Re: People and dependence

[Guest guest]

>Do you have a reference(s) <

I have five pages, I can attach as a file if you want them.

Or get ASAM's, Principles of Addiction Medicine, see Section V, Chapter 6

: " Neurological Effects " , by Anne Geller, M.D

>This runs counter to the literature.<

No, this is the literature.

On the level of toxicity you are right in that you can drink one hell of a lot

for years and still regain pretty much full cognitive abilities. The " unique

nature " of alcohol as proposed by AA is a myth to my thinking also.

I stand corrected in my misuse of the verb structure " Take away " . It doesn't

express well the thought I had. It is an important distinction, the individual

has to decide. We are not powerless Eloi.

Thanks

-----

See the original message at /list/12-step-free/?start=1011

------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Guest guest]

> I stand corrected in my misuse of the verb structure " Take away " .

>It doesn't express well the thought I had. It is an important

>distinction, the individual has to decide. We are not powerless Eloi.

It is a distinction that is very important, but I feel I understand

why you used the term, and in your original context, I think it was

correct.

When you start to ask the question, what does the " literature " say

about alcoholism, and you mean medical literature, you are going to

find studies in which you have control groups of animals (or people)

in which these substances are administered in controlled environments.

If we're seeking answers to these questions beyond anecdotal ones,

then we're going to find reports that describe studies in which the

medication is beyond the medicated's control.

I went through therapy, I believe to great success, after 13 years

inside AA. The therapist is very involved in 12-step oriented

processes, but she also was involved in medical studies on addiction

during her education.

AA does work, for those people who believe in it, because AA is a

program of abstinance, and abstininance works. If your leg is

gangrenous, your cutting it off can stop the disease if localized. The

trouble comes in diagnosing the " gangrene. "

The question here for me has always been not AA's right to exist, or

to promulgate its gospel, but whether the state ought to be funnelling

those people it can't determine what to do with.

--Jerry Trowbridge

------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Guest guest]

Thanks for clearing up the " power " issue, it was my main concern. I am

relatively conversant with the literature on the biological effects of

heavy drinking, and since my interests are primarily sociological, I won't

trouble you for the file at this time. Thanks for the offer, tho, and I

may get back to you on it later. I do worry that massive hype is

distorting research, and leading us to worry about " brain damage " from

relatively normal drinking - while, of course, millions of American

families have lost their basic health care in the last decade, poor

families go without adequate food and shelter, homeless numbers mount, etc.

But not to worry, we are going to take care of all that brain damage from

too much beer drinking while in college! My point isn't that some serious

deleterious effects aren't involved in long-term, heavy drinking. They

are. Rather, I worry about the distortion of this fact to serve special

interests, while much greater dangers to the public health go ignored.

Regarding the danger of prescribed psychotropics, would you agree with

Breggin's critique of American psychiatry (annual profit on Prozac alone

said to be around two billion - yes, with a " b " !!!) Also, are you an

addictionologist or psychiatrist? If not - or even if so - how would you

respond to the charge, made by many, that these medical specialties have

been coopted by government-corporate funding sources, and now have a

massive vested interest in promoting fictive diseases? Many

addictionologists now operate their own treatment centers. Finally, if you

have some inside dope, why not relate here the story of Margaret Bean.

Past president of the ASAM, wasn't she - or am I wrong about that? Her

case certainly exemplifies just how insane and dangerous some pro-AA

professionals can be. ----------

>

> To: 12-step-freeegroups

> Subject: Re: People and dependence

> Date: Friday, December 04, 1998 10:54 AM

>

> >Do you have a reference(s) <

> I have five pages, I can attach as a file if you want them.

> Or get ASAM's, Principles of Addiction Medicine, see Section V, Chapter 6

: " Neurological Effects " , by Anne Geller, M.D

> >This runs counter to the literature.<

> No, this is the literature.

> On the level of toxicity you are right in that you can drink one hell of

a lot for years and still regain pretty much full cognitive abilities. The

" unique nature " of alcohol as proposed by AA is a myth to my thinking also.

> I stand corrected in my misuse of the verb structure " Take away " . It

doesn't express well the thought I had. It is an important distinction,

the individual has to decide. We are not powerless Eloi.

> Thanks

>

> -----

> See the original message at

/list/12-step-free/?start=1011

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

> +------------------- WIN A FREE T-SHIRT EVERY MONTH! -------------------+

> Peanuts, Madeline, Sailor Moon, Dragonball Z, Humor, Music, ...more!

> +-------CLICK------>http://ads./click/167/0<------CLICK------+

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

But there is no convincing evidence that people who are exposed to AA

overcome drinking problems better than people who are not exposed. So AA

doesn't work. AA just CLAIMS to work. Some people bring problem drinking

under control, and some do it by being abstinent. Joining AA doesn't help,

and probably does hinder a small bit.

----------

>

> To: Dave

> Cc: 12-step-freeegroups

> Subject: Re: People and dependence

> Date: Friday, December 04, 1998 3:19 PM

>

>

>

> > I stand corrected in my misuse of the verb structure " Take away " .

> >It doesn't express well the thought I had. It is an important

> >distinction, the individual has to decide. We are not powerless Eloi.

>

> It is a distinction that is very important, but I feel I understand

> why you used the term, and in your original context, I think it was

> correct.

>

> When you start to ask the question, what does the " literature " say

> about alcoholism, and you mean medical literature, you are going to

> find studies in which you have control groups of animals (or people)

> in which these substances are administered in controlled environments.

>

> If we're seeking answers to these questions beyond anecdotal ones,

> then we're going to find reports that describe studies in which the

> medication is beyond the medicated's control.

>

> I went through therapy, I believe to great success, after 13 years

> inside AA. The therapist is very involved in 12-step oriented

> processes, but she also was involved in medical studies on addiction

> during her education.

>

> AA does work, for those people who believe in it, because AA is a

> program of abstinance, and abstininance works. If your leg is

> gangrenous, your cutting it off can stop the disease if localized. The

> trouble comes in diagnosing the " gangrene. "

>

> The question here for me has always been not AA's right to exist, or

> to promulgate its gospel, but whether the state ought to be funnelling

> those people it can't determine what to do with.

>

>

>

> --Jerry Trowbridge

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

> Click Now for Unbeatable Deals on

> Healthcare Products and Cosmetics at First Auction!

> http://ads./click/113/0

>

>

[Guest guest]

On Fri, 4 Dec 1998 18:27:59 -0600, " E Diener "

wrote:

>But there is no convincing evidence that people who are exposed to AA

>overcome drinking problems better than people who are not exposed. So AA

>doesn't work. AA just CLAIMS to work. Some people bring problem drinking

>under control, and some do it by being abstinent. Joining AA doesn't help,

>and probably does hinder a small bit.

Your first sentence is absolutely true. What works is abstinance, and

AA promotes that. I don't think you can say that AA doesn't help. I

think you can say that AA isn't any better than other scenarios, and

may be worse than some.

That is not the same thing as " AA doesn't work, it just claims to. "

--Jerry Trowbridge

------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Guest guest]

(parody)

Gathering in Billville

Billville, OH. AP. Today millions converged on a spot seen by many to be the

Twelve-Step Holy Land, Billville, OH. While some were regular visitors to the

home of Bill W -- a shrine and Mecca of sorts to " Anonymous Group " members,

most gathered for the annual " Billapalooza " concert, where the band Serenity

is starting its Cliche Tour. Among the crowd, Twelve Steppers talked dreamily

of their addictions to drugs, alcohol, sex, food,

television, computers, lack of food, work, lack of work, other people, and an

infinite number of other people, places or things. The official sponsor of

this even is a group called MOM, " Maniacs of the Movement, " which seeks world

12 step domination. Says MOM founder Nannie Coercion, " Twelve Step theology

can, and WILL, be applied to anything and everything. The populace is sick

and MUST surrender to my way of life. We have infiltrated the

nations court system and the treatment industry, and WE SHALL coerce at will.

Those who disagree are in DENIAL. " Among Nannie's other ideas:

Nightly News in a 12-step format.

12-Slice Pizzas.

12-Step Obedience Treatment for compulsively drug-sniffing dogs.

12-Step Oriented children's programming

Of the latter idea, Nannie became almost fanatic. " Who cares about English!, "

Nannie scoffed. " Most good 12-steppers are illiterate anyway. Conjunction

Junction, " HA! How about this, " Dysfunction Junction, what's your function?

Pickin' up addicts and maken' 'em 12 step... "

------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Guest guest]

On Sun, 06 Dec 1998 10:52:43 -0800, Ken R

wrote:

>The study results, that those who are sent to AA (or the

>brand of treatment in the other category) were more likely to have a

>negative outcome than _no treatment whatsoever_, so even if there was

>resolution due to AA for some, overall it is a terrible choice because

>it performs worse than no AA.

I have probably responded to this before as well, but I shall try

again.

When one quotes studies that either look at the success rate of AA for

people who are forced, coerced, or even referred to AA, and then lumps

all of the " other " into _no treatment whatsoever_, AA is going to look

poor.

And you can then argue that " nothing " is better than AA.

The argument says to me that you're interested in assailing AA at any

cost, and I don't know why, and I don't think you're going to tell me.

Addictive behavior is a problem in this society, and people wind up in

trouble for abusing all kinds of things, so when you argue that _no

treatment_ is better than any treatment, it has a really hollow sound.

I think people who wind up with or in abuse problems cruise the

self-help stands at the bookstores, maybe even attend some kind of

meeting or other, or talk to someone who is involved in some way with

addiction. Its a big industry now and its easy to find someone.

So I am suspicious that " no treatment whatsoever " is all in how you

define it.

The trouble with this conclusion, is the studies that track groups of

individuals later in the recovery process.

I just keep coming back to the obvious. People change their lives

through abstinence, and they use AA as a support system to do that,

and we know they do from studies that prove they stay sober.

So trying to argue that " nothing " is better than AA begs the question.

The very data used to prove that AA is not as effective as another

category of recovery proves that some people find success with AA.

This is not a one-size-fits all universe, people are different, and

the study you cite seems to prove (at least to me), that you don't

force people to go to AA, but I think we're all agreed on that around

here, aren't we?

--Jerry Trowbridge

------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/7/1998 10:31:10 PM Eastern Standard Time,

jtlist@... writes:

> Discouraging people from taking responsibility for their own actions

> may be wrong, but people have a right to be wrong. When the state does

> it, that's another matter, but that doesn't reflect on AA's efficacy

> among people who got there the " good old fashioned way. "

>

>

>

> --Jerry Trowbridge

I am curious as to just what the " good old fashioned way " is. I don't know

much in particular about AA because I was never involved in it, but I do know

that NA, at least here where I live, spends a great deal of time and

effort(and has for years and yuears) cultivating relationships with treatment

facilities, prison systems and other institutions with two separate

subcommittees devoting all their efforts to this task.

Most people that I have known, that were not mandated to attend NA to satisfy

a state agency such as a probation officer or Dept. of Soc Services, were

convinced by some form of professional service that 12 step recovery was

necessary......or you are told that you need to go into a treatment facility

where you are then systematically convinced that you know nothing about what

is best for you and then turned over to 12 step recovery. I know of very few

people that came into NA because they heard about it from a friend, or saw a

member in their family doing so much better so that they were attracted to it.

I am sure that there probably are such cases, but the systematic

indoctrination stories far exceed them. I just don't hear about a lot of

people that find XA recovery through any means I would call

attraction......XAs have been advertising and proselytizing for a long time

now, IMO.

Bette

------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Guest guest]

Rita,

I continue to be staggered at your horrific story. Good

God, we're talking an Inquisition here. Did they insist on

blood samples?? This is an abuse of human rights in Spades!

If you drink youve got the disease, if you dont then theyve

cured you!!!

Salem was unusual in US history; gnerally it was spared the

witch crazre. Seems like it is making up for lost time!

