Stanton's Blog

August 22, 2011

Invasion of the Recovery Body Snatchers, Pods Win

Ever see the 1956 Don Siegel cult classic, Invasion of the Body Snatchers, where hero Kevin McCarthy discovers pod people are taking over the identities of everyone in town -- including his girlfriend? (I hate when that happens.) I know this disclosure is obvious: when I saw the movie at age 10, I totally identifed with McCarthy (who died in 2010 at age 96).

The same thing is happening again, only for real, as illustrated on Sunday by NBC's The TODAY show. Today featured a segment on the growing phenomenon of on-campus Recovery Communities, where 18- to 22-year-olds declare themselves alcoholics, turn themselves over to recovery gurus, and vow forevermore to be alcoholic pods. They don't interact with the rest of the drunken student body (I personally didn't get drunk the entire time I was at college -- okay, I smoked a little pot), busy themselves in sober activities, and surround themselves with fellow recovery acolytes.

The amiable Lester Holt and two experts gushed about what a great thing this was -- that people are rushing to get help so young. The show made the point that we are finally coming to grips with youthful drinking by no longer concerning ourselves with how kids learn to drink, but only in making sure they, or a least problem drinkers, never drink at all. Prominently featured on the segment was a shot of AA's The Big Book, the only treatment resource referenced.

Where shall I begin?  How about with the recent announcement, based on the most comprehensive alcoholism survey ever conducted, at the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism's Web site titled: "Alcoholism Isn't What It Used to Be ":

The realization dawned gradually as researchers analyzed data from NIAAA’s 2001–2002 National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions (NESARC). In most persons affected, alcohol dependence (commonly known as alcoholism) looks less like Nicolas Cage in Leaving Las Vegas than it does your party-hardy college roommate or that hard-driving colleague in the next cubicle. [They should have asked me; I knew this all along.]

"We knew . . . that alcohol dependence is most prevalent among younger adults aged 18 to 29. . . . However, it was not until we examined the NESARC data that we pinpointed age 22 as the mean age of alcohol dependence onset [and we learned] that nearly half of people who become alcohol dependent do so by age 21 and two-thirds by age 25.". . .

Here are the outcomes, according to the NIAAA, for these (most often youthful) "alcoholics":

• About 70 percent of affected persons have a single episode of less than 4 years. The remainder experience an average of five episodes. . . .
• Twenty years after onset of alcohol dependence, about three-fourths of individuals are in full recovery; more than half of those who have fully recovered drink at low-risk levels without symptoms of alcohol dependence. . . .
• Only 13 percent of people with alcohol dependence ever receive specialty alcohol treatment.

Here are the data about how Americans who have ever been alcohol dependent drank during the prior year to the survey (remember -- this may be 20 or more years after diagnosis):

TREATED

Remain alcoholic: 28%

Abstain: 35%

Drink non-alcoholically: 36%

UNTREATED

Remain alcoholic: 24%

Abstain: 12%

Drink non-alcoholically: 64%

Let's summarize:

• A lot of young people develop drinking problems
• For a large majority, these are limited to their youth
• They overwhelmingly don't receive alcoholism treatment
• But they nonetheless outgrow the problem, even though most continue drinking
• Unless they receive treatment, when they are (a) much more likely to abstain
• (Although even as many of the treated drink nonalcoholically as abstain)
• Or else (b) remain alcoholic at slightly higher levels than the untreated

So, let's hear it for NBC and their stupid experts: they present a solution which the government's own alcoholism agency and research data not only say is ineffective, but actually prompts the same all-or-nothing attitude towards alcohol that got the kids in trouble in the first place!

(My colleague Ilse Thompson, proprietress of Stinkin-Thinkin , calls this the creation of replacement alcoholics. You know: The way cigarette companies encourage kids to become smoking addicts to replace the adults who quit.)

Oh, did you see the 1978 remake of Invasion, starring Donald Sutherland?

The pods win.

Aug. 23.  In order to prove my point exactly, this pod wrote in:

Seems to be a lack of understanding here
Submitted by Dorri Olds on August 23, 2011 - 3:17pm.

