring.

The goal of using such FACTS is to (1) avoid any vitriol or ad hominin attacks on others and (2) to help others look at that issue in a different light.

As a result, Merit Matters NEVER resorted to insults or personal attacks in ANY of our writings and offered an open and respectful platform to those opposed to our views.

That DOES NOT mean you can guarantee a cordial, even civil response, but the ONLY thing that any of us control is ourselves...our own communication style.

My point is that while responding with anger, vitriol, insults and mocking may feel good, it does nothing to advance your cause, or to sway those yet undecided on the issue, which is generally a fairly sizable group.

That’s where Max and I apparently part company. I DON’T much like insults and mocking in lieu of facts, while Max seems to see “playing up to those who already agree” as the best tact to take.

Hey! Real communication is HARD. I’m very well aware of that.

On “Being Mortal”...AND Perpetual War

Atul Gawande M.D. (Author of "Being Mortal")



Don Franklin (L-44, FDNY)

I worked with Don Franklin, the first FDNY firefighter killed in the line-of-duty in 2001 (Saturday 1/13/01). I worked the day before (Friday, January 12th, day & night) and we had 3 jobs (fires) the night before (around 11pm, then around 3:30am and the last about 7am) at the last one, we overhauled at a 2nd Alarm a little north of us and we didn't get back to the firehouse until after 11am. I felt like crashing right there, but I was afraid that if I did, I'd wake up around midnight....so I showered and drove home to sleep in my own bed.

Work was spurty back then...you'd get slammed one day and get nothing but nuisance runs (rubbish fires, food-on-the-stoves, car fires, electrical, gas and water leaks, etc.) for a couple days after. I figured the rest of the weekend would be pretty light, so I was very surprised to get a call on Sunday morning that Donnie had been killed at a fire at 166th Street and Teller Avenue that came in around 8pm Saturday night.

The Funeral week was a blur, I drove the family transport van taking his family from Staten Island (where we lived) up to Orange County, NY, where Don had moved. It was an extremely gut-wrenching week for everyone in that firehouse. Don was about 43 y/o. He didn't want to die. He didn't need to die. He had plans....his family had plans.

That experience made understanding the chaos a few months later when 3 firefighters had to be buried after the Father's Day fire very hard to comprehend...and then the seemingly endless parade of post-9/11 Funerals and Memorials was even more incomprehensible. If one Funeral was so devastating, how could any group of guys handle so many more? It's unimaginable to think of a Company burying 9, 10, sometimes 12 or more guys after 9/11/01.

In the wake of all that, it's hard to conceive that the best way to honor those 403 Emergency Service workers (343 FDNY firefighters, 37 PAPD cops and 23 NYPD cops) along with the nearly 2600 other civilians murdered on 9/11 was to sacrifice nearly 5,000 more American lives and damage countless others, both physically and emotionally in a series of subsequent wars.

I was thinking about that recently because so many people STILL seem to see war as a primary option....kind of "no big deal," when it IS a big deal...a VERY BIG DEAL to those killed and maimed AND to their families, who have to live with all that for the rest of their lives.

FRONTLINE put on an excellent broadcast called "Being Mortal" this past Tuesday night, February 10th. It was a broadcast based on a work by the same title, by a surgeon named Atul Gawande. It shows how agonizing a SINGLE death can be for ALL involved. It's well worth watching. I know it won't change some people's minds, but it's an interesting thing to contemplate...the enormity of death, ESPECIALLY relative to the ease in which some people condone and accept calls for mass slaughter. No one should ever want to be....THAT GUY....the one who reflexively calls for, or accepts "endless," or "perpetual war."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-l4_deIzS98

Lessons From Marcus Luttrell (Lone Survivor)

Marcus Luttrell (L) and Mohammad Gulab (R)

THIS (https://www.youtube.com/watch…) is a GREAT interview. Anderson Cooper visits with Navy SEAL Marcus Luttrell and the Afghani man who helped save his life, Mohammad Gulab.

The FIRST thing I took away from this story...and from the film "LONE SURVIVOR" is how we cannot afford to keep sacrificing the BEST of the BEST like this...losing so many exemplary lives like this. THESE guys are the rarest of commodities. Nations only get so many. I came away from seeing that film KNOWING that I am personally unworthy of their sacrifice. EVERY ONE of those guys were better men than I ever was, or will ever be. In fact, I can't think of ANYONE I've known who's worthy of that sacrifice (11 Navy SEALS and 8 Army Night Stalkers in that one mission). I can't think of a single elected official who measures up to these guys. As a nation, we are greatly diminished by the loss of guys like this. These guys aren't just "killing machines," they're very bright, incredibly self-disciplined and unbelievably self-motivated....the kinds of people who get things done, from starting successful businesses to just about anything else you can think of

The SECOND thing I took away is how little we really understand about so many other cultures. The very SAME code (Pashtunwalli) that Mohammad Gulab adhered to in protecting Marcus Luttrell from the Taliban fighters, is the SAME code that Afghanistan adhered to in refusing to turn over the al Qaeda members who'd sought refuge in their country after 9/11.