Pete

On 7 Dec 1998 16:57:33 -0000 Railroad Rita

wrote:

>

> As I related in previous posts, I was required to participate in 9 months

of outpatient " treatment " and 5 AA meetings a week following a single " positive "

(it's being disputed) Breathalyzer at work. I never had any job performance

problems, health problems, or absenteeism. I took complete responsibility for

having foolishly consumed alcohol at an inappropriate time and decided that I

would NEVER do so again. However, the " treatment " people (all proud AA members

eager to " carry the message " ) repeatedly told me it wasn't my fault that I drank

beer with lunch, that " the disease " made me do it, and that nobody can state

with certainty that they'll never drink irresponsibly again, since the

(incurable!) " disease " can make ANYONE " relapse " , whenever it wants! Had I

swallowed this hogwash, I would have been directly harmed by AA ideology. I

continued to maintain that I was not an " alcoholic " (even brought in letters

attesting to this from M.D., psychologist, and my own supervisors) but was told

by my agen

> cy's EAP that I would not be allowed to return to work until I accepted that I

had a " disease " and started to " actively participate in treatment " (i.e. pretend

to believe in the necessity of " meetings " , that I have " triggers " that will make

me drink against my will, and other things that I know to be false). This

plunged me into a deep depression, and yes, I would say that 12-step, disease

concept ideology HARMED me! Sure, the EAP asshole is a control freak and

doesn't get his orders or his power from AA, but if the ideology wasn't there

and wasn't accepted by America-at-large as legitimate, he couldn't use it to

harm people this way.

> Of course, random body fluid testing was required in the program (the

only legitimate part of it, IMO). By the time I was released I had been tested

107 times (all negative, of course). They were still calling me " diseased "

though, and the final kicker is that they counted me as a success statistic:

" You're sober today. This proves our program helped you! "

> Jerry, I hope this illustrates to you the fallacy in asserting that if

someone is sober after exposure to AA or 12-step treatment, it means AA helped

them or that they couldn't have become sober without it. Actively discouraging

people from acknowledging misbehavior and from taking personal responsibility

(and credit) for correcting it is, IMO, inherently harmful.

> ~RRRita

----------

Pete Watts

PERSONALITY-DISORDERS SUPPORT LIST:

http://rdz.acor.org/athenaeum/lists.phtml?personality-disorders

------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Guest guest]

On 7 Dec 1998 16:57:33 -0000, " Railroad Rita "

wrote:

> Jerry, I hope this illustrates to you the fallacy in asserting that if someone

>is sober after exposure to AA or 12-step treatment, it means AA helped them

>or that they couldn't have become sober without it. Actively discouraging

people

>from acknowledging misbehavior and from taking personal responsibility (and

credit)

>for correcting it is, IMO, inherently harmful.

I am asserting that AA has a success rate higher than zero. I am

asserting that the very studies quoted on this list to attempt to

prove that AA is not one bit effective do not prove that at all, nor

were they designed to measure AA's effectiveness for its existing

members.

I am not an advocate for AA, but I am also not willing to engage in

the kind of intellectual dishonesty that appears to have free rein

around here because we all hate AA so much that we'll do anything or

advance any argument to trash it.

I am not asserting that people forced into any treatment program have

outcomes that are higher than not forcing them into a treatment

modality, and that goes for the programs we like around here, as well

as the ones we don't.

I am asserting that the best way to counter AA is with reason, and

with the admission that AA does work for some of the people who choose

it. As another poster on here mentioned, this fact is obvious to

anyone who has ever met a 12-stepper.

To deny this requires such an arcane argumentum ad absurdum that it

effaces any credibility we'd have to point out AA's very real

problems, and the very real inapplicability of AA's methodology

outside of the percentage of the population that has the pre-existing

religious and social beliefs to underpin it.

Discouraging people from taking responsibility for their own actions

may be wrong, but people have a right to be wrong. When the state does

it, that's another matter, but that doesn't reflect on AA's efficacy

among people who got there the " good old fashioned way. "

--Jerry Trowbridge

------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Guest guest]

Hi, Pete,

Could you now address my placebo effect argument, because I feel really shaky on

that subject.

---

Kayleigh

Zz

zZ

|\ z _,,,---,,_

/,`.-'`' _ ;-;;,_

|,4- ) )-,_..;\ ( `'-'

'---''(_/--' `-'\_)

>But AA claims it ISNT a religion Reese, I mean Jerry.

>

>Whether or not youre one of those usenet XA roaches You,

>like 'Mike' are just XA infiltrators, trying to sabotage

>this NG by disinformation, agitation and black propoganda.

>

>If AA cant be banned because it's a religion fine - we'll

>have got them to ADMIT it's a religion, and that ppl cant

>be coerced to it.

>

>

>On Tue, 08 Dec 1998 19:12:02 GMT Jerry Trowbridge

> wrote:

>

>> On Tue, 08 Dec 1998 11:09:09 -0700, " Kayleigh S "

>> wrote:

>>

>> >In any event, if fewer people are helped by AA than recover on their own,

>> >this seems to be evidence that AA is more harmful than it is helpful.

>> >Despite its " effectiveness " for this small hypothetical group of people, it

>> >should be banned, because the harm it does outweighs the good.

>>

>> Banning a religion is something I think the first amendment of the

>> consitution forbids.

>>

>> --Jerry Trowbridge

>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

>> Don't lose your email when you move, change jobs, or switch ISP's.

>> Click here to get free and permanent email from NET@DDRESS!

>> http://ads./click/154/0

>>

>>

[Guest guest]

If we can agree on this, then we ought to be able to agree that a plebiscite,

with one candidate on the ballot, who belongs to the only party that is legal in

that country in the time, does not constitute a " popular " election.

This is an issue we may not agree about, but I would rather discuss it than

argue. I think we agree about the events that occurred, but not about their

meaning.

-

Kayleigh

Zz

zZ

|\ z _,,,---,,_

/,`.-'`' _ ;-;;,_

|,4- ) )-,_..;\ ( `'-'

'---''(_/--' `-'\_)

>Your reasoning is absolutely right on the money, of course.

>

>----------

>>

>> To: PAULDIENER@...; Jerry Trowbridge

>> Cc: 12-step-freeegroups

>> Subject: Re: Re: People and dependence

>> Date: Tuesday, December 08, 1998 12:09 PM

>>

>> Jerry:

>>

>> When you say that AA is effective for some people, I am not sure what

>you mean. If you simply mean that some people do go to AA and do stop

>drinking, I think everyone can acknowledge that, but how do you know it was

>the causative factor? Many people (parolees, probationers and licensed

>professionals) are subject to random drug tests. That can be a pretty

>powerful motivation. There are other powerful motivators that may be

>sufficient without AA, such as hanging on to a job or keeping a marriage

>intact. And what about Rita's story? As she correctly pointed out, AA can

>claim her as a " success. "

>>

>> Even though it is a stretch, however, let us assume that the 5% of people

>who are new to the program and remain in AA at the end of it are not

>monitored, do not have other motivators and are not incorrectly diagnosed.

>If that is true (if my reasoning is correct, tho I stand ready to be

>corrected) then AA is less effective than the placebo effect. (Maybe Pete

>can help me out here.)

>>

>> In any event, if fewer people are helped by AA than recover on their own,

>this seems to be evidence that AA is more harmful than it is helpful.

>Despite its " effectiveness " for this small hypothetical group of people, it

>should be banned, because the harm it does outweighs the good.

>>

>> I don't think that logic is the issue here. I think that statistics and

>probability theory are the issue.

>> ---

>> Kayleigh

>>

>> Zz

>> zZ

>> |\ z _,,,---,,_

>> /,`.-'`' _ ;-;;,_

>> |,4- ) )-,_..;\ ( `'-'

>> '---''(_/--' `-'\_)

>>

>>

>>

>>

>> >

>> >

>> >>This is getting tedious, I know, but it needs to be repeated each time

>> >>Jerry gives misinformation, as new surfers may happen in: there is NO =

>> >good

>> >>scientific evidence that AA helps people recover from drinking

>problems.=

>> >=20

>> >>People who aren't exposed to AA become abstinent at statistical rates =

>> >equal

>> >>to or better than the rates of those who are exposed to AA. AA does =

>> >appeal

>> >>to a small percentage of persons who come into contact with it, some of

>> >>whom have had drinking problems, others of whom haven't, but join AA

>> >>anyway.=20

>> >

>> >It is extremely tedious, because in attemping to perform this great

>> >public service for that poor surfer who happens to wander in here and

>> >might be terribly misled by my postings, you contradict your own

>> >statement in your first two sentences.

>> >

>> >I have never said AA is better than anything else, in fact its worse,

>> >but I have not tried to use this to prove that AA is ineffectual.=20

>> >

>> >I had a logic professor who propounded the theory that if someone was

>> >provably correct 70% of the time, it didn't matter by what method they

>> >came to their decisions. This was very hard for me to accept.=20

>> >

>> >The fact is, I don't give a damn that most AAers are right wing, or

>> >that AA's dogma is authoritarian when it comes to ascertaining its

>> >effectivess. It is one of the big reasons I am no longer there, but I

>> >am not going to decide other people's politics for them.

>> >

>> >I am going to stand by your statement that the percentage of AA's

>> >effectiveness may be equal to the effectiveness of people who are not

>> >exposed to AA (and therefore chose other methods to confront their

>> >problems).=20

>> >

>> >You just can't hide the problems in your own arguments, but I have

>> >grown tired of pointing them out, so I'll just let them fall by

>> >themselves, and you therefore can benefit from that " constant

>> >repetition " you extoll (and have practiced on your own behalf far

>> >better than I have).

>> >

>> >I am quite amused, however, by the strong possibility that a

>> >percentage of those who were not exposed to AA, confronted what they

>> >or others believed to be a problem, through unscientific methods such

>> >as spiritual healers, shamans, or spiritualists.

>> >

>> >This would really find you arguing out of both sides of your mouth...

>> >----------------

>> >Jerry Trowbridge

>> >------------------------------------------------------------------------

>> >

[Guest guest]

If we can agree on this, then we ought to be able to agree that a plebiscite,

with one candidate on the ballot, who belongs to the only party that is legal in

that country in the time, does not constitute a " popular " election.

This is an issue we may not agree about, but I would rather discuss it than

argue. I think we agree about the events that occurred, but not about their

meaning.

-

Kayleigh

Zz

zZ

|\ z _,,,---,,_

/,`.-'`' _ ;-;;,_

|,4- ) )-,_..;\ ( `'-'

'---''(_/--' `-'\_)

>Your reasoning is absolutely right on the money, of course.

>

>----------

>>

>> To: PAULDIENER@...; Jerry Trowbridge

>> Cc: 12-step-freeegroups

>> Subject: Re: Re: People and dependence

>> Date: Tuesday, December 08, 1998 12:09 PM

>>

>> Jerry:

>>

>> When you say that AA is effective for some people, I am not sure what

>you mean. If you simply mean that some people do go to AA and do stop

>drinking, I think everyone can acknowledge that, but how do you know it was

>the causative factor? Many people (parolees, probationers and licensed

>professionals) are subject to random drug tests. That can be a pretty

>powerful motivation. There are other powerful motivators that may be

>sufficient without AA, such as hanging on to a job or keeping a marriage

>intact. And what about Rita's story? As she correctly pointed out, AA can

>claim her as a " success. "

>>

>> Even though it is a stretch, however, let us assume that the 5% of people

>who are new to the program and remain in AA at the end of it are not

>monitored, do not have other motivators and are not incorrectly diagnosed.

>If that is true (if my reasoning is correct, tho I stand ready to be

>corrected) then AA is less effective than the placebo effect. (Maybe Pete

>can help me out here.)

>>

>> In any event, if fewer people are helped by AA than recover on their own,

>this seems to be evidence that AA is more harmful than it is helpful.

>Despite its " effectiveness " for this small hypothetical group of people, it

>should be banned, because the harm it does outweighs the good.

>>

>> I don't think that logic is the issue here. I think that statistics and

>probability theory are the issue.

>> ---

>> Kayleigh

>>

>> Zz

>> zZ

>> |\ z _,,,---,,_

>> /,`.-'`' _ ;-;;,_

>> |,4- ) )-,_..;\ ( `'-'

>> '---''(_/--' `-'\_)

>>

>>

>>

>>

>> >

>> >

>> >>This is getting tedious, I know, but it needs to be repeated each time

>> >>Jerry gives misinformation, as new surfers may happen in: there is NO =

>> >good

>> >>scientific evidence that AA helps people recover from drinking

>problems.=

>> >=20

>> >>People who aren't exposed to AA become abstinent at statistical rates =

>> >equal

>> >>to or better than the rates of those who are exposed to AA. AA does =

>> >appeal

>> >>to a small percentage of persons who come into contact with it, some of

>> >>whom have had drinking problems, others of whom haven't, but join AA

>> >>anyway.=20

>> >

>> >It is extremely tedious, because in attemping to perform this great

>> >public service for that poor surfer who happens to wander in here and

>> >might be terribly misled by my postings, you contradict your own

>> >statement in your first two sentences.