Alcoholism is a disease. That's why insurance companies pay for treatment. You better believe insurance companies wouldn't pay a dime if it was just some silly coming of age thing. There are so many teenage alcoholics/drug addicts and plenty in their 20s. It is a mental disorder. The way to get help is to admit there is a problem. Why on earth should it bother somebody else why a young person seeks help with drinking. People should be cheering them on, not mocking the help that is available to them.

September 2, 2011:  The pluperfect pod response

But this is much better. 

Beverly Haut bev@beverlyhaut.com to stanton Sep 1

I just ran across your website, and now I'm sitting here thinking to myself, "Who is this guy?" I've never heard of you, but you're obviously a big muckity-muck in your field, so okay. "Lack of humility" is my first impression.

Note first (in terms of humility) that Ms. Haut decided to crack into my cozy little world by writing to insult me at my personal e-mail address.  Why shouldn't she - she's entitled - she's in AA!  She starts out with the perfect pod-like posture: "Oh, I know you're supposed to be some big expert -- degrees, research, speeches -- that means s__t to me - I'm a pod!"

But here's the thing:  You're wrong. Competely and 100% wrong. At least about Alcoholics Anonymous. I see your words claiming thousands of people who have recovered from addiction without AA, without treatment, but I see no evidence to support your claim.

What National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism research with 43,000 Americans that announces "Alcoholism Isn't What It Used to Be"?  I can't be bothered to click into that link - I'm an AA pod!  What we say goes - why would I be interested in some massive research project - was the director of it in AA?

Baffled, I am, as I write this with 110 days of sobriety. I *had* nearly 23 years, but went 13 years without a meeting. I'm back, but it was a hard climb, and the path has changed for me.

HUH? She's baffled? The AA pod was in AA for two dozen years, left for a dozen (why was that?) and now counts (at the age 56 if she entered AA at 20) that she has a total of fewer than four months of sobriety?  And this compares how with the majority of youthful alcoholics who outgrow alcoholism completely?  Why wouldn't they all want to join her pod?

I run across about 1,000 people a month who are sober, living their lives sober, living happily, joyously and, yes, freely, and it's all because of AA and their willingness to work.

A thousand people a month?  We're back to that having left AA for a dozen years after two dozen in -- who'd you hang with in that period, Beverly?  Did you drink?  You mean two dozen years meeting a thousand people a month leading perfectly sober lives didn't persuade you to remain in AA?  Let's see -- 12 x 24 x 1000 = more than a quarter million perfectly content recovering alcoholics in AA -- and you were the only rotten apple in the bunch?

What do you have to offer? I'm genuinely curious.

Beverly -- you're genuinely curious? Now are you? The woman who can't read a page at the NIAAA Web site?  Here's what I'll do, Beverly -- you're so persuasive -- I'll review all my work -- all my books, and articles and posts just for you! Anything to win your approval.

Can I become a pod, like you, then, with 110 days of sobriety at the age of 55+?

A fate devoutly to be sought!

August 20, 2011

Another Case of Denial -- or AA Run Amok?

This post is a response to Common Themes in Addiction by Carl Alasko, Ph.D.

Most people exposed to AA, the 12 steps, and the concepts endorsed with such certitude by Dr. Alasko are (a) young (in their twenties or younger), (b) forced to undero the experience. This could be because they are experiencing denial which must be confronted. There is another possibility.

A typical AA story:

"I am 31 and live and work in Los Angeles. I never was an addict, dependent or dysfunctional, but I did like to drink and smoke pot in college. But I did something that wasn't very smart. I had a little too much to drink one night and made the unwise decision to drive home. I got a DUI. And my AA nightmare began.

"First, I had to go to these meetings where I had to say I was an alcoholic. When I refused, they said they were going to throw me out. I had to comply since I was under a court order, and the alternative was jail. This messed with my head from the start.

"Next, I smoked an occasional joint thinking that it wouldn't be detected in a drug test. I only had a few hits one day a week. But I tested positive, resulting in my being declared non-compliant.

"But that wasn't the worst part. The worst part was that everyone in the system immediately 'knew' that I was caught up in a 'serious illness.' You know the drill. I had a disease. I was powerless. I was in denial. More AA meetings. Endless AA meetings.

"These places were so depressing and the people were so consumed with themselves that it DID finally make me depressed. My sponsor was a woman who had been hospitalized for mental illness and had issues with social services around her children. I thought, 'You have got to be kidding if you think this person is going to help me with anything!'

