Fortunately my case is mild. But I've know people who weren't so lucky. When I moved back to Florida, I went to visit my old Anatomy and Physiology professor, who I'll call SA. Back when I had his classes in 1995-6 he was a thrilling guy. Really fascinating character. Lively, knew everything. I'd heard about his problems lately. When I moved back, I went to his place--a little farm over on SR-47--and me and my girlfriend chatted with his wife for an hour or so. At some point SA emerged, in a t-shirt and PJs, and we talked for a while, but the poor guy was paralyzed with depression. Had some operation on his thyroid a few years ago and ever since he's been massively depressed. Like, hardly able to move depressed. Spends his days laying in bed looking at the ceiling. Didn't remember me at all. Said "Well, I'm glad you thought enough of me that you came by to visit."...he repeated that two or three times in an hour. I tried to get him interested in NPR--i thought it would serve as a steady stream of interesting information to this formerly intellectual guy-- but I could tell he wouldn't even have the strength to adjust the dial himself. Maybe his wife would do it for him. That was me being stupid, of course. You can't just Behavior Modify people out of severe depression. Although it sometimes works on people like me who have mild depression. Severe depression is something very deep and the world will be a better place when they figure out how to treat it.

A lot of people still view mental ailments as somehow fake, like a deficiency in willpower or moral fiber or something. They fail to understand that the brain is an organ, and susceptible to disorder just like the liver or pancreas. Due to its complexity, maybe even more so.

There's the chart.

The Southern Strategy is over. The GOP is toast til they figure out how to appeal to people who aren't older, uneducated bible-thumping southern while males with moronic economic notions.

I appreciate your level headed and compassionate perspective. I got drunk for the first time when I was 13. I was hooked right away, first time out. Many are. My other drug of choice, cocaine, I first tried at 15. Absolutely loved the stuff, right off the bat. Did as much as I could get my hands on for the next 14 years.

In the viewpoint of some, I apparently deserved all of the havoc that addiction wrought upon my life. Lost love, lost opportunities, lost time, lost youth... After all, I was "addicted by choice". Never mind that I was still a child when I became addicted and unable to make rational, adult decisions, or view my life with any sort of perspective.

I am lucky, I was in a place that supported recovery and did not make moral judgments about substance abuse. I was sober before I was thirty.

Many of my friend were not so fortunate. They died in car wrecks, with needles in their arms, from heart attacks, or overdoses. Apparently in the eyes of some, they somehow deserve what they got. They "made a choice".

Nobody chooses to become an addict. They choose to drink a beer or do a line of coke or smoke a cigarette or whatever. Most people choose to do something like that at least a few times in their life. A person who winds up addicted starts out expecting that, like most people who do those things once in a while, there won't be any serious consequences. Then they do them again, because what the hell, they could handle it last time, right? By the time they start noticing that it's causing serious problems, they're already addicted. There was never a choice to become an addict. They just chose to do something most of us choose to do, without understanding that they were in a minority who, for whatever reasons of personality or biology, experience big negative consequences from an act that is fairly harmless to the rest of us.

Meet a few dozen alcoholics and you'll lose any moralistic desire to blame them. You'll see that they've often suffered ten times over for their mistakes.

If there are no ultimate standards of behavior that descend from God, and if morality is merely an individual choice, then life itself has lost its greater meaning.

Mind you this is a man who has been divorced three times. I guess he interprets "till death do you part", which he took, presumable before God and witnesses, differently than I do. Apparently his third wife was married to another man when they hooked up. Moral leadership personified!

Nixon 60
Reagan 58
Bush I 55
Bush II 50

and last year McCain got 47%. You can see where that trend line goes. There aren't enough of the hardcore, ignorant GOP-base Limbaugh types around to win anymore. And the growing number of people who aren't Limbaugh-types *don't like* Limbaugh types, and the more power Limbaugh seems to have, the better the Dems'll do. The people in the middle win the election for you, and the Dems are operating with that in mind.

Frankly, I for one am not worried about the lack of class.

Yes, your "jimmy carter in blackface" comment clearly shows you to be untroubled by a lack of class.

Trouble is, so much of your output is BS, it's rather hard to tell when you're simply making a rhetorical point, versus when you're serious.

Well, if my decleration that the argument was bogus was not clear enough, perhaps I can make a crayon drawing and email it to you.