>> >

>> >I have never said AA is better than anything else, in fact its worse,

>> >but I have not tried to use this to prove that AA is ineffectual.=20

>> >

>> >I had a logic professor who propounded the theory that if someone was

>> >provably correct 70% of the time, it didn't matter by what method they

>> >came to their decisions. This was very hard for me to accept.=20

>> >

>> >The fact is, I don't give a damn that most AAers are right wing, or

>> >that AA's dogma is authoritarian when it comes to ascertaining its

>> >effectivess. It is one of the big reasons I am no longer there, but I

>> >am not going to decide other people's politics for them.

>> >

>> >I am going to stand by your statement that the percentage of AA's

>> >effectiveness may be equal to the effectiveness of people who are not

>> >exposed to AA (and therefore chose other methods to confront their

>> >problems).=20

>> >

>> >You just can't hide the problems in your own arguments, but I have

>> >grown tired of pointing them out, so I'll just let them fall by

>> >themselves, and you therefore can benefit from that " constant

>> >repetition " you extoll (and have practiced on your own behalf far

>> >better than I have).

>> >

>> >I am quite amused, however, by the strong possibility that a

>> >percentage of those who were not exposed to AA, confronted what they

>> >or others believed to be a problem, through unscientific methods such

>> >as spiritual healers, shamans, or spiritualists.

>> >

>> >This would really find you arguing out of both sides of your mouth...

>> >----------------

>> >Jerry Trowbridge

>> >------------------------------------------------------------------------

>> >

[Guest guest]

My gosh, we're back on the topic of the 1934 German election! My points

were 1) Hitler used legal (or at least " legalistic " ) means to seize power,

and, 2) there was massive popular support for the nazis amongst the middle

classes and upper classes. This is significant because of the parallel to

today's anti-addiction war. The anti-addiction warriors also claim to act

" legally, " and they also have massive support amongst the middle and upper

classes. We could quibble, I suppose, as to whether Hitler was actually

" elected " to the Chancellorship in 1933. It was only after the nazi party

won enough votes to dominate the Reichstag that Hindenberg " appointed "

Hitler (nazi support dwindled a bit in the last election before Hitler's

appointment, but the nazis remained dominant in the Reichstag). European

parliamentary systems work this way. For example, our press reported that

Tony Blair " won election " as Britain's Prime Minister - of course, Britain

doesn't have direct election of the Prime Minister. Yet the report of

Blair's " election " was not really " wrong, " since the dominant party in the

House of Commons selects the Prime Minister, and Labour won the election

for the House of Commons. I suppose one could even argue that Pres.

Clinton was " appointed, " if one wished. Americans do not vote for the

president, of course. They vote for electors in the electoral college.

Technically, then, should we all be saying that the President of the US was

" appointed " to his post by the electoral college? Sorry, don't mean to be

get overly cute. Don't you actually agree with me on the main points? 1)

fascism usually comes to power through a " legalistic crusade, " like the war

on drugs, and 2) fascism draws enthusiastic support from a large body of

middle and upper income citizens in the countries where it succeeds. In

the US, the fascistic " recovery movement " is a major force moblilizing

support of the middle and upper classes for " conservative revolution. "

---------

>

> To: Jerry Trowbridge ; Kayleigh S

; PAULDIENER@...

> Cc: 12-step-freeegroups

> Subject: Re: Re: People and dependence

> Date: Tuesday, December 08, 1998 6:33 PM

>

> If we can agree on this, then we ought to be able to agree that a

plebiscite, with one candidate on the ballot, who belongs to the only party

that is legal in that country in the time, does not constitute a " popular "

election.

>

> This is an issue we may not agree about, but I would rather discuss it

than argue. I think we agree about the events that occurred, but not about

their meaning.

>

> -

> Kayleigh

>

> Zz

> zZ

> |\ z _,,,---,,_

> /,`.-'`' _ ;-;;,_

> |,4- ) )-,_..;\ ( `'-'

> '---''(_/--' `-'\_)

>

>

>

>

> >Your reasoning is absolutely right on the money, of course.

> >

> >----------

> >>

> >> To: PAULDIENER@...; Jerry Trowbridge

> >> Cc: 12-step-freeegroups

> >> Subject: Re: Re: People and dependence

> >> Date: Tuesday, December 08, 1998 12:09 PM

> >>

> >> Jerry:

> >>

> >> When you say that AA is effective for some people, I am not sure what

> >you mean. If you simply mean that some people do go to AA and do stop

> >drinking, I think everyone can acknowledge that, but how do you know it

was

> >the causative factor? Many people (parolees, probationers and licensed

> >professionals) are subject to random drug tests. That can be a pretty

> >powerful motivation. There are other powerful motivators that may be

> >sufficient without AA, such as hanging on to a job or keeping a marriage

> >intact. And what about Rita's story? As she correctly pointed out, AA

can

> >claim her as a " success. "

> >>

> >> Even though it is a stretch, however, let us assume that the 5% of

people

> >who are new to the program and remain in AA at the end of it are not

> >monitored, do not have other motivators and are not incorrectly

diagnosed.

> >If that is true (if my reasoning is correct, tho I stand ready to be

> >corrected) then AA is less effective than the placebo effect. (Maybe

Pete

> >can help me out here.)

> >>

> >> In any event, if fewer people are helped by AA than recover on their

own,

> >this seems to be evidence that AA is more harmful than it is helpful.

> >Despite its " effectiveness " for this small hypothetical group of people,

it

> >should be banned, because the harm it does outweighs the good.

> >>

> >> I don't think that logic is the issue here. I think that statistics

and

> >probability theory are the issue.

> >> ---

> >> Kayleigh

> >>

> >> Zz

> >> zZ

> >> |\ z _,,,---,,_

> >> /,`.-'`' _ ;-;;,_

> >> |,4- ) )-,_..;\ ( `'-'

> >> '---''(_/--' `-'\_)

> >>

> >>

> >>

> >>

> >> >

> >> >

> >> >>This is getting tedious, I know, but it needs to be repeated each

time

> >> >>Jerry gives misinformation, as new surfers may happen in: there is

NO =

> >> >good

> >> >>scientific evidence that AA helps people recover from drinking

> >problems.=

> >> >=20

> >> >>People who aren't exposed to AA become abstinent at statistical

rates =

> >> >equal

> >> >>to or better than the rates of those who are exposed to AA. AA does

=

> >> >appeal

> >> >>to a small percentage of persons who come into contact with it, some

of

> >> >>whom have had drinking problems, others of whom haven't, but join AA

> >> >>anyway.=20

> >> >

> >> >It is extremely tedious, because in attemping to perform this great

> >> >public service for that poor surfer who happens to wander in here and

> >> >might be terribly misled by my postings, you contradict your own

> >> >statement in your first two sentences.

> >> >

> >> >I have never said AA is better than anything else, in fact its worse,

> >> >but I have not tried to use this to prove that AA is ineffectual.=20

> >> >

> >> >I had a logic professor who propounded the theory that if someone was

> >> >provably correct 70% of the time, it didn't matter by what method

they

> >> >came to their decisions. This was very hard for me to accept.=20

> >> >

> >> >The fact is, I don't give a damn that most AAers are right wing, or

> >> >that AA's dogma is authoritarian when it comes to ascertaining its

> >> >effectivess. It is one of the big reasons I am no longer there, but I

> >> >am not going to decide other people's politics for them.

> >> >

> >> >I am going to stand by your statement that the percentage of AA's

> >> >effectiveness may be equal to the effectiveness of people who are not

> >> >exposed to AA (and therefore chose other methods to confront their

> >> >problems).=20

> >> >

> >> >You just can't hide the problems in your own arguments, but I have

> >> >grown tired of pointing them out, so I'll just let them fall by

> >> >themselves, and you therefore can benefit from that " constant

> >> >repetition " you extoll (and have practiced on your own behalf far

> >> >better than I have).

> >> >

> >> >I am quite amused, however, by the strong possibility that a

> >> >percentage of those who were not exposed to AA, confronted what they

> >> >or others believed to be a problem, through unscientific methods such

> >> >as spiritual healers, shamans, or spiritualists.

> >> >

> >> >This would really find you arguing out of both sides of your mouth...

> >> >----------------

> >> >Jerry Trowbridge

> >>

>------------------------------------------------------------------------

> >> >

[Guest guest]

Oops. Forgot. You need to go back and look at the German election of

March 5, 1934. Other parties were still legal at this time (the

nationalist parties, the German Central Party, etc). In fact, the nazis

won only a thin majority in the Reichstag, if my memory serves me right.

It is only with Hindenburg's death (also in 1934) that Hitler assumes the

joint position of Chancellor-President or " Fuhrer, " which the overwhelming

majority of Germans then ratified in plebiscite. Once in power, of course,

Hitler used the power of the state to fan fears of the " Jewish infection "

of German society. Similarly, the US is using fears of " addiction " to

justify repression aimed most heavily at minorities and poor people.

(Think of the fascist implications, for example, in a phrase like " addicted

to welfare. " ) Maybe we should call the debate over historical details a

draw. Seriously, are you really claiming that there is no widespread

political threat from the " addiction war, " that AA ought to be opposed

without any broad consideration of its political and social implications

and connections, that political language and cultural interpretation hurt

the anti-AA education efforts of those whose focus is more " moderate, " or

what? I am not quite sure what it is that you REALLY disagree with me

about. I don't think it is merely a disagreement over historical minutiae.

----------

>

> To: Jerry Trowbridge ; Kayleigh S

; PAULDIENER@...

> Cc: 12-step-freeegroups

> Subject: Re: Re: People and dependence

> Date: Tuesday, December 08, 1998 6:33 PM

>

> If we can agree on this, then we ought to be able to agree that a

plebiscite, with one candidate on the ballot, who belongs to the only party

that is legal in that country in the time, does not constitute a " popular "

election.

>

> This is an issue we may not agree about, but I would rather discuss it

than argue. I think we agree about the events that occurred, but not about

their meaning.

>

> -

> Kayleigh

>

> Zz

> zZ

> |\ z _,,,---,,_

> /,`.-'`' _ ;-;;,_

> |,4- ) )-,_..;\ ( `'-'

> '---''(_/--' `-'\_)

>

>

>

>

> >Your reasoning is absolutely right on the money, of course.

> >

> >----------

> >>

> >> To: PAULDIENER@...; Jerry Trowbridge

> >> Cc: 12-step-freeegroups

> >> Subject: Re: Re: People and dependence

> >> Date: Tuesday, December 08, 1998 12:09 PM

> >>

> >> Jerry:

> >>

> >> When you say that AA is effective for some people, I am not sure what

> >you mean. If you simply mean that some people do go to AA and do stop

> >drinking, I think everyone can acknowledge that, but how do you know it

was

> >the causative factor? Many people (parolees, probationers and licensed

> >professionals) are subject to random drug tests. That can be a pretty

> >powerful motivation. There are other powerful motivators that may be

> >sufficient without AA, such as hanging on to a job or keeping a marriage

> >intact. And what about Rita's story? As she correctly pointed out, AA

can

> >claim her as a " success. "

> >>

> >> Even though it is a stretch, however, let us assume that the 5% of

people

> >who are new to the program and remain in AA at the end of it are not

> >monitored, do not have other motivators and are not incorrectly

diagnosed.

> >If that is true (if my reasoning is correct, tho I stand ready to be

> >corrected) then AA is less effective than the placebo effect. (Maybe

Pete

> >can help me out here.)

> >>

> >> In any event, if fewer people are helped by AA than recover on their

own,

> >this seems to be evidence that AA is more harmful than it is helpful.

> >Despite its " effectiveness " for this small hypothetical group of people,

it

> >should be banned, because the harm it does outweighs the good.

> >>

> >> I don't think that logic is the issue here. I think that statistics

and

> >probability theory are the issue.

