Packwood & Reynolds

David Bell DBELL at SYSUBMC.BMC.COM
Tue Sep 5 11:18:18 MDT 1995


On Fri, 1 Sep 1995 17:20:17 -0700 Robert Ostrea said:
Excuse me. Apparently I missed you post on Boxer.
 
>I am most certainly NOT ignoring Ms. Boxer's hypocratical actions...
 
>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, I think you are way off base on this. I think you equate normal
behavior with alcoholic behavior. Normal thinking with alcoholic thinking
ETC. Alcohol affects the brain, and thinking. It affects it because
it creates an enzyme which appears to destroy rational behavior. To
apply your thinking and comparing it as the same as that of an alcoholic
is absurd.
 
Nor is this the only point. Alcoholism involves the creation of THC
which affects the brain, thinking, and the craving to create more.
You seem to equate knowledge before the fact with knowledge of what the
body drives you to do. No one knows why, or who is susceptible to this.
You either are, or aren't. And if you are unlucky, knowledge about
the fact that it is happening is after the fact. By then, your thinking
ability, reasoning, social behavior have all changed. I just don't
think you  are discussing alcoholism rationally because you discuss
normal drinking and alcoholic drinking as if the same process were
at work.
 
>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...
 
But this wasn't the point I made. I indicated that alcoholics don't
choose to be alcoholic. I explained why, again, above.
 
>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...
 
Assuming they knew before hand that they had the special propensity
which creates THC in the brain. Which normal people don't have and
which scientists are unable to predict. And if they were to predict it,
they would have to run tests. Would you go down now and submit for
a test Bob? And if it said that you created THC in the brain enzyme
and normal people did not, would you "never pick up another drink"?
 
I reiterate. Either it is a disease or it is not. Either Bob Packwood
has it, or does not. Either way, it is up to his electorate to decide
how to address this. If his behavior was less than polite, his electorate
should address it. If the electorate chooses to accept his explanation,
his treatment and the change in behavior then that is up to them, not
you. I have more to say on this, see my later notes.
 
Alcoholism is not a matter of will. Stopping drinking is, Bob.
 
>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...
 
Bob, I have not excused anthing. And perhaps you missed my post on this.
But, I do not equate Bob Packwoods behavior with that of TK for
example. Or Mel Reynolds. It is not. I am explaining the difference
between alcoholic thinking, affected by brain chemistry, while you
seem to think that from alcoholic thinking, normal, rational thinking
is possible. I think we have ample evidence that such is not the case.
In which case, if Bob Packwood went for temperance and stopped drinking,
and his behavior changed, then I would say that he has done the right
thing. I would say that also, whether you like it or not, poor behavior
is not grounds for resigning a seat. We have had all sorts of things
which happen in the elected bodies. Poor behavior and irrationality
doesn't seem to make people resign. I contend that Boxers' behavior
was equally as irrational. Should she resign as well?
 
Heck. I think she should. In fact, I agree, that if Boxer goes based
on irrational behavior, so should Packwood? Who will be the judge Bob?
I submit to you, that that is his electorate. And they are weary of
this stuff. It has been going on for more than 10 years. Bob Packwood
went through a treatment program, attempted to make amends, some of
which was accepted, some not. So be it, by God, and there is nothing
he can do about it but get on with his life.
 
Bob Packwood has been under extreme duress regarding this and fighting
back means he is not admitting much of what he was accused of. Being
accused is one thing. Being guilty another. Being guilty of a crime
even worse.
 
>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
>an explanation...
>
No the act isn't.Packwood, under attack from radical feminists who're
making the issue. I outright, right from the ground up, say to heck with
them and their political agenda. For him to do what you want him to do
is to give in. If he did not do what he is accused of (far be it from
me to ever say a woman accused a man of unbecoming behavior unfairly)
then he is doing the right thing. And if most of this is feminist
agenda stuff, and nothing more than unsolicited attention, then I don't
want him to give in, resign, or even consider it.
 
>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!
 
I realize that you imply that you don't believe he committed a criminal
act. He has not been accused of one. Which makes me more stridently
opposed to giving in, had he done so. The distraction is the point
though. That is the intent. And if it makes you angry so be it. But
were I he, and what I did amounted to nothing, I wouldn't give in, ever.
 
They think they can set the agenda and run people off. They did it
with Clarence Thomas and Robert Borke. I don't think you give in to
these people.
 
David



More information about the Rushtalk mailing list