Packwood & Reynolds

Fri Sep 1 08:14:21 MDT 1995

I agree you didn't shrug off alcoholism. What you are shrugging off
This stuff happened between 1969 and 1989. Packwood was elected
twice since.
You are ignoring the political ploy of Boxer who is a radical
feminist, a hypocrit and essentially attacking one person for behavior
and not addressing others with far more serious behavior.
It was in the news in the mid 80s. It is not new.
you say in the same paragraph that nothing forces you to drink but
that you didn't shrug off alcoholism. Bob. Jeez. If alcoholics drank
like you do, they wouldn't be alcoholics. They wouldn't destroy their
lives and kill themselves.
So you then either don't accept that this addiction causes you to
drink, drink more, and continually. And then you say, you don't do it
so why does an alcoholic? Come on Bob. Either it is a disease or it
is not. An alcoholic does not drink the same way a non-alcoholic
drinks. You really don't believe in alcohism. You think it is a matter
of will. An alcoholic craves it, to the point he must have it.
I don't think that Packwood is not culpable. But perhaps you should
take a look at alcoholism a bit more than you indicate that you have.
An alcoholic does not make the same decisions that a normal person
would until he determines abstinence will cure his problem, he seeks
a higher power, tries to make amends and so on. Don't get me wrong.
I am not excusing his behavior then. I am illustrating the difficulty
that I have with your way of thinking: because alcoholism is either a
disease or it is not. And there is a difference in the culpability
of behavior because it depends upon what the behavior was.The difference
between kissing someone, or making a borish, unwanted pass, and
driving off into a tidal stream, killing someone is an ocean apart.
So a drunk is a drunk. Is he now? Did he commit a criminal act? Did
he kill someone?
On Thu, 31 Aug 1995 19:11:58 -0700 Robert Ostrea said:
>Dave, I never "shrugged off" what alcoholism is, I just don't feel it
>is a good excuse for one to hide behind in an effort to avoid paying
>the consequences.  If Packwood indeed suffered from this condition and
>received counseling and/or treatment, great!  That doesn't negate his
>actions.  I also don't feel that the individual is immune from any
>responsibility for becoming an alcoholic either!  THe liquor doesn't
>come up to you and FORCE you to drink!  Hell, I drink beers and
>cocktails often, but I am NOT an alcoholic.  Why?  Because I am aware
>of the effects too much alcohol can have.  Perhaps I am more secure
>than Packwood was, but then again, maybe he shouldn't decided to become
>a public figure!
>>You can't compare a drunk driver, to a drunk kisser.
>The actions that preceed the actions are identical, David!  A drunk is
>a drunk is a drunk...

More information about the Rushtalk mailing list