> >> ---

> >> Kayleigh

> >>

> >> Zz

> >> zZ

> >> |\ z _,,,---,,_

> >> /,`.-'`' _ ;-;;,_

> >> |,4- ) )-,_..;\ ( `'-'

> >> '---''(_/--' `-'\_)

> >>

> >>

> >>

> >>

> >> >

> >> >

> >> >>This is getting tedious, I know, but it needs to be repeated each

time

> >> >>Jerry gives misinformation, as new surfers may happen in: there is

NO =

> >> >good

> >> >>scientific evidence that AA helps people recover from drinking

> >problems.=

> >> >=20

> >> >>People who aren't exposed to AA become abstinent at statistical

rates =

> >> >equal

> >> >>to or better than the rates of those who are exposed to AA. AA does

=

> >> >appeal

> >> >>to a small percentage of persons who come into contact with it, some

of

> >> >>whom have had drinking problems, others of whom haven't, but join AA

> >> >>anyway.=20

> >> >

> >> >It is extremely tedious, because in attemping to perform this great

> >> >public service for that poor surfer who happens to wander in here and

> >> >might be terribly misled by my postings, you contradict your own

> >> >statement in your first two sentences.

> >> >

> >> >I have never said AA is better than anything else, in fact its worse,

> >> >but I have not tried to use this to prove that AA is ineffectual.=20

> >> >

> >> >I had a logic professor who propounded the theory that if someone was

> >> >provably correct 70% of the time, it didn't matter by what method

they

> >> >came to their decisions. This was very hard for me to accept.=20

> >> >

> >> >The fact is, I don't give a damn that most AAers are right wing, or

> >> >that AA's dogma is authoritarian when it comes to ascertaining its

> >> >effectivess. It is one of the big reasons I am no longer there, but I

> >> >am not going to decide other people's politics for them.

> >> >

> >> >I am going to stand by your statement that the percentage of AA's

> >> >effectiveness may be equal to the effectiveness of people who are not

> >> >exposed to AA (and therefore chose other methods to confront their

> >> >problems).=20

> >> >

> >> >You just can't hide the problems in your own arguments, but I have

> >> >grown tired of pointing them out, so I'll just let them fall by

> >> >themselves, and you therefore can benefit from that " constant

> >> >repetition " you extoll (and have practiced on your own behalf far

> >> >better than I have).

> >> >

> >> >I am quite amused, however, by the strong possibility that a

> >> >percentage of those who were not exposed to AA, confronted what they

> >> >or others believed to be a problem, through unscientific methods such

> >> >as spiritual healers, shamans, or spiritualists.

> >> >

> >> >This would really find you arguing out of both sides of your mouth...

> >> >----------------

> >> >Jerry Trowbridge

> >>

>------------------------------------------------------------------------

> >> >

[Guest guest]

Boredom alert -- sort of off topic.

Double oops, . You mean the election of March 5, 1933. Thirty-three.

I am answering two posts here, not just this but also the last one, in which you

accuse me of being " overly cute. "

I agree with your major points, if they are that a) there has been a massive

erosion of civil rights in the name of the WOD and the majority of Americans

believe this is okay without having given it much critical thought.

The trouble is, that when you support your argument with a false analogy, you

lose credibility.

Hitler was appointed Chancellor on January 29 or 30, 1933. The Reichstag was

dissolved at the time. Goering (I believe) was then president of the Reichstag

and dissolved it by prearrangement with Hitler, who saw it as his chance to

become Chancellor because neither Papen nor Schleicher had been able to win

Reichstag suppport.

You are correct in saying that the Nazis lost support in the March 5 election.

As a consequence, Hitler presided over a coalition government, with von Papen as

vice-chancellor. Hindenburg had already signed the decree that gave Hitler the

power to inter and suppress the speech of anyone with whom he disagreed. After

the new Reichstag had convened, they passed a law delegating all legislative

functions to the cabinet. Shortly afterwards all other parties were declared

illegal. June or July of 1933? I don't remember. There was no election of

March 5, 1934.

Hindenburg died 2 August, 1934, if I remember correctly, at about 10 AM. Two

hours later Hitler declared himself chancellor and Fuhrer. The plebiscite was

held a couple weeks later.

However, and this is a very important point, Hitler had already extracted an

oath of loyalty from the Army. And tho I have done no research into this, I

suspect that most times fascists have taken over a government, it has been by

military coup.

I don't deny that everything Hitler did short of declaring himself Fuhrer was

legal. Perhaps even that was legal, given his past fiats. But to say that he

was popularly elected gives a false impression, perpetuates a popular

misconception, and lends your argument a credibility it does not have.

I understand your fears about right-wingers taking over, particularly in the

event of an economic collapse which I agree seems likely. Only last week a

harmless old man was killed near here in a drug raid based on false information.

The sheriff's deputy who did it will get off scot free, and nothing was found in

the house. But I think you should give the American people more credit. We did

not come through McCarthyism exactly unscathed, but we came through it. Our

culture is not a German culture. The FBI has been doing the kind of stuff

you're talking about for years and years, but didn't get away with it at Ruby

Ridge, and now there are lots of questions about Waco. Americans don't trust

their government no matter what, we are not an obedient, militaristic populace.

Dissent is still encouraged here. There has been a terrific rally behind the

family of the man that the sheriff's deputy killed.

In short, I do not think that your comparison of 1998's America with 1933's

Germany holds. And it is something I happen to know a lot about.

---

Kayleigh

Zz

zZ

|\ z _,,,---,,_

/,`.-'`' _ ;-;;,_

|,4- ) )-,_..;\ ( `'-'

'---''(_/--' `-'\_)

>Oops. Forgot. You need to go back and look at the German election of

>March 5, 1934. Other parties were still legal at this time (the

>nationalist parties, the German Central Party, etc). In fact, the nazis

>won only a thin majority in the Reichstag, if my memory serves me right.

>It is only with Hindenburg's death (also in 1934) that Hitler assumes the

>joint position of Chancellor-President or " Fuhrer, " which the overwhelming

>majority of Germans then ratified in plebiscite. Once in power, of course,

>Hitler used the power of the state to fan fears of the " Jewish infection "

>of German society. Similarly, the US is using fears of " addiction " to

>justify repression aimed most heavily at minorities and poor people.

>(Think of the fascist implications, for example, in a phrase like " addicted

>to welfare. " ) Maybe we should call the debate over historical details a

>draw. Seriously, are you really claiming that there is no widespread

>political threat from the " addiction war, " that AA ought to be opposed

>without any broad consideration of its political and social implications

>and connections, that political language and cultural interpretation hurt

>the anti-AA education efforts of those whose focus is more " moderate, " or

>what? I am not quite sure what it is that you REALLY disagree with me

>about. I don't think it is merely a disagreement over historical minutiae.

> ----------

>>

>> To: Jerry Trowbridge ; Kayleigh S

>; PAULDIENER@...

>> Cc: 12-step-freeegroups

>> Subject: Re: Re: People and dependence

>> Date: Tuesday, December 08, 1998 6:33 PM

>>

>> If we can agree on this, then we ought to be able to agree that a

>plebiscite, with one candidate on the ballot, who belongs to the only party

>that is legal in that country in the time, does not constitute a " popular "

>election.

>>

>> This is an issue we may not agree about, but I would rather discuss it

>than argue. I think we agree about the events that occurred, but not about

>their meaning.

>>

>> -

>> Kayleigh

>>

>> Zz

>> zZ

>> |\ z _,,,---,,_

>> /,`.-'`' _ ;-;;,_

>> |,4- ) )-,_..;\ ( `'-'

>> '---''(_/--' `-'\_)

>>

>>

>>

>>

>> >Your reasoning is absolutely right on the money, of course.

>> >

>> >----------

>> >>

>> >> To: PAULDIENER@...; Jerry Trowbridge

>> >> Cc: 12-step-freeegroups

>> >> Subject: Re: Re: People and dependence

>> >> Date: Tuesday, December 08, 1998 12:09 PM

>> >>

>> >> Jerry:

>> >>

>> >> When you say that AA is effective for some people, I am not sure what

>> >you mean. If you simply mean that some people do go to AA and do stop

>> >drinking, I think everyone can acknowledge that, but how do you know it

>was

>> >the causative factor? Many people (parolees, probationers and licensed

>> >professionals) are subject to random drug tests. That can be a pretty

>> >powerful motivation. There are other powerful motivators that may be

>> >sufficient without AA, such as hanging on to a job or keeping a marriage

>> >intact. And what about Rita's story? As she correctly pointed out, AA

>can

>> >claim her as a " success. "

>> >>

>> >> Even though it is a stretch, however, let us assume that the 5% of

>people

>> >who are new to the program and remain in AA at the end of it are not

>> >monitored, do not have other motivators and are not incorrectly

>diagnosed.

>> >If that is true (if my reasoning is correct, tho I stand ready to be

>> >corrected) then AA is less effective than the placebo effect. (Maybe

>Pete

>> >can help me out here.)

>> >>

>> >> In any event, if fewer people are helped by AA than recover on their

>own,

>> >this seems to be evidence that AA is more harmful than it is helpful.

>> >Despite its " effectiveness " for this small hypothetical group of people,

>it

>> >should be banned, because the harm it does outweighs the good.

>> >>

>> >> I don't think that logic is the issue here. I think that statistics

>and

>> >probability theory are the issue.

>> >> ---

>> >> Kayleigh

>> >>

>> >> Zz

>> >> zZ

>> >> |\ z _,,,---,,_

>> >> /,`.-'`' _ ;-;;,_

>> >> |,4- ) )-,_..;\ ( `'-'

>> >> '---''(_/--' `-'\_)

>> >>

>> >>

>> >>

>> >>

>> >> >

>> >> >

>> >> >>This is getting tedious, I know, but it needs to be repeated each

>time

>> >> >>Jerry gives misinformation, as new surfers may happen in: there is

>NO =

>> >> >good

>> >> >>scientific evidence that AA helps people recover from drinking

>> >problems.=

>> >> >=20

>> >> >>People who aren't exposed to AA become abstinent at statistical

>rates =

>> >> >equal

>> >> >>to or better than the rates of those who are exposed to AA. AA does

>=

>> >> >appeal

>> >> >>to a small percentage of persons who come into contact with it, some

>of

>> >> >>whom have had drinking problems, others of whom haven't, but join AA

>> >> >>anyway.=20

>> >> >

>> >> >It is extremely tedious, because in attemping to perform this great

>> >> >public service for that poor surfer who happens to wander in here and

>> >> >might be terribly misled by my postings, you contradict your own

>> >> >statement in your first two sentences.

>> >> >

>> >> >I have never said AA is better than anything else, in fact its worse,

>> >> >but I have not tried to use this to prove that AA is ineffectual.=20

>> >> >

>> >> >I had a logic professor who propounded the theory that if someone was

>> >> >provably correct 70% of the time, it didn't matter by what method

>they

>> >> >came to their decisions. This was very hard for me to accept.=20

>> >> >

>> >> >The fact is, I don't give a damn that most AAers are right wing, or

>> >> >that AA's dogma is authoritarian when it comes to ascertaining its

>> >> >effectivess. It is one of the big reasons I am no longer there, but I

>> >> >am not going to decide other people's politics for them.

>> >> >

>> >> >I am going to stand by your statement that the percentage of AA's

>> >> >effectiveness may be equal to the effectiveness of people who are not

>> >> >exposed to AA (and therefore chose other methods to confront their

>> >> >problems).=20

>> >> >

>> >> >You just can't hide the problems in your own arguments, but I have

>> >> >grown tired of pointing them out, so I'll just let them fall by

>> >> >themselves, and you therefore can benefit from that " constant

>> >> >repetition " you extoll (and have practiced on your own behalf far

>> >> >better than I have).

>> >> >

>> >> >I am quite amused, however, by the strong possibility that a

>> >> >percentage of those who were not exposed to AA, confronted what they

>> >> >or others believed to be a problem, through unscientific methods such

>> >> >as spiritual healers, shamans, or spiritualists.

>> >> >

>> >> >This would really find you arguing out of both sides of your mouth...