We all tend to see the world in our own image and when it doesn't easily conform to that image, we often try to remake it over to our liking....often with disastrous results. Look closely at Marcus Luttrell in this candid interview and you can very easily see the very ponderous burden of all those lost that he carries around in his heart every day. Just bearing that incredibly heavy burden every day is damned heroic.

The Media’s Feeding Frenzy on Brian Williams

WHY are so many in the media so gleeful about Brian Williams' misfortune?

Look, I don't like the embellishments at all, but it's hard for me to celebrate someone losing their job. It just doesn't feel right. Moreover, the national media does far WORSE than Williams' embellishments EVERY SINGLE day!

Our "news" is highly filtered. We get the "stories" that some editors and their corporate masters want us to get and they're delivered exactly HOW they want'em delivered...that's LYING! In fact, it's far worse than some petty personal embellishments by a vain and insecure anchor.

What's pretty comical, at least to me, is those in the media who claim "Brian Williams' real crime is violating the trust of the viewers."

ARE THEY KIDDING, or what?!

Look at the state of the national media today! That's why the NY Times is going broke and why the traditional networks sell faux "reality TV" far more effectively than their "filtered" news. It's also why millions more people tune into REAL "fake news" with John Stewart...because there's often more "real stuff" there than on the nightly newscasts.

When you get down to it, so much of the "filtering" of our news creates so many lies and obfuscations, I can't blame a Brian Williams for embellishing, or puffing up some accounts to make himself look a bit better. Hell, a LOT of stories are crafted to make things look either better or worse than they really are, you know...in reality.

So now Brian Williams is going to get crucified for lying, in a business built on lies?

How much sense does any of that really make?

Another “Bloomberg Idea” That is SURE to be Condemned

Mayor Mike Bloomberg on his anti-Big Gulp Campaign

Say what you will about Mike Bloomberg, who took a LOT of flak over his proposed “large soda” ban in New York, while he was Mayor, he does genuinely THINK about the root causes of problems.

Obesity IS running rampant and most people have no idea how many empty calories they’re ingesting with HUGE (“Big Gulp”-styled) sodas and sweet drinks.

BUT bans run counter to the American spirit and they don’t play well politically...EVER!

Still, at least Mike Bloomberg was thinking about the root cause of a specific problem, OBESITY, and looking at ways to combat it.

He’s done much the SAME with guns and that has been even more problematic with a majority of Americans.

Yes, major urban areas are awash with gun violence and all the gun bans in places like New York City, Chicago, Baltimore and D.C. just don’t seem to work.

When he was Mayor, Mike Bloomberg blamed that on “the too easy access to guns in places like Virginia.”

The real problem is that America is suffering from a “gang problem,” that it insists on mislabeling a “gun problem.”

Mike Bloomberg’s latest idea sort of addresses that issue in a direct and very politically incorrect way.

“While speaking at an overwhelmingly wealthy, white audience at the Aspen Institute, former New York City mayor and leading gun control advocate Michael Bloomberg expressed his desire to see young minorities stripped of their gun rights. The Mayors Against Illegal Guns and Everytown USA funder reportedly believes male minorities between the ages of 15 and 25 are responsible for most murders. That’s why, he argued, cities need to take guns away from that group.

“These kids think they’re going to get killed anyway because all their friends are getting killed,” the Aspen Times reported Bloomberg said to the audience. “They just don’t have any long-term focus or anything.”

(http://freebeacon.com/politics/bloomberg-wants-to-strip-young-minorities-of-gun-rights/)

There are a number of very serious flaws with that proposed “solution,” the first being that we generally DO NOT pass laws that target ONLY one group of people for specific treatment, no matter how practical such a law might be.

For another, guns are quite simply just too easy to make! The HBO program Vice did an excellent report on “Backyard gun shops” that operate in the Philippines (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67PYuGQM9Fg)

Guns, like drugs and alcohol will thrive so long as there is a demand for them. So long as the demand exists, there are people who’ll take the risks in order to respond to that demand for a profit. It’s an ineluctable part of human nature.

BUT at least Mike Bloomberg is looking at the root cause of gun violence. Yes, black males (appx. 6% of the population) have committed at least 50% of the murders nationwide since 1976. Much of that is fueled by gang activity. (http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-43)

Mike Bloomberg becomes, to my knowledge, the first “left-of-Center” political figure to acknowledge that America’s root problem is a “GANG problem” and NOT a “GUN problem.”

Even though this idea looks doomed to abject failure, hopefully it may get more people looking honestly at the reality of violence in America.

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!