"On top of all of this, the guys at these meetings use them primarily as an opportunity to hit on women. There's nothing or no one to stop them. Those women who really did have such bad problems that they fell for these losers' lines really experienced a hell on earth, like they were always warning us that our drinking would create. Add to this all the smoking and coffee drinking and crazy talk, and I started thinking -- 'I NEED to start drinking and drugging to endure this craziness!' And, remember, I was young and had to figure out what was going on for myself.

"I personally relate to Lindsay Lohan. I see a girl who leaves a club like millions do every night and decides to drive with TMZ cameras following her. She is young and makes some stupid decisions (like I and countless others have). But the real trouble started for Lindsay AFTER she was forced into rehab and AA.

"Next, Dr. Drew is broadcasting all over the place about her biological brain disease.

"I got through it all, but I have been reading about the addiction industry ever since. I first came across your name about four years ago. You say the exact opposite of Dr. Drew. Without trying to be too cynical, I think the media promote these ideas because people love hearing about celebrities, and if famous people are messed up and have a disease, that explains their own problems.

"So, that's where I am today. Curious and trying to educate myself."

Oh, you hadn't heard this kind of story from an AA alum before? I wonder if anyone else has had experiences like this one? Actually, they are more common than the rah-rah AA experiences we typically hear.

August 18, 2011

The End of Religion? Been to America Lately?

This post is a response to Why Atheism Will Replace Religion by Nigel Barber, Ph.D.

Nigel Barber has declared the end of religion based on the trend for better-educated people and richer nations to eschew religious doctrine in favor of atheism.

Has Barber been to America lately?

In case you hadn't noticed, America is now being led around by the Tea Party, who insist that no increase in revenues be used to address America's ballooning debt.  N-O = NO!

Did you catch the Republican debate in Iowa?  Remember the part where all eight candidates raised their hands to agree they would reject a resolution of the debt situation that called for ANY increase in revenues, even if the ratio of income-raising to spending-reduction was 1:10?

That's the Tea Party's position, one that has made it impossible for America realistically to address its swooning economy and plummeting economic status in the world. But why worry about economics?  The Tea Party has God on their side.

A new study reveals that God (the Christian one) is the most important element in the Tea Party make-up.  Based on an ongoing study whose 3,000 subjects were recruited prior to the advent of the Party, researchers David Campbell and Robert Putnam determined that -- aside from Republican affiliation -- the strongest predictor of who became a Tea Party member was a person's desire to mix religion in politcs.

Enter, center stage, Rick Perry.  Perry has been elected three times as governor of Texas, the second largest (and the fastest growing) state in the union.  He is now a front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination.

Perry believes in God.  Does he ever.  Just before entering the presidential race, Perry led a large faith rally in Houston where people cried out to Jesus.  Perry's invitation read: "As an elected leader, I'm all too aware of government's limitations when it comes to fixing things that are spiritual in nature.  That's where prayer comes in and we need it more than ever."

Perry regularly calls on God to solve earthly problems.  His most notable previous effort was invoking God's name to end the long drought which is suffocating Texas. In April Perry announced "Days of Prayer for Rain ."  At the time of the prayer days, "forecasters called for a 20 to 30 percent chance of rain." Unfortunately it didn't rain, and "in the four months since Perry’s request for divine intervention, his state has taken a dramatic turn for the worse.  Nearly all of Texas is now in 'extreme or exceptional' drought."

Damn -- the Devil is winning!  But Perry -- as indicated by his recent prayer rally -- is not in the least discouraged.  What, is he supposed to rely on science?  Perry regards global warming as "a scientific theory that has not been proved."  Campaigning in New Hamphsire, located in the most liberal section of the country, Perry fairly spit out his contempt for climate researchers: "I think there are a substantial number of scientists who have manipulated data so that they will have dollars rolling into their projects." 

Today in New Hampshire, Perry described evolution as "a theory that’s out there and it’s got some gaps in it. In Texas, we teach both creationism and evolution in our public schools.”  Thank God!

The next American President in the 21st Century may be the first, so far as I can tell, to embrace creationism since the beginning of the last century!

Come to think, weren't the last two Presidents both born-again Christians (even if they weren't as stupid as Perry)?