>> >> >----------------

>> >> >Jerry Trowbridge

>> >>

>>------------------------------------------------------------------------

>> >> >

[Guest guest]

Yes, March, 1933. Sorry for the typo. But, as I said, that was two months

AFTER Hitler came to power. Our disagreement was over whether Hitler was

ever elected. He (or, rather, the Nazis, since the system was a

parliamentary system) was indeed elected. On another point, I remarked

that I hoped I wasn't getting too cute with a lot of irrelevant historical

trivia. That is " I, " as in me, myself, and I. I didn't " accuse " YOU of

being " overly cute. " Have patience, wait for me to actually insult you

before complaining of being insulted. You say that a comparison between

the " Oxford Groups/AA/12-Step Movement/War On Drugs, " and the fascism of

the 1930s, is a " false analogy. " I disagree totally. (Do you also reject

the opinions of Stanton Peele and Szasz, who warn that the US is

moving towards " totalitarianism " (their word) via the addiction war?) You

don't tell us anything about your personal values, which lead you to get

incensed at my claim that the US is a " protofascist " nation. It appears I

have insulted your sense of patriotism. I have no problem with that. But

why not state your real objection openly, tell us about your own values and

assumptions, and offer us your alternative explanatory perspective.

Wouldn't that be more straightforward? Why just snipe over detail? Cheap

shots won't settle a major disagreement in perspective, such as the one

between us. As to the appropriateness of " fascism " as a model for current

trends in the US, this is an approach that many now consider useful. Not

just radicals, either. For example, Time magazine did a long piece on Pat

Buchanan, pointing out the similarity between Buchanan's platform and the

ideas of the 1930s fascists. " Fascism " is mentioned quite a bit in

connectiion with the militia movement, the neonazi movement, etc. Many

observers have seen Pat on and his Christian Coalition as similar to

the fascism of the 1930s. I will argue that this analogy fits the

anti-addiction war in future posts. You are free to disagree, as is

anyone, and offer your alternative perspective. But why not make your

disagreement substantive, and be open about your personal and class values,

too. Don't just shoot from behind the rocks. Your additional narrative

history for Germany in the 1930s I will have to check. Most of my reading

notes are on social history, the history of ideas, cult growlth under the

Nazis, fascist medical systems, etc. I have not bothered to enter the

dates of elections, so I need to pick up a traditional narrative political

history. But on the main issue, you are clearly wrong: Hitler and the

Nazis entered power legally, via the electoral route, and with much popular

support. Why in the world are you arguing otherwise? I can understand

that you might " love the USA, " so you want to defend it against the calumny

of being labeled " fascist. " Do you love Germany, too, and so want to argue

that the poor German people were mere victims of Hitler. ( Reagan

argued this; he said the SS troops who served the Reich were " victims,

too " !!! Yeah, right. Poor little them at Auschwitz - all the overtime

they had to work, and everything. Really hard on those poor little SS

troops.) Perhaps you should read the recent bestseller: Hitler's WILLING

Executioners. Finally, I find you comfortable satisfaction with with the

stability of American " democracy " smug. Obviously, you don't live in the

ghetto. Smug satisfaction was a mark of the middle class before Hitler,

too. Here is a quote for you, from Buell, 1928, Europe: A History

of Ten Years, " Germany, after years of tribulation and suffering, has

staged one of the most remarkable come-backs in history and taken her place

among the truly democratic and liberal states in the world. " Maybe the

middle class would do better not to count its chickens until after they

hatch.

> To: Jerry Trowbridge ; Kayleigh S

; PAULDIENER@...

> Cc: 12-step-freeegroups

> Subject: Re: Re: People and dependence

> Date: Wednesday, December 09, 1998 1:09 PM

>

> Boredom alert -- sort of off topic.

>

> Double oops, . You mean the election of March 5, 1933.

Thirty-three.

>

> I am answering two posts here, not just this but also the last one, in

which you accuse me of being " overly cute. "

>

> I agree with your major points, if they are that a) there has been a

massive erosion of civil rights in the name of the WOD and the majority

of Americans believe this is okay without having given it much critical

thought.

>

> The trouble is, that when you support your argument with a false analogy,

you lose credibility.

>

> Hitler was appointed Chancellor on January 29 or 30, 1933. The Reichstag

was dissolved at the time. Goering (I believe) was then president of the

Reichstag and dissolved it by prearrangement with Hitler, who saw it as his

chance to become Chancellor because neither Papen nor Schleicher had been

able to win Reichstag suppport.

>

> You are correct in saying that the Nazis lost support in the March 5

election. As a consequence, Hitler presided over a coalition government,

with von Papen as vice-chancellor. Hindenburg had already signed the

decree that gave Hitler the power to inter and suppress the speech of

anyone with whom he disagreed. After the new Reichstag had convened, they

passed a law delegating all legislative functions to the cabinet. Shortly

afterwards all other parties were declared illegal. June or July of 1933?

I don't remember. There was no election of March 5, 1934.

>

> Hindenburg died 2 August, 1934, if I remember correctly, at about 10 AM.

Two hours later Hitler declared himself chancellor and Fuhrer. The

plebiscite was held a couple weeks later.

>

> However, and this is a very important point, Hitler had already extracted

an oath of loyalty from the Army. And tho I have done no research into

this, I suspect that most times fascists have taken over a government, it

has been by military coup.

>

> I don't deny that everything Hitler did short of declaring himself Fuhrer

was legal. Perhaps even that was legal, given his past fiats. But to say

that he was popularly elected gives a false impression, perpetuates a

popular misconception, and lends your argument a credibility it does not

have.

>

> I understand your fears about right-wingers taking over, particularly in

the event of an economic collapse which I agree seems likely. Only last

week a harmless old man was killed near here in a drug raid based on false

information. The sheriff's deputy who did it will get off scot free, and

nothing was found in the house. But I think you should give the American

people more credit. We did not come through McCarthyism exactly unscathed,

but we came through it. Our culture is not a German culture. The FBI has

been doing the kind of stuff you're talking about for years and years, but

didn't get away with it at Ruby Ridge, and now there are lots of questions

about Waco. Americans don't trust their government no matter what, we are

not an obedient, militaristic populace. Dissent is still encouraged here.

There has been a terrific rally behind the family of the man that the

sheriff's deputy killed.

>

> In short, I do not think that your comparison of 1998's America with

1933's Germany holds. And it is something I happen to know a lot about.

> ---

> Kayleigh

>

> Zz

> zZ

> |\ z _,,,---,,_

> /,`.-'`' _ ;-;;,_

> |,4- ) )-,_..;\ ( `'-'

> '---''(_/--' `-'\_)

>

>

>

>

> >Oops. Forgot. You need to go back and look at the German election of

> >March 5, 1934. Other parties were still legal at this time (the

> >nationalist parties, the German Central Party, etc). In fact, the nazis

> >won only a thin majority in the Reichstag, if my memory serves me right.

> >It is only with Hindenburg's death (also in 1934) that Hitler assumes

the

> >joint position of Chancellor-President or " Fuhrer, " which the

overwhelming

> >majority of Germans then ratified in plebiscite. Once in power, of

course,

> >Hitler used the power of the state to fan fears of the " Jewish

infection "

> >of German society. Similarly, the US is using fears of " addiction " to

> >justify repression aimed most heavily at minorities and poor people.

> >(Think of the fascist implications, for example, in a phrase like

" addicted

> >to welfare. " ) Maybe we should call the debate over historical details a

> >draw. Seriously, are you really claiming that there is no widespread

> >political threat from the " addiction war, " that AA ought to be opposed

> >without any broad consideration of its political and social implications

> >and connections, that political language and cultural interpretation

hurt

> >the anti-AA education efforts of those whose focus is more " moderate, "

or

> >what? I am not quite sure what it is that you REALLY disagree with me

> >about. I don't think it is merely a disagreement over historical

minutiae.

> > ----------

> >>

> >> To: Jerry Trowbridge ; Kayleigh S

> >; PAULDIENER@...

> >> Cc: 12-step-freeegroups

> >> Subject: Re: Re: People and dependence

> >> Date: Tuesday, December 08, 1998 6:33 PM

> >>

> >> If we can agree on this, then we ought to be able to agree that a

> >plebiscite, with one candidate on the ballot, who belongs to the only

party

> >that is legal in that country in the time, does not constitute a

" popular "

> >election.

> >>

> >> This is an issue we may not agree about, but I would rather discuss it

> >than argue. I think we agree about the events that occurred, but not

about

> >their meaning.

> >>

> >> -

> >> Kayleigh

> >>

> >> Zz

> >> zZ

> >> |\ z _,,,---,,_

> >> /,`.-'`' _ ;-;;,_

> >> |,4- ) )-,_..;\ ( `'-'

> >> '---''(_/--' `-'\_)

> >>

> >>

> >>

> >>

> >> >Your reasoning is absolutely right on the money, of course.

> >> >

> >> >----------

> >> >>

> >> >> To: PAULDIENER@...; Jerry Trowbridge

> >> >> Cc: 12-step-freeegroups

> >> >> Subject: Re: Re: People and dependence

> >> >> Date: Tuesday, December 08, 1998 12:09 PM

> >> >>

> >> >> Jerry:

> >> >>

> >> >> When you say that AA is effective for some people, I am not sure

what

> >> >you mean. If you simply mean that some people do go to AA and do

stop

> >> >drinking, I think everyone can acknowledge that, but how do you know

it

> >was

> >> >the causative factor? Many people (parolees, probationers and

licensed

> >> >professionals) are subject to random drug tests. That can be a

pretty

> >> >powerful motivation. There are other powerful motivators that may be

> >> >sufficient without AA, such as hanging on to a job or keeping a

marriage

> >> >intact. And what about Rita's story? As she correctly pointed out,

AA

> >can

> >> >claim her as a " success. "

> >> >>

> >> >> Even though it is a stretch, however, let us assume that the 5% of

> >people

> >> >who are new to the program and remain in AA at the end of it are not

> >> >monitored, do not have other motivators and are not incorrectly

> >diagnosed.

> >> >If that is true (if my reasoning is correct, tho I stand ready to be

> >> >corrected) then AA is less effective than the placebo effect. (Maybe

> >Pete

> >> >can help me out here.)

> >> >>

> >> >> In any event, if fewer people are helped by AA than recover on

their

> >own,

> >> >this seems to be evidence that AA is more harmful than it is helpful.

> >> >Despite its " effectiveness " for this small hypothetical group of

people,

> >it

> >> >should be banned, because the harm it does outweighs the good.

> >> >>

> >> >> I don't think that logic is the issue here. I think that

statistics

> >and

> >> >probability theory are the issue.

> >> >> ---

> >> >> Kayleigh

> >> >>

> >> >> Zz

> >> >> zZ

> >> >> |\ z _,,,---,,_

> >> >> /,`.-'`' _ ;-;;,_

> >> >> |,4- ) )-,_..;\ ( `'-'

> >> >> '---''(_/--' `-'\_)

> >> >>

> >> >>

> >> >>

> >> >>

> >> >> >

> >> >> >

> >> >> >>This is getting tedious, I know, but it needs to be repeated each

> >time

> >> >> >>Jerry gives misinformation, as new surfers may happen in: there

is

> >NO =

> >> >> >good

> >> >> >>scientific evidence that AA helps people recover from drinking

> >> >problems.=

> >> >> >=20

> >> >> >>People who aren't exposed to AA become abstinent at statistical

> >rates =

> >> >> >equal

> >> >> >>to or better than the rates of those who are exposed to AA. AA

does

> >=

> >> >> >appeal

> >> >> >>to a small percentage of persons who come into contact with it,

some

> >of

> >> >> >>whom have had drinking problems, others of whom haven't, but join

AA

> >> >> >>anyway.=20

> >> >> >

> >> >> >It is extremely tedious, because in attemping to perform this

great

> >> >> >public service for that poor surfer who happens to wander in here

and

> >> >> >might be terribly misled by my postings, you contradict your own

> >> >> >statement in your first two sentences.

> >> >> >

> >> >> >I have never said AA is better than anything else, in fact its

worse,

> >> >> >but I have not tried to use this to prove that AA is

ineffectual.=20

> >> >> >

> >> >> >I had a logic professor who propounded the theory that if someone

was

> >> >> >provably correct 70% of the time, it didn't matter by what method

> >they

> >> >> >came to their decisions. This was very hard for me to accept.=20

> >> >> >

> >> >> >The fact is, I don't give a damn that most AAers are right wing,

or

> >> >> >that AA's dogma is authoritarian when it comes to ascertaining its

> >> >> >effectivess. It is one of the big reasons I am no longer there,

but I

> >> >> >am not going to decide other people's politics for them.

