while you wouldn't want your accounting firm to be known for its coke abusing, womanizing jerks, the entertainment industry isn't really affected by such jerks.  people have come to expect entertainers (rock stars, writers, movie stars, athletes, etc) to have such behavior.  (i'm not saying that's right or wrong.)  what's more, people aren't going to turn away from MLB, NFL, etc because of the off field antics of its people.  if that were true, the nfl would be going bankrupt right now instead of being the most popular sport in the u.s. of a.

yeah, rock stars are you know, sex, drugs, rock n roll, but the guy in your cubicle next door is using coke to keep himself alert or the woman at the reception desk of your cable company is addicted to painkillers after that accident she had five years ago or that law student is pumped up on whatever pills he can get his hands on to stay awake three nights in a row to study so he can get get into that glorious boston firm.    

we live in a society that tells us to do anything to get ahead, that we're lazy if we aren't as successful as the next person.  is it any wonder that people resort to chemical means when their bodies can't naturally produce enough to push them to the top?  our society is also one that believes taking a pill can make all problems disappear, whether it be for weightloss, depression, stress, etc.  those two things are a disastrous combo even when you're not in the spotlight of the media vampires.  Alcohol and drug abuse (including steroids) in baseball is not a baseball problem, it's a societal problem.  It's just as common in the corporate world, but guys in ties aren't as glamorous as our Romanesque sports heroes, so we tend to ignore it, not know about it, or not care.

another thing is that spiezio was cut for his alcohol/drug problems because he is not a star.  if pujols had done the exact same thing, he'd still be on the team.

but how is a company's reputation really affected if one of its employees gets a DUI?  Are you (the general you) going to boycott H&R Block because one of their employees got arrested for possession?  Or will you stop watching 24 because Kiefer Sutherland spent 48 days in jail this winter for his fourth DUI?  I'm wondering - when people have to ask whether or not a company should do something about an employee's personal problems, have we lost so much control over our lives that we're willing to look at our employers as our masters, or does it have to do with the moralists wanting to punish the sinners, or can we not see our humanity through the plastic, Made in China trees, or is our justice system so hopelessly broken that we don't trust it to right the wrongs, or what is it?  Why do we have to ask these questions?  (Not pointing at you, crolfer, or anyone else.  I'm asking these questions myself.) Why do we let "company reputation" dictate what we can and cannot do?  Why do we care if our accounting firm is full of coke abusing, womanizing jerks if they do a great job at accounting?  Why is it any of our business?  Aren't we supposed to be a nation of individuals who worship our privacy?  

People get fired for DUI, and it isn't right.  Shouldn't a company's reputation be elevated for helping its employees through their problems instead of firing them for being human and making mistakes?

Sincerely,

Still naive at 31

2008 NL Central Champs!

i know there are no answers here.  at least no easy ones.  i feel bad for spiezio.  like i said above, if pujols had done the same thing, he'd still be the opening day starter.  talk about double standards!

2008 NL Central Champs!