No. I would consider them in moral either way.

English translation please...

You simply cannot put them in the same bin, as you attempted to earlier.

Addicted is addicted. Is there anyone with a drinking problem in your family? Perhaps you will denounce them publicly for becoming an addict by choice. How about street drugs? Their moral failure does not speak well of the moral fiber of your family now, does it?

Zels,

The whole point is that Democrats don't think that Limbaugh is as influential as conservatives think he is. We see him as a net negative. Its the same way we viewed Sarah Palin. If conservatives and the GOP want them as the face of the party, we are only happy to help.

But, shh, don't tell anyone.
Posted by SoloD | March 6, 2009 | 11:40 am | Permalink

I thought about this question an hour ago as I walked to and from the nearby package store. I don't have a firm answer.

He doesn't so much influence as embody the worst of the modern GOP. Gluttinous and repeatedly divorced yet lays claim to values. Mocks science and sneers at education. Devoted to economic policies that haven't fit the circumstances in 25 years. "Babies, guns, and Jesus--Hot Damn!". Slurs against gays despite being in the closet himself. Wants the country to lose money and soldiers in order to improve his party's chances. Doesn't know what's in the constitution yet thinks he's its defender. Supported Bush while Bush urinated all over same.

He's not influential in a broad sense. By which I mean, like others mentioned, his candidate didn't win, hillary didn't win, etc. But he has some influence over the GOP, base. We've seen numerous lawmakers say something negative about him only to be quickly compelled to apologize and grovel.

This is what the Dems are trying to use. They're trying to use that grovelling, the speeches, etc to hang Limbaugh around the necks of the GOP. Because most people aren't the GOP base and they recognize the qualities I listed above as those of a bad person. As Wick Allison noted, the GOP is the Party of Stupid. The dems are using Limbaugh to try to make it the Party of Stupid and Repulsive.

But, shh, don't tell anyone.

It doesn't matter how loudly we say this. The GOPers are dumb and committed. They're doing their level best to call each other RINOs and have a Purity Purge, which'll make their party even smaller and less competitive. After another few years of losses at the polls, they'll grudgingly move to more moderate positions and be competitive again.

BIT! Take a remedial reading class dude. Really. Clearly I was deliberately presenting a BS argument to make a point.

Trouble is, so much of your output is BS, it's rather hard to tell when you're simply making a rhetorical point, versus when you're serious.

Rush is simply someone who was prone to addiction. His character has nothing to do with it. The man may be a saint, or he may be a scoundrel, it makes no difference. Addiction is no respecter of persons. Its no more a moral or character issue than getting cancer is.

The point you keep dancing around is that there is a major difference between how the two examples get addicted. You simply cannot put them in the same bin, as you attempted to earlier.

You only mention illegal drugs. It would seem that your notions about morality are defined by what is legal and what is not, as defined by the government...

No. I would consider them in moral either way. In fact, I propose to you that the reason that the law was created was a morality statement on the issue. Law and government are supposed to be the servants of the culture, not the other way around.

Way to keep the moral high ground.

Frankly, I for one am not worried about the lack of class. If he ever changed , that would worry me.

"Got rational thought?"

apparently not :)

Really? Was "Got Oxy"? one of the slogans of the revolution?

Way to keep the moral high ground.

Pal

Don't recall you saying "Got Weed, Got Coke" at all, and if you did I must have missed it. My apologies in advance of your proof.

Heroin gets used, first time, as a medical need? Or, Coke?

You only mention illegal drugs. It would seem that your notions about morality are defined by what is legal and what is not, as defined by the government...

Anybody you care for ever die because they smoked? Drank too much? At the funeral, did you stand up and tell everyone how they were "an addict by choice"?

Notice you ducked this one. Stick to your principals pal. If someone you love dies because they smoked or drank (or used heroin) be sure to point out their low morals at the funeral.

My comments about Rush were bracketed by:

"I could easily make an argument that Rush" and
"but it would be a bogus argument"

I will use smaller words so you can keep up.

Rush is simply someone who was prone to addiction. His character has nothing to do with it. The man may be a saint, or he may be a scoundrel, it makes no difference. Addiction is no respecter of persons. Its no more a moral or character issue than getting cancer is.

You do admit there's a moral difference between the two situations....yes or no?

none whatsoever...