> >> >> >

> >> >> >I am going to stand by your statement that the percentage of AA's

> >> >> >effectiveness may be equal to the effectiveness of people who are

not

> >> >> >exposed to AA (and therefore chose other methods to confront their

> >> >> >problems).=20

> >> >> >

> >> >> >You just can't hide the problems in your own arguments, but I have

> >> >> >grown tired of pointing them out, so I'll just let them fall by

> >> >> >themselves, and you therefore can benefit from that " constant

> >> >> >repetition " you extoll (and have practiced on your own behalf far

> >> >> >better than I have).

> >> >> >

> >> >> >I am quite amused, however, by the strong possibility that a

> >> >> >percentage of those who were not exposed to AA, confronted what

they

> >> >> >or others believed to be a problem, through unscientific methods

such

> >> >> >as spiritual healers, shamans, or spiritualists.

> >> >> >

> >> >> >This would really find you arguing out of both sides of your

mouth...

> >> >> >----------------

> >> >> >Jerry Trowbridge

> >> >>

>

>>------------------------------------------------------------------------

> >> >> >

[Guest guest]

You seem to have pigeonholed me pretty neatly as some kind of Ivy League Junior

League matron. Do you picture me on the golf course, wearing lime green and

pink, or wearing suits from Talbot's, running my pearls through my fingers as I

attend the Club meeting or the latest opening at the museum? Whichever it

is, it clearly enables you to dismiss what I say without looking at its

substance.

You're right, I don't live in the ghetto. I don't know what I would think and

how I would feel if I did, and what's more, neither do you. I don't live in a

mansion, either. I am middle class, but I am far from smug. If you can call me

that, it means you've ignored much of the content of my post.

I agree with you that the WOD has led to encroachment of civil rights, and that

that's dangerous. I agree with you that an economic collapse is probably

imminent. I agree with you that Hitler attained his office legally (tho I

certainly will not agree that he was ever elected in a popular election). I

think I am quite open about my personal and class values. I think my response

to you was quite substantive, mentioning as it did the guy killed in my area,

McCarthyism, Ruby Ridge, etc. There's lots more support out there. Look at

what just happened with Newt Gingrich. I think I can credibly assert my belief

that this country can weather the threat of a right wing takeover.

I know who Pat Buchanan and Pat on are, and I know what they represent.

It's not a signal to me that we're moving toward totalitarianism, and I don't

know what Stanton Peele and Szasz have to say on the subject. If this

country can't tolerate as much dissension as Buchanan and on bring to

public discourse, it isn't much of a democracy.

Finally, after accusing me of taking cheap shots and shooting from behind rocks,

you accuse me of " loving " Nazi Germany, carefully couched in questions so you

can back off the accusation when you're faced with it. Talk about cheap shots.

Nothing I have said justifies that conclusion.

From what you've said in other posts, I expect you realize how many countries

there are that would not tolerate the kind of things you are saying if it were

their government at issue. And yet you seem to think that people who do not

agree with you should be silenced or trivialized. Totalitarian point of view?

I defy you to name a country where citizens have more civil liberties than

Americans do. Whatever its faults, America has survived a number of crises with

its democracy intact.

---

Kayleigh

Zz

zZ

|\ z _,,,---,,_

/,`.-'`' _ ;-;;,_

|,4- ) )-,_..;\ ( `'-'

'---''(_/--' `-'\_)

P.S. Wish someone else would speak up for me here, after all, most of you know

me better than this bozo does.

-----== Sent via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==-----

http://www.dejanews.com/ Easy access to 50,000+ discussion forums

------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Guest guest]

Kayleigh-

I know you somewhat from arf. I will willingly speak up for you. This guy loves

to 'hear' himself 'talk'. His cyberpersona is tough motherfucker which does

involve painting the other person as bourgier-than-him. Fuck him and the

paranoia he rode in on.

Aussie Steve.

You seem to have pigeonholed me pretty neatly as some kind of Ivy League Junior

League matron. Do you picture me on the golf course, wearing lime green and

pink, or wearing suits from Talbot's, running my pearls through my fingers as I

attend the Club meeting or the latest opening at the museum? Whichever it

is, it clearly enables you to dismiss what I say without looking at its

substance.

>

> You're right, I don't live in the ghetto. I don't know what I would think and

how I would feel if I did, and what's more, neither do you. I don't live in a

mansion, either. I am middle class, but I am far from smug. If you can call me

that, it means you've ignored much of the content of my post.

>

> I agree with you that the WOD has led to encroachment of civil rights, and

that that's dangerous. I agree with you that an economic collapse is probably

imminent. I agree with you that Hitler attained his office legally (tho I

certainly will not agree that he was ever elected in a popular election). I

think I am quite open about my personal and class values. I think my response

to you was quite substantive, mentioning as it did the guy killed in my area,

McCarthyism, Ruby Ridge, etc. There's lots more support out there. Look at

what just happened with Newt Gingrich. I think I can credibly assert my belief

that this country can weather the threat of a right wing takeover.

>

> I know who Pat Buchanan and Pat on are, and I know what they represent.

It's not a signal to me that we're moving toward totalitarianism, and I don't

know what Stanton Peele and Szasz have to say on the subject. If this

country can't tolerate as much dissension as Buchanan and on bring to

public discourse, it isn't much of a democracy.

>

> Finally, after accusing me of taking cheap shots and shooting from behind

rocks, you accuse me of " loving " Nazi Germany, carefully couched in questions so

you can back off the accusation when you're faced with it. Talk about cheap

shots. Nothing I have said justifies that conclusion.

>

> From what you've said in other posts, I expect you realize how many countries

there are that would not tolerate the kind of things you are saying if it were

their government at issue. And yet you seem to think that people who do not

agree with you should be silenced or trivialized. Totalitarian point of view?

>

> I defy you to name a country where citizens have more civil liberties than

Americans do. Whatever its faults, America has survived a number of crises with

its democracy intact.

>

> ---

> Kayleigh

>

> Zz

> zZ

> |\ z _,,,---,,_

> /,`.-'`' _ ;-;;,_

> |,4- ) )-,_..;\ ( `'-'

> '---''(_/--' `-'\_)

>

> P.S. Wish someone else would speak up for me here, after all, most of you

know me better than this bozo does.

>

>

>

>

> -----== Sent via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==-----

> http://www.dejanews.com/ Easy access to 50,000+ discussion forums

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

>

[Guest guest]

Kayleigh - I didn't pigeonhole you, and I don't worry about where you spend

your free time (why should I care?). I just read your posts. Your posts

reflect middle-class smugness and national chauvinism. Indeed, your last

post ends with a " USA! USA! " chant. You are wrong on Hitler; he rose to

power legally, and with mass support. You are wong on fascism. It was,

and is, a mass movement which appealed, disproportionately, to middle class

people in middle class countries (military coups never were important in

fascism; where did you get THAT idea). You are even wrong on Joe McCarthy.

(My mother, by the way, dated him when he was in Law School at Marquette

Univ. in Milwaukee. He was the boxing coach there, and somewhat of a

moderate liberal. I am told he was walking by our house after I was born,

and patted me on the head in my baby carriage. He was a municipal judge

then, I believe. This was just before WWII.) Anyway, you have

misunderstood " McCarthyism, " too. Entirely. Most importantly, you are

wrong in your claim of " American exceptionalism, " to use the historian's

term. The USA is not some especially wonderful, highly moral country,

where goodness is assured for all time. You have been watching too much

television. American exceptionalism is an inexcusable misreading of

American history, and a disastrous assumption when applied to the future.

It is smug, middle-class prejudice. Germans had this same prejudice. They

also thought of their country as exceptionally moral and " spiritual. "

Moral superiority, indeed, is a key ingredient in the rise of fascism, as

is a strong sense of nationalism. The war on drugs, the MORAL majority

(who are neither moral nor majority), the CHRISTIAN coalition, etc., all

share these traits. So did the nazis. I would not normally argue " love it

or leave it " stuff with anyone. I won't win the argument with you, as you

just " know " the American middle class is too good to ever go wrong. But

this exchange started when you sniped at me on the matter of Hitler's

ascension to power, a matter of fact on which you were wrong. The goal, I

guess, was to discredit my warnings of imminent fascism by attacking a

minor point. I really don't care what people think of me personally; I do

care that people consider the rise of fascism in America by the evidence.

That is why I responded to your sniping. Now, you have put your main issue

out in the open. Anyone who wants not to consider my posts because I am

too " disrespectful " towards America is free to do so. I don't think such

persons would consider my thesis open-mindedly in any event. (As to the

nature of fascism, good places to begin are with Walter Laqeur,

Mosse, and A. Gregor. See, too, Corner, 1986, " Liberalism,

Pre-fascism, and Fascism, " in Rethinking Italian Fascism, Ed by D Forgacs,

London, Lawrence and Wishart. Corner makes the important point that

fascisms develop directly out of liberal capitalist culture during periods

of crisis. Because the middle class cannot accept that its own culture and

society have failed in a period of crisis, the middle class looks for an

external source of " pollution. " Hitler had Jews, we have " addictions. "

Ironically, the fascist " pollution myth " is grounded in exactly the same

" moral superiority of the middle class, " and in the same myth of its

inability to do evil, that keyleigh has rushed to defend)

----------

>

> To: Jerry Trowbridge ; Kayleigh S

; PAULDIENER@...

> Cc: 12-step-freeegroups

> Subject: Re: Re: People and dependence

> Date: Wednesday, December 09, 1998 8:17 PM

>

> You seem to have pigeonholed me pretty neatly as some kind of Ivy League

Junior League matron. Do you picture me on the golf course, wearing lime

green and pink, or wearing suits from Talbot's, running my pearls through

my fingers as I attend the Club meeting or the latest opening at the

museum? Whichever it is, it clearly enables you to dismiss what I say

without looking at its substance.

>

> You're right, I don't live in the ghetto. I don't know what I would

think and how I would feel if I did, and what's more, neither do you. I

don't live in a mansion, either. I am middle class, but I am far from

smug. If you can call me that, it means you've ignored much of the content

of my post.

>

> I agree with you that the WOD has led to encroachment of civil rights,

and that that's dangerous. I agree with you that an economic collapse is

probably imminent. I agree with you that Hitler attained his office

legally (tho I certainly will not agree that he was ever elected in a

popular election). I think I am quite open about my personal and class

values. I think my response to you was quite substantive, mentioning as it

did the guy killed in my area, McCarthyism, Ruby Ridge, etc. There's lots

more support out there. Look at what just happened with Newt Gingrich. I

think I can credibly assert my belief that this country can weather the

threat of a right wing takeover.

>

> I know who Pat Buchanan and Pat on are, and I know what they

represent. It's not a signal to me that we're moving toward

totalitarianism, and I don't know what Stanton Peele and Szasz have

to say on the subject. If this country can't tolerate as much dissension

as Buchanan and on bring to public discourse, it isn't much of a

democracy.

>

> Finally, after accusing me of taking cheap shots and shooting from behind

rocks, you accuse me of " loving " Nazi Germany, carefully couched in

questions so you can back off the accusation when you're faced with it.

Talk about cheap shots. Nothing I have said justifies that conclusion.

>

> From what you've said in other posts, I expect you realize how many

countries there are that would not tolerate the kind of things you are

saying if it were their government at issue. And yet you seem to think

that people who do not agree with you should be silenced or trivialized.

Totalitarian point of view?

>

> I defy you to name a country where citizens have more civil liberties

than Americans do. Whatever its faults, America has survived a number of

crises with its democracy intact.

>

> ---

> Kayleigh

>

> Zz

> zZ

> |\ z _,,,---,,_

> /,`.-'`' _ ;-;;,_

> |,4- ) )-,_..;\ ( `'-'

> '---''(_/--' `-'\_)

>

> P.S. Wish someone else would speak up for me here, after all, most of

you know me better than this bozo does.

