Packwood & Reynolds
raostrea at IX.NETCOM.COM
Fri Sep 1 18:20:17 MDT 1995
>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.
I am most certainly NOT ignoring Ms. Boxer's hypocratical actions in
this matter! As a matter of fact, I believe I was condemning her (and
other leftists') hypocracy by agreeing with Ed Jones that the media's
coverage of these two situations are distinctly different! Mel
Reynolds story was in the back of the paper, whereas Packwood is always
on the front page - hypocracy!
>you say in the same paragraph that nothing forces you to drink but
>that you didn't shrug off alcoholism.
Alcoholism is caused by those who CHOOSE to drink too much at the
beginning. Then, after repeated incidents of intoxication, the person
becomes ADDICTED to alcohol. The key fact here is that the person
(Packwood) chose to drink in the first place. Not only that, but
Packwood MUST have drank more than he should have (CHOSE to drink more
than he should have) BEFORE he got addicted to the stuff. It is HIS
responsibility. The actions that are caused by HIS predicament can NOT
be discounted, and I think many people ARE discounting his
responsibility by saying that he "received treatment."
>Bob. Jeez. If alcoholics drank
>like you do, they wouldn't be alcoholics. They wouldn't destroy their
>lives and kill themselves.
My point exactly! Now, I have a beer just about every day, and I DO
drink socially. I've also known to become drunk on occasion (though
it's been a while), but I am NOT an alcoholic because I control how
much I drink...
>So you then either don't accept that this addiction causes you to
>drink, drink more, and continually.
Sure, the addiction leads to drinking more than one can control,
however, the individual should have exerted more responsibility by NOT
drinking more than he should BEFORE he actually becomes addicted and
the situation becomes a problem...
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.
Drinking alcohol IS a matter of will. One can NOT become an alcoholic
unless one CHOOSES ON HIS OWN WILL to drink in the first place...
>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.
I understand where you're coming from, Dave, but it DOES seem like
you're making an excuse for Packwood's behavior by bringing up the fact
that he received treatment! Packwood should take responsibility for
his actions. If he made unwanted passes at women (many women so it
seems) he should take full responsibility. THe fact that he was drunk
at the times does NOT excuse his behavior. It does EXPLAIN his
behavior, but the act is the same, regardless. This is where my drunk
driver analogy comes in. A drunk driver who kills a pedestrian is just
as wrong as a sober driver who does the same! There is no excuse, only
And there is a difference in the culpability
>of behavior because it depends upon what the behavior was.The
>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?
If Packwood committed a criminal act or not remains to be seen. I'm
not so sure he did. My original point was that at the time a lot of
negative attention was placed on packwood and his situation AND
Packwood's apology implies that many of allegations have some credence
to them. I thought he should step down because too much distraction
was being placed on him AND he seemed to acknowledge that the
distraction was justified. Now, it seems that even MORE attention will
be diverted from the real issues of the day to open hearings on his
actions. This makes me pretty angry!
Robert A. Ostrea, Jr.
North Hollywood, CA
RAOstrea at ix.netcom.com
Ismael Valdez pitches tonight! I'm going to the game!!!
GO DODGER BLUE!!!
More information about the Rushtalk