Packwood & Reynolds

David Bell DBELL at SYSUBMC.BMC.COM
Thu Sep 7 08:35:15 MDT 1995


Bob,
 
I think we have beat this to death and we just disagree. I responded
to what you wrote, and I think I kept within the framework of what
you stated.
 
And I realize that we all get real busy and the internet is secondary.
Of course by now you realize the event which the SEC made yesterday
in regard to Packwood. I think more is going to come out on this
now and we will be able to form a better opinion. But I don't believe
that the problem will be with 17 women he kissed when he was drunk or
misbehaving. it will be because of the ethics charges.
 
I am going to comment one more time on this and then no more.
On Wed, 6 Sep 1995 23:04:56 -0700 Robert Ostrea said:
I wrote:
>>Bob, I think you are way off base on this. I think you equate normal
>>behavior with alcoholic behavior. Normal thinking with alcoholic
>>thinking
And Bob responded:
>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...
Yes it is too, simplistic. Because the fact is that almost everyone
uses alcohol at some point in life. Those affected by the creation
of THC do not do things the way you or I do. And I asked a corollary
question of you regarding the fact that if you were tested in such
a manner, would you "never pick up another drink". And it does not
require a great deal of alcohol to affect behavior. Excessive drinking
is not a requirement to behavioral change--if you are an alcoholic.
I also want to point out that you yourself discussed over-drinking.
In this matter, it is a matter of choice.
 
But let us say that once drinking, the brain is affected by the
enzyme, thus thinking is altered and then more drinking occurs, to the
point of excess. After all, that is a symptom of the alcoholic,
which begins with small amount of alcohol, then overdrinking, then
controlled drinking, to uncontrolled drinking. But the first thing that
happens is that the enzyme is created which affects the brain which
affects thinking and reasoning.
I said:
>>Alcohol affects the brain, and thinking. It affects it because
>>it creates an enzyme which appears to destroy rational behavior.
Bob said:
>This is true ONLY if one drinks excessively to begin with...
And I wrote the preceding paragraph in regard to this.
so,
I wrote:
>>to apply your thinking and comparing it as the same as that of an
>>alcoholic is absurd.
And Bob responsed:
>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...
And I reply:
Okay. You don't accept it, You in other words, don't accept alcoholism
as a disease. Which was one of the first points I made. I went further
in asking you a question based upon the following:
>>Nor is this the only point. Alcoholism involves the creation of THC
>>which affects the brain, thinking, and the craving to create more THC.
 
More to the point, what x number of women contend is the issue. If it
didn't happen, it didn't happen. If it did happen, and Bob made a
drunken pass, or a drunken kiss which was not appreciated. If Bob
forced himself on these women, is another. Since they have not
pursued criminal assault, I must assume the former and not the latter.
Bob noted:
>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...
 
I don't disagree with your above statement Bob. It is how we measure
responsibility, culpability, and the result of the behavior. You
have insisted that he is responsible for his behavior. I insist likewise.
I also insist that reformation is part of responsible behavior and he
has apparently taken those steps.
 
You dislike the affect on the GOP. So do I. But were I he, and any of
this behavior which is in contention is not true, and for the most part
meaningless, then the issue of who is making the accusation, and why
becomes the true issue, for me.
 
If the censure or expulsion is determined, it will not be determined
from a 30 year career of pursuing women. It will be from unethical
behavior unrelated to the issue of the women. Or it should be. Unless
there is criminal behavior. Keep in mind that the last 2 senators
expelled from the Senate were in 1862. And keep in mind that I don't
have a problem with paying for a poke if necessary. I am more libertar-
in this regard, apparently.
I said finally:
>> 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.
And Bob replied.
>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...
So, I will say that:
I did not misunderstand. I think you misunderstand the affect of the
brain chemistry. This is not an immediate affect. It is a change over
a long period of time. The chemical remains active in the Brain for
up to 6 weeks, even with abstinence. They do not think the same as
normal people do.
And Bob said:
>>But this wasn't the point I made. I indicated that alcoholics don't
>>choose to be alcoholic. I explained why, again, above.
And I respond:
I agree Bob. But you wish to equate the fact that one suddenly knows
that he is affected by the THC-alcoholism syndrome. Which is not the
case as far as the scientific community is concerned. That person is
driven by the need for the chemical, which drives the drinking. He is
in other words, addicted to THC. Drinking is the symptom of the
problem, but the problem is how the brain uses the chemical, creating
the enzyme, which drives the addiction and affects the thinking
ability because it affects the brain.
 