>

>

>

>

> -----== Sent via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==-----

> http://www.dejanews.com/ Easy access to 50,000+ discussion forums

------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Guest guest]

Oops.. One Addition. I never said you should be silenced. I do believe

your arguments are trivial.

----------

>

> To: 12-step-freeegroups

> Subject: Re: People and dependence

> Date: Wednesday, December 09, 1998 11:23 PM

>

> Kayleigh-

> I know you somewhat from arf. I will willingly speak up for you. This guy

loves to 'hear' himself 'talk'. His cyberpersona is tough motherfucker

which does involve painting the other person as bourgier-than-him. Fuck him

and the paranoia he rode in on.

>

> Aussie Steve.

>

>

> You seem to have pigeonholed me pretty neatly as some kind of Ivy League

Junior League matron. Do you picture me on the golf course, wearing lime

green and pink, or wearing suits from Talbot's, running my pearls through

my fingers as I attend the Club meeting or the latest opening at the

museum? Whichever it is, it clearly enables you to dismiss what I say

without looking at its substance.

> >

> > You're right, I don't live in the ghetto. I don't know what I would

think and how I would feel if I did, and what's more, neither do you. I

don't live in a mansion, either. I am middle class, but I am far from

smug. If you can call me that, it means you've ignored much of the content

of my post.

> >

> > I agree with you that the WOD has led to encroachment of civil rights,

and that that's dangerous. I agree with you that an economic collapse is

probably imminent. I agree with you that Hitler attained his office

legally (tho I certainly will not agree that he was ever elected in a

popular election). I think I am quite open about my personal and class

values. I think my response to you was quite substantive, mentioning as it

did the guy killed in my area, McCarthyism, Ruby Ridge, etc. There's lots

more support out there. Look at what just happened with Newt Gingrich. I

think I can credibly assert my belief that this country can weather the

threat of a right wing takeover.

> >

> > I know who Pat Buchanan and Pat on are, and I know what they

represent. It's not a signal to me that we're moving toward

totalitarianism, and I don't know what Stanton Peele and Szasz have

to say on the subject. If this country can't tolerate as much dissension

as Buchanan and on bring to public discourse, it isn't much of a

democracy.

> >

> > Finally, after accusing me of taking cheap shots and shooting from

behind rocks, you accuse me of " loving " Nazi Germany, carefully couched in

questions so you can back off the accusation when you're faced with it.

Talk about cheap shots. Nothing I have said justifies that conclusion.

> >

> > From what you've said in other posts, I expect you realize how many

countries there are that would not tolerate the kind of things you are

saying if it were their government at issue. And yet you seem to think

that people who do not agree with you should be silenced or trivialized.

Totalitarian point of view?

> >

> > I defy you to name a country where citizens have more civil liberties

than Americans do. Whatever its faults, America has survived a number of

crises with its democracy intact.

> >

> > ---

> > Kayleigh

> >

> > Zz

> > zZ

> > |\ z _,,,---,,_

> > /,`.-'`' _ ;-;;,_

> > |,4- ) )-,_..;\ ( `'-'

> > '---''(_/--' `-'\_)

> >

> > P.S. Wish someone else would speak up for me here, after all, most of

you know me better than this bozo does.

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > -----== Sent via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==-----

> > http://www.dejanews.com/ Easy access to 50,000+ discussion forums

> >

------------------------------------------------------------------------

> >

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/9/98 1:30:25 PM Pacific Standard Time, kayleighs@my-

dejanews.com writes:

> The FBI has been doing the kind of stuff you're talking about for years and

> years, but didn't get away with it at Ruby Ridge, and now there are lots of

> questions about Waco. Americans don't trust their government no matter

what,

> we are not an obedient, militaristic populace. Dissent is still encouraged

> here. There has been a terrific rally behind the family of the man that the

> sheriff's deputy killed.

Wait a minute. What " terrific rally " are you talking about? I live near where

Randy Weaver lived and I know of NO such support. Everyone here is too

paranoid; too afraid of the government. Ever heard of the " Black Helicopter "

scare? Also what " sheriff's deputy " are you talking about? It was FBI snipers

who killed Randy Weaver's wife and son (and family dog). They went unpunished,

of course.

Henders

------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Guest guest]

Hi Kayleigh

I didnt follow the thread with Jerry too closely, but I guess you were

suggesting the placebo effect as an explanation of the apparent success

rate of AA?

The argument is simply the description of the placebo effect itself. It

has been repeatedly demonstrated that almost any ameliorative response (*),

of any kind, for any disorder, will produce an apparent diminution of

symptoms, at least as reported by the patient - especially so in the case

of psychological disorders such as compulsive behavior.

Even simply obeserving the behavior will have an effect - those subjects

who took part in MATCH may well have responded in part to simply taking

part in the study and having their drinking habits evaluated, before they

even got any therapy (the Hawthorne Effect).

The Placebo effect goes beyond this as a reaction to responses with the

specific intent to produce results - so that individuals given inert pills

they beleive to be painkillers will still report some relief from pain.

It is these 'non-specific' (to the response) effects that make any

scientific study of the benefit of an response must have a control

group who do not receive the response, but a neutral response (such

as an inert pill in a drug study). To further eliminate psychological

factors, the study should be " double-blind " - neither the subjects nor the

the administerers and evaluators of the treatment should no whether a

subject is receiving the pill or the placebo - the treatments are coded and

the evaluation only matched to the treatment when the results are in.

A credible placebo must mimic the actual treatment in credibility - e.g. a

good placebo for acupuncture is to put the needles in the wrong places.

however, acupuncture specialists believe in acupuncture, and it is often

only possible to have " single-blind " (to subject) studies in regard to this

treatment.

A psychiatrist on addict-l claimed that it was ridiculous to talk in terms

of the placebo effect for a psychological method like XA. Why ever not?

The issue is of non-specifity, not whether placebo effects are 'real'. If

the benefit, if any, of XA is *non-specific* to the 12-step program, there

is no justification whatsoever for advocating the 12-step program above

reading Das Kapital as a method to recover from addiction. (Maybe Karly

Marx might actually help a bit). The likely beneficial aspects of XA -

peer group support for a goal of abstinence - do not depend on the 12SP at

all - yet XA proponents usually emphasise the 12SP as what matters abt XA

rather than the peer support. Certainly the XA literature suggests this.

Even these positives need their qualifications, since we know that

Abstinence need by no means be an automatic requirement for recovery. Many

alcohol dependent ppl subsequently drink moderately. Many drinking male

university students meets the criteria for Alcohol Abuse at some point or

full Alcohol Dependence - as do many young ppl in all walks of life - but

the great majority do not become chronic alcohol dependents.

The Disease Model propogated by XA bears no relation to how ppl's

using/drinking habits actually change over time. The shrink I referred to

said that by saying that XA only produced a placebo effect I was admitting

that XA worked. This individual is monumentally tedious so I just replied

that as a medical man he ought to know that 'ineffective' is shorthand for

'ineffective over placebo' and ignored him subsequently. However, the fact

that some ppl might get a placebo response to XA does not mean that XA

should be viewed as " ok for some ppl " . responses to disorders can have

*iatrogenic* symptoms - they can make ppl worse. By encouraging dependency

on XA and believing they have an incurable disease, XA might easily make

many ppl worse. Those damaged might outnumber those helped.

The placebo effect gets stronger when the procedure is painful or

unpleasant. Heart patients report improvement as a result of having their

chests opened even if no actually surgery is done. XA prides itself on its

'Simple' but not-easy, not-soft way. As well as giving the impression that

if you wont bite you havent got the balls to do what you need to do, this

is an indication of how XA might maximise the placebo effect, by telling

ppl to do things difficult or unpleasant or distressing. That it might work

in a some cases makes it of itself no more ethical than merely opening and

resowing a chest cavity for the 'relief' of heart disease.

In disputes on professional addiction forums, XA's sometimes sign off in

debate like " Bill -Not had a drink for 30 years " or whatever. One even told

me to follow AA traditions of not causing controversy. (This chap is rather

odd, and at one point appeared to write under an alter, 'Father Ed', which

happens to be the name of a Jesuit priest with an early involvement with

AA. Yet nevertheless apparently counsels ppl on addiction. At one point

an email from his addy urged an enquirer with a drink problem to ring him,

with no acknowledgement that he was the owner of the addy where the post

came from).

I am tempted to repsond:

'You mean you havent had a drink for 30 years *and youre still counting*?

Get a life!'

Or alternatively sign off:

'Pete - able-to-drink-moderately for life.'

'Pete - never even developed alcoholism in the first place.'

Those who have seen earlier posts of mine on addict-l might dispute the

accuracy of at least the first claim. I like most of the male population of

the western world, have overindulged in alcohol.

However, if AA's can claim powerlessness over alcohol from birth, or at

least the very first drink, as many do, then I think I can make them - I

was always able to drink moderately, I just chose not to!

Pete

(*) I am using the term 'response' rather than the more obvious 'treatment'

in order to falstall the XA semantic quibble 'XA isnt treatment'. XA

involvement is a response some ppl make to a disorder, and ought to be

evaluated in the same manner that medical responses are.

> Hi, Pete,

>

> Could you now address my placebo effect argument, because I feel really shaky

on that subject.

> ---

Pete

----------------------

Whosoever saves One Life

Saves the World Entire

PERSONALITY-DISORDERS LIST:

http://rdz.acor.org/athenaeum/lists.phtml?personality-disorders

_____________________

------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Guest guest]

don't need one. got plenty of friends. my friends just don't have

american flags on their front porches.

----------

>

> To: Jerry Trowbridge ; Kayleigh S

; PAULDIENER@...

> Cc: 12-step-freeegroups

> Subject: Re: Re: People and dependence

> Date: Thursday, December 10, 1998 9:23 PM

>

> May I suggest a Dale Carnegie course?

> ---

> Kayleigh

>

> Zz

> zZ

> |\ z _,,,---,,_

> /,`.-'`' _ ;-;;,_

> |,4- ) )-,_..;\ ( `'-'

> '---''(_/--' `-'\_)

>

>

>

>

> >Kayleigh - I didn't pigeonhole you, and I don't worry about where you

spend

> >your free time (why should I care?). I just read your posts. Your

posts

> >reflect middle-class smugness and national chauvinism. Indeed, your

last

> >post ends with a " USA! USA! " chant. You are wrong on Hitler; he rose to

> >power legally, and with mass support. You are wong on fascism. It was,

> >and is, a mass movement which appealed, disproportionately, to middle

class

> >people in middle class countries (military coups never were important in

> >fascism; where did you get THAT idea). You are even wrong on Joe

McCarthy.

> > (My mother, by the way, dated him when he was in Law School at

Marquette

> >Univ. in Milwaukee. He was the boxing coach there, and somewhat of a

> >moderate liberal. I am told he was walking by our house after I was

born,

> >and patted me on the head in my baby carriage. He was a municipal judge

> >then, I believe. This was just before WWII.) Anyway, you have

> >misunderstood " McCarthyism, " too. Entirely. Most importantly, you are

> >wrong in your claim of " American exceptionalism, " to use the historian's

> >term. The USA is not some especially wonderful, highly moral country,

> >where goodness is assured for all time. You have been watching too much

> >television. American exceptionalism is an inexcusable misreading of

> >American history, and a disastrous assumption when applied to the

future.

> >It is smug, middle-class prejudice. Germans had this same prejudice.

They

> >also thought of their country as exceptionally moral and " spiritual. "

> >Moral superiority, indeed, is a key ingredient in the rise of fascism,

as

> >is a strong sense of nationalism. The war on drugs, the MORAL majority

> >(who are neither moral nor majority), the CHRISTIAN coalition, etc., all

> >share these traits. So did the nazis. I would not normally argue " love

it

> >or leave it " stuff with anyone. I won't win the argument with you, as

you

> >just " know " the American middle class is too good to ever go wrong. But

> >this exchange started when you sniped at me on the matter of Hitler's

> >ascension to power, a matter of fact on which you were wrong. The goal,

I

> >guess, was to discredit my warnings of imminent fascism by attacking a

> >minor point. I really don't care what people think of me personally; I

do

> >care that people consider the rise of fascism in America by the

evidence.

