Packwood & Reynolds

Robert Ostrea raostrea at IX.NETCOM.COM
Thu Sep 7 00:04:56 MDT 1995


Dave writes: (Sorry for the delayed response.  Been busy...)
 
 
>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.
 
I most certainly do NOT equate the do here Dave.  I am merely stating
the FACT is that if you don't drink, you can't become an alcoholic.
Perhaps this is too simplistic for you, however, it is still a fact.
The same fact that if you do not engage in sex, you will not become
pregnant...
 
 
 
>Alcohol affects the brain, and thinking. It affects it because
>it creates an enzyme which appears to destroy rational behavior.
 
This is true ONLY if one drinks excessively to begin with...
 
 
 To
>apply your thinking and comparing it as the same as that of an
alcoholic
>is absurd.
 
 
Perhaps you misunderstand my thinking, David.  I think I am pretty
straight-forward here, actually.  You cannot become addicted unless you
start to drink, and then excessively drink (get drunk) on a regular
basis.  This is where the overwhelming majority of alcoholics become
addicted.  NOT by casually sipping a glass of wine here and there and
drinking on a social basis.  I'm sorry, I don't accept the evil enzyme
excuse...
 
>
>Nor is this the only point. Alcoholism involves the creation of THC
>which affects the brain, thinking, and the craving to create more.
 
Fine...
 
>You seem to equate knowledge before the fact with knowledge of what
the
>body drives you to do.
 
I did not say that at all.  I would agree that once one is drunk, his
has little or no control of his actions; HOWEVER, he is still 100%
responsible for those actions.  I can't believe you would disagree with
this assessment...
 
 
> 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.
 
Now I'm quite sure you've misunderstood my position, because this is
NOT what I mean at all!  The statements I've made were addressing the
state of mind BEFORE one is addicted, rather than after the case...
 
 
>But this wasn't the point I made. I indicated that alcoholics don't
>choose to be alcoholic. I explained why, again, above.
 
 
We obviously disagree here, to an a certain extent.  Alcoholics MUST
have one time or another CHOSEN to start drinking, David.  The beer
bottle didn't jump up and force the alcoholic to drink its contents.
In this respect, the individual certainly DOES have to accept some
responsibility for becoming addicted to this substance, or do we blame
someone else for this?
 
 
>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.
 
So, you are saying that ALL alcoholics became so because of this
"special propensity?"  I can personally name you ten individuals that I
know of (mainly from college) who became alcoholics by drinking every
night and getting crashed at it!  It's the same thing as getting hooked
on crack or another drug. If you don't do it, you don't get hooked.
It's your CHOICE...
 
 
 
Would you go down now and submit for
>a test Bob?
 
And this test would prove, what?
 
>And if it said that you created THC in the brain enzyme
>and normal people did not, would you "never pick up another drink"?
 
If I took this test and learned that this were so, I probably would
take every matter under consideration.  However, knowing that I have
become drunk exactly twice in my life, and that I don't have a problem
with drinking, I would not hesitate to pick up a drink.  I'm not quite
sure what point you are trying to make here, David?  Are you suggesting
that everyone take this test and THEN they would be responsible if they
become an alcoholic because only after taking this test would they know
if they were susceptible to alcoholism?  Now THAT's absurd...
 
 
>
>I reiterate. Either it is a disease or it is not.
 
What difference would it make if it were a disease or not?  It's all a
play on words, David!  This "disease" can be avoided, and that is my
point...
 
 
 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.
 
 
This is all fine and dandy, David.  I'm saying (although I'm not an
Oregon resident) that I would not support him in an upcoming election,
NOR in 1992.  I also didn't support Clinton and HE's still President.
Are you saying that I can't criticize or comment on Clinton because he
was elected by the constituents?
 
 
>
>Alcoholism is not a matter of will. Stopping drinking is, Bob.
 
Sorry David, but STARTING to drink is ALSO a matter of will, which
proves my point that one is ultimately responsible for his
actions,drunk or not.  If you disagree with this, I have a classified
ad in the LA Times announcing an open position with the ACLU that I can
send you :)
 
 
 
>Bob, I have not excused anthing. And perhaps you missed my post on
this.
 
Perhaps I did, but it SOUNDS like you're making an excuse by seeminly
playing off Packwood's individual role with his situation...
 
 
>But, I do not equate Bob Packwoods behavior with that of TK for
>example.
 
Agreed...
 
>Or Mel Reynolds. It is not.
 
Right again!
 
 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.
 
Nope, you got me all wrong as I've explained above...
 
 
 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.
 
It all depends on what you mean by "poor behavior," Dave.  It also
depends on whose "grounds" you're considering.  In MY opinion, Packwood
should have resigned because of his very poor handling of his
harrasment situation.  I felt (at the time) that it was hurting the
party and his ability to represent his constiuents.  Yes, I'm not his
constituent, but I do have the right to comment, Dave....
 
 
 We have had all sorts of things
>which happen in the elected bodies. Poor behavior and irrationality
>doesn't seem to make people resign.
 
This is my point exactly.  They DON't resign, regardless of the
situation...
 
 
 I contend that Boxers' behavior
>was equally as irrational. Should she resign as well?
 
 
Well, I AM a part of Boxer's constituency and, yes, I call for her
resignation 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.
 
FIne, that's what I said above...
 
 
 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.
 
Sounds like an excuse here...
 
 
>
>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 think HE created a lot of this duress by his alleged actions (with
these women) as well as his opposition to hand over his diary, changing
(allegedly) his diaries, and by opposing, then calling for, open
hearings.  This is a big fat distraction which should have been avoided
so that other, much more important business, needs to get done...
 
 
 
 
 
>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.
 
I whole-heartedly agree with you on Boxer's ridiculousness and the
feminists participation in the Packwood case, that is NOT my argument
with you...
 
 
 
> 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.
 
Well, I never said that he should resign NOW!  I was merely stating
that I wish he would have resigned back in 1992 because of the
distractions then and the distractions that have accumulated NOW!  I
agree that his resignation NOW would be more of a distraction and would
definitely be seen as him backing down.  It's gone too far now!
 
 
 
>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.
 
Well, I AM angry and so should you and the rest of this country!  This
is taking away precious time from the real issues of this country,
rather it is now focusing on the feminist agenda, which you say you
detest (I do too).
 
 
>
>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.
 
 
I think we agree with the basic concepts of the politics behind our
jabbing posts.  Where we disagree (I think) is the definition of
alcoholism and/or the responsibility of the drunk individual.  You seem
to think that once a person becomes an alcoholic, he is not responsible
for his actions because he cannot control his drinking and his enzymes
are not "normal."  I think this is absurd and that the individual
ALWAYS must take responsibility for his actions, regardless of his
alcohol content and/or condition.
 
 
----------------------
Robert A. Ostrea, Jr.
North Hollywood, CA
RAOstrea at ix.netcom.com
 
Damn Dodgers lost 1-0 to the Phillies!  Off to Pittsburgh!
GO GO BLUE!



More information about the Rushtalk mailing list