No the Beer bottle didn't jump in his hand. neither did it in your
case. But the change is subtle and not recognizeable at first. I never
said that his behavior is excusable. I am saying the the value of the
accusations made against Bob Packwood are minimal. And if behavior with
women were the basis of the need to remove him from office, we just
as well decide that men can't hold office and limit office-holding
to members of the female sex.
Bob said:
>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?
Which still doesn't answer my question, nor address the point I made
below:
 
>>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.
And in response below I say yes. there are those who choose to drink
themselves into oblivion, and there are alcoholics who are driven to
it. There is a difference.
>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 now. I would say that they either are or are not alcoholic.
In fact, the scientific community backs me up on this. They might have
a behavior problem and overdrink. In this respect you are correct. How-
ever, that does not mean they are alcoholic.
I asked Bob:
>Would you go down now and submit for
>>a test Bob?
Bob answered:
>And this test would prove, what?
And then I said:
>>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 think you glossed over this too, easily. S I am again stating the
query:
Let us say that the test shows that you
have the gene which causes the brain to process the alcohol and create
THC. THis is the base scientific problem for alcoholism. Not overdrink-
ing. The test you take will prove that if you continue drinking,
your thinking is affected, and you will become dependent upon the
chemical, and eventually will do anything you can to get the alcohol as
input so that the enzyme which uses the sugar to construct the THC to
which the body is addicted....WILL YOU OR WILL YOU NOT, TAKE 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...
No it is not Bob, and I think you need to delve into this further.
You don't now anything about alcoholism, do you, Bob?
I reiterate, again, that it is either a disease or it is not. This does
not address culpability, but how you get into the trouble in the
first place. It does make a difference because then, will, the the
manner in which an alcoholic resolves the problem, comes into effect.
You yourself said that you think your will would overcome a alcoholism
even if you took the test which I layed as a foundation for you. Which
would indicate that you have the "ego" the 12 step program and every
alcoholic has a problem with.
>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...
You show that you do not want to really address the fact that alcoholism
is a disease. I submit to you that it is. I agree that the only thing
you can do about it, is determine that abstinence the best approach
because otherwise, you are going to kill yourself, or someone else.
 
This act itself, when affected by alcohol, meaning your brain
no longer functions as a normal person even when sober for a period of
time is the most difficult step of all.
>
The following is good enough for me. Faced with the dilemma of electing
Packwood or someone else, if that someone else were a liberal democrat,
I propose that a drunk kisser is far better than an off-the-wall
liberal.
 
Otherwise, we might as well cram all the alcohol diseased people into
a train and send them off to a concentration camp, even if they have
stopped drinking, reformed behavior, stopped being drunken kissers,
etc. In fact, since he is a male, then so much the better if the
reason for the intent is to go after him for kissing someone who
apparently had a brain malfunction and did not fend off a drunken pass.
I agree with this. But starting drinking, and becoming an alcoholic,
are two different things Bob. I say this in response to what you
write below.
>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 :)
 
I am not even going to remark on this ludicrous statement above. You
 
He changed his behavior, and made amends. and so.
What do you think he should do? If the man did everything in his power
to do all of the things in the AA program, and you did not accept it
what does AA recommend? Ignore the loss of favor, friendship, and lack
of forgiveness, and get on with the program. You did your best.
what follows is the difference between what you think I posted and
what I did post, how I think you know nothing of alcoholism, and
that you continue to assert that normal thinking will defeat it. It
will, as long as you don't imbibe. If you imbibe, you change the
brain chemistry. You yourself told me that you didn't know whether
you would stop drinking even if a test existed which would detect
the condition which causes alcoholism. Nope. You don't believe in
alcoholism. You think everything is normal, and that the power that
you have, will defeat this. I would say that AA identifies as a problem
is ego, and if you convert the sugar in alcohol to THC, you are headed
for trouble because you think your will will conquer the disease. It
won't, and there is considerable evidence to this effect.
 
>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....
I agree with you Bob. But I want to
define the difference in behavior and why. I am not
dealing with ethics charges otherwise level against Bob Packwood.
No, it is not an excuse. It is awareness of the disease. If Bob Packwood
doesn't measure up then, then dismiss him. It is okay with me. But not
for the trumped up charges from the left.
 
>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...
Okay. That doesn't change what I think, or what I would do in his
situation... Hell, if this were my personal diary, I would invoke the
5th. Hell with them.
 
>>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.
 
Agreed. But, I think you misunderstand me. I think Packwood is culpable.
I also think you are willing to run him off due to the trumped up
charges from the left. I also think you do not understand what
alcoholism is and does. Let it suffice at this time to say we
disagree on this. I have explained why.
 
We may still disagree. I remain sceptical of the whole hoodoo!
Especially the regard to his passes at women.
David



More information about the Rushtalk mailing list