> >That is why I responded to your sniping. Now, you have put your main

issue

> >out in the open. Anyone who wants not to consider my posts because I am

> >too " disrespectful " towards America is free to do so. I don't think

such

> >persons would consider my thesis open-mindedly in any event. (As to the

> >nature of fascism, good places to begin are with Walter Laqeur,

> >Mosse, and A. Gregor. See, too, Corner, 1986, " Liberalism,

> >Pre-fascism, and Fascism, " in Rethinking Italian Fascism, Ed by D

Forgacs,

> >London, Lawrence and Wishart. Corner makes the important point that

> >fascisms develop directly out of liberal capitalist culture during

periods

> >of crisis. Because the middle class cannot accept that its own culture

and

> >society have failed in a period of crisis, the middle class looks for an

> >external source of " pollution. " Hitler had Jews, we have " addictions. "

> >Ironically, the fascist " pollution myth " is grounded in exactly the same

> > " moral superiority of the middle class, " and in the same myth of its

> >inability to do evil, that keyleigh has rushed to defend)

> >----------

> >>

> >> To: Jerry Trowbridge ; Kayleigh S

> >; PAULDIENER@...

> >> Cc: 12-step-freeegroups

> >> Subject: Re: Re: People and dependence

> >> Date: Wednesday, December 09, 1998 8:17 PM

> >>

> >> You seem to have pigeonholed me pretty neatly as some kind of Ivy

League

> >Junior League matron. Do you picture me on the golf course, wearing

lime

> >green and pink, or wearing suits from Talbot's, running my pearls

through

> >my fingers as I attend the Club meeting or the latest opening at

the

> >museum? Whichever it is, it clearly enables you to dismiss what I say

> >without looking at its substance.

> >>

> >> You're right, I don't live in the ghetto. I don't know what I would

> >think and how I would feel if I did, and what's more, neither do you. I

> >don't live in a mansion, either. I am middle class, but I am far from

> >smug. If you can call me that, it means you've ignored much of the

content

> >of my post.

> >>

> >> I agree with you that the WOD has led to encroachment of civil rights,

> >and that that's dangerous. I agree with you that an economic collapse

is

> >probably imminent. I agree with you that Hitler attained his office

> >legally (tho I certainly will not agree that he was ever elected in a

> >popular election). I think I am quite open about my personal and class

> >values. I think my response to you was quite substantive, mentioning as

it

> >did the guy killed in my area, McCarthyism, Ruby Ridge, etc. There's

lots

> >more support out there. Look at what just happened with Newt Gingrich.

I

> >think I can credibly assert my belief that this country can weather the

> >threat of a right wing takeover.

> >>

> >> I know who Pat Buchanan and Pat on are, and I know what they

> >represent. It's not a signal to me that we're moving toward

> >totalitarianism, and I don't know what Stanton Peele and Szasz

have

> >to say on the subject. If this country can't tolerate as much

dissension

> >as Buchanan and on bring to public discourse, it isn't much of a

> >democracy.

> >>

> >> Finally, after accusing me of taking cheap shots and shooting from

behind

> >rocks, you accuse me of " loving " Nazi Germany, carefully couched in

> >questions so you can back off the accusation when you're faced with it.

> >Talk about cheap shots. Nothing I have said justifies that conclusion.

> >>

> >> From what you've said in other posts, I expect you realize how many

> >countries there are that would not tolerate the kind of things you are

> >saying if it were their government at issue. And yet you seem to think

> >that people who do not agree with you should be silenced or trivialized.

> >Totalitarian point of view?

> >>

> >> I defy you to name a country where citizens have more civil liberties

> >than Americans do. Whatever its faults, America has survived a number

of

> >crises with its democracy intact.

> >>

> >> ---

> >> Kayleigh

> >>

> >> Zz

> >> zZ

> >> |\ z _,,,---,,_

> >> /,`.-'`' _ ;-;;,_

> >> |,4- ) )-,_..;\ ( `'-'

> >> '---''(_/--' `-'\_)

> >>

> >> P.S. Wish someone else would speak up for me here, after all, most of

> >you know me better than this bozo does.

> >>

> >>

> >>

> >>

> >> -----== Sent via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==-----

> >> http://www.dejanews.com/ Easy access to 50,000+ discussion forums

> >------------------------------------------------------------------------

> >More trinkets than the 1996 Olympics. Fewer lines than the Goodwill

Games

> >ESPN gear, SportsCenter gear, NBA NHL MLB NCAA NFL gear, Memorabilia

>

> >http://ads./click/146/0

>

> >

>

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

I was talking more about the " influencing people " piece of it.

---

Kayleigh

Zz

zZ

|\ z _,,,---,,_

/,`.-'`' _ ;-;;,_

|,4- ) )-,_..;\ ( `'-'

'---''(_/--' `-'\_)

>don't need one. got plenty of friends. my friends just don't have

>american flags on their front porches.

>

>----------

>>

>> To: Jerry Trowbridge ; Kayleigh S

>; PAULDIENER@...

>> Cc: 12-step-freeegroups

>> Subject: Re: Re: People and dependence

>> Date: Thursday, December 10, 1998 9:23 PM

>>

>> May I suggest a Dale Carnegie course?

>> ---

>> Kayleigh

>>

>> Zz

>> zZ

>> |\ z _,,,---,,_

>> /,`.-'`' _ ;-;;,_

>> |,4- ) )-,_..;\ ( `'-'

>> '---''(_/--' `-'\_)

>>

>>

>>

>>

>> >Kayleigh - I didn't pigeonhole you, and I don't worry about where you

>spend

>> >your free time (why should I care?). I just read your posts. Your

>posts

>> >reflect middle-class smugness and national chauvinism. Indeed, your

>last

>> >post ends with a " USA! USA! " chant. You are wrong on Hitler; he rose to

>> >power legally, and with mass support. You are wong on fascism. It was,

>> >and is, a mass movement which appealed, disproportionately, to middle

>class

>> >people in middle class countries (military coups never were important in

>> >fascism; where did you get THAT idea). You are even wrong on Joe

>McCarthy.

>> > (My mother, by the way, dated him when he was in Law School at

>Marquette

>> >Univ. in Milwaukee. He was the boxing coach there, and somewhat of a

>> >moderate liberal. I am told he was walking by our house after I was

>born,

>> >and patted me on the head in my baby carriage. He was a municipal judge

>> >then, I believe. This was just before WWII.) Anyway, you have

>> >misunderstood " McCarthyism, " too. Entirely. Most importantly, you are

>> >wrong in your claim of " American exceptionalism, " to use the historian's

>> >term. The USA is not some especially wonderful, highly moral country,

>> >where goodness is assured for all time. You have been watching too much

>> >television. American exceptionalism is an inexcusable misreading of

>> >American history, and a disastrous assumption when applied to the

>future.

>> >It is smug, middle-class prejudice. Germans had this same prejudice.

>They

>> >also thought of their country as exceptionally moral and " spiritual. "

>> >Moral superiority, indeed, is a key ingredient in the rise of fascism,

>as

>> >is a strong sense of nationalism. The war on drugs, the MORAL majority

>> >(who are neither moral nor majority), the CHRISTIAN coalition, etc., all

>> >share these traits. So did the nazis. I would not normally argue " love

>it

>> >or leave it " stuff with anyone. I won't win the argument with you, as

>you

>> >just " know " the American middle class is too good to ever go wrong. But

>> >this exchange started when you sniped at me on the matter of Hitler's

>> >ascension to power, a matter of fact on which you were wrong. The goal,

>I

>> >guess, was to discredit my warnings of imminent fascism by attacking a

>> >minor point. I really don't care what people think of me personally; I

>do

>> >care that people consider the rise of fascism in America by the

>evidence.

>> >That is why I responded to your sniping. Now, you have put your main

>issue

>> >out in the open. Anyone who wants not to consider my posts because I am

>> >too " disrespectful " towards America is free to do so. I don't think

>such

>> >persons would consider my thesis open-mindedly in any event. (As to the

>> >nature of fascism, good places to begin are with Walter Laqeur,

>> >Mosse, and A. Gregor. See, too, Corner, 1986, " Liberalism,

>> >Pre-fascism, and Fascism, " in Rethinking Italian Fascism, Ed by D

>Forgacs,

>> >London, Lawrence and Wishart. Corner makes the important point that

>> >fascisms develop directly out of liberal capitalist culture during

>periods

>> >of crisis. Because the middle class cannot accept that its own culture

>and

>> >society have failed in a period of crisis, the middle class looks for an

>> >external source of " pollution. " Hitler had Jews, we have " addictions. "

>> >Ironically, the fascist " pollution myth " is grounded in exactly the same

>> > " moral superiority of the middle class, " and in the same myth of its

>> >inability to do evil, that keyleigh has rushed to defend)

>> >----------

>> >>

>> >> To: Jerry Trowbridge ; Kayleigh S

>> >; PAULDIENER@...

>> >> Cc: 12-step-freeegroups

>> >> Subject: Re: Re: People and dependence

>> >> Date: Wednesday, December 09, 1998 8:17 PM

>> >>

>> >> You seem to have pigeonholed me pretty neatly as some kind of Ivy

>League

>> >Junior League matron. Do you picture me on the golf course, wearing

>lime

>> >green and pink, or wearing suits from Talbot's, running my pearls

>through

>> >my fingers as I attend the Club meeting or the latest opening at

>the

>> >museum? Whichever it is, it clearly enables you to dismiss what I say

>> >without looking at its substance.

>> >>

>> >> You're right, I don't live in the ghetto. I don't know what I would

>> >think and how I would feel if I did, and what's more, neither do you. I

>> >don't live in a mansion, either. I am middle class, but I am far from

>> >smug. If you can call me that, it means you've ignored much of the

>content

>> >of my post.

>> >>

>> >> I agree with you that the WOD has led to encroachment of civil rights,

>> >and that that's dangerous. I agree with you that an economic collapse

>is

>> >probably imminent. I agree with you that Hitler attained his office

>> >legally (tho I certainly will not agree that he was ever elected in a

>> >popular election). I think I am quite open about my personal and class

>> >values. I think my response to you was quite substantive, mentioning as

>it

>> >did the guy killed in my area, McCarthyism, Ruby Ridge, etc. There's

>lots

>> >more support out there. Look at what just happened with Newt Gingrich.

>I

>> >think I can credibly assert my belief that this country can weather the

>> >threat of a right wing takeover.

>> >>

>> >> I know who Pat Buchanan and Pat on are, and I know what they

>> >represent. It's not a signal to me that we're moving toward

>> >totalitarianism, and I don't know what Stanton Peele and Szasz

>have

>> >to say on the subject. If this country can't tolerate as much

>dissension

>> >as Buchanan and on bring to public discourse, it isn't much of a

>> >democracy.

>> >>

>> >> Finally, after accusing me of taking cheap shots and shooting from

>behind

>> >rocks, you accuse me of " loving " Nazi Germany, carefully couched in

>> >questions so you can back off the accusation when you're faced with it.

>> >Talk about cheap shots. Nothing I have said justifies that conclusion.

>> >>

>> >> From what you've said in other posts, I expect you realize how many

>> >countries there are that would not tolerate the kind of things you are

>> >saying if it were their government at issue. And yet you seem to think

>> >that people who do not agree with you should be silenced or trivialized.

>

>> >Totalitarian point of view?

>> >>

>> >> I defy you to name a country where citizens have more civil liberties

>> >than Americans do. Whatever its faults, America has survived a number

>of

>> >crises with its democracy intact.

>> >>

>> >> ---

>> >> Kayleigh

>> >>

>> >> Zz

>> >> zZ

>> >> |\ z _,,,---,,_

>> >> /,`.-'`' _ ;-;;,_

>> >> |,4- ) )-,_..;\ ( `'-'

>> >> '---''(_/--' `-'\_)

>> >>

>> >> P.S. Wish someone else would speak up for me here, after all, most of

>> >you know me better than this bozo does.

>> >>

>> >>

>> >>

>> >>

>> >> -----== Sent via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==-----

>> >> http://www.dejanews.com/ Easy access to 50,000+ discussion forums

>> >------------------------------------------------------------------------

>> >More trinkets than the 1996 Olympics. Fewer lines than the Goodwill

>Games

>> >ESPN gear, SportsCenter gear, NBA NHL MLB NCAA NFL gear, Memorabilia

>>

>> >http://ads./click/146/0

>>

>> >

>>

>> >

>> >

>> >