And, oh -- did I mention that one of the two other leading Republican contenders is Michele Bachmann, a Christian fundamentalist who shares all of Perry's views while specializing herself in gay-bashing on biblical grounds?  (Of course, the third is a devout Christian also -- although he doesn't talk too much about it, because, well -- read this.)

So, Dr. Barber, what do you make of these United States, the wealthiest and most powerful country in the world still, in light of your theory?

August 5, 2011

Lovers Who Kill Themselves

Last Thursday Rush Limbaugh spent a good half hour of his radio show lambasting me -- including my view that love can be addictive.  Certainly, he didn't accept the idea that love has the worst withdrawal symptoms. (Of course, he was motivated to do so by my position that the Tea Party expresses magical thinking and addictive urges, which I presented on MSNBC's Martin Bashir Show .)

But it was interesting that Rush's main point of departure was my love addiction concept.  I am more likely to be attacked for my view that addiction isn't a disease.  One might wonder about Rush's own romantic history in this regard -- he was married for the fourth time last year.

But, in any case, were I to talk to Rush, I'd point out that, when queried about why they stay with abusive spouses, women overwhelmingly claim to "love" the man. I'd say that intimate relationships are the predominant "causes" of violence and abuse, murder, and suicide, for both teens and adults.

I would describe how the dynamics of addiction apply in such relationships.  A person is locked into a relationship with a person out of a feeling of need -- of desperation at the prospect of leaving a partner -- even though their connection leads, periodically or predictably, to violence and pain.  As with substance addictions, the reassuring predictability of the thing guarantees its continuation even as it results in negative -- sometimes life-threatening -- outcomes.

There are several kinds of addictive love. On the one hand is the aforementioned "put-up-with-pain-because-I'm-in-love" variety, which can lead to injury and, more than any other type of addiction, death. On the other hand there is the "clutch-onto-each-other-like-we're-sinking" variety. And -- although the latter often appears more fuzzy and appealing -- its result can be equally fatal.

As an illustration of that process, I would use the case of Romeo and Juliet.  Do remember that Romeo and Juliet were two youngsters, each of whom committed suicide -- they weren't murdered or executed by hostile external forces.  Shakespeare is not inclined to have people kill themselves without reflecting on their characteristics leading to this denouement.

At the end of the day, I reflected on Rush's bashing me to millions of people at my favorite place on earth -- Rockaway Beach, New York.

And my mind wondered to the suicide-drowning there some years earlier of Jeremy Blake, a rising star in the art world, after he found his beautiful and talented partner, Theresa Duncan, dead in their apartment from an intentional drug overdose (she left a suicide note).  According to the LA Times , "The couple [were] extremely devoted and still very much in love after 12 years."

Don't get me wrong -- I have no quick "love is addictive" answer to explain this joint suicide, which involved many layers (including Duncan's career tailspin and encroaching mental illness).  But it certainly had a "Love and Addiction" aura about it.  According to the LAT, "In the days since their deaths, a clearer picture has emerged of a couple bound very tightly but suspicious of outsiders and increasingly losing touch with reality."  As I and Archie Brodsky said in Love and Addiction :

As with heroin and its irrecoverable euphoria, or cigarettes smoked in routine excess, something initially sought for pleasure is held more tightly after it ceases to provide enjoyment. Now it is being maintained for negative rather than positive reasons. The love partner must be there in order to satisfy a deep, aching need, or else the addict begins to feel withdrawal pain. His emotional security is so dependent on this other individual around whom he has organized his life, that to be deprived of the lover would be an utter shock to the system of his existence. For as with heroin and other addictions, it is traumatic for addict lovers to re-enter the broader world with which they have lost touch.

But Rush -- for someone who has been divorced three times -- seems (might one say willfully?) prepared to ignore that love does not always end well, and can be compulsive and have very bad outcomes, from tears, to violence, to death.

July 31, 2011

Values and Addiction: Gawker Says Leave Drunken Mayor Alone!

No pictures available of fight and sexual
harassment

Gawker -- the model of a youth-oriented, on-line publication (my daughter interned with them) -- posted this : "Mayor Won't Resign After Public Bender," by Lauri Apple.  The Mayor of Sheboygan, WI -- Bob Ryan -- went on a public drunken spree.  It lasted three days, he got in a fight, and he passed out in a grungy bar.  (That's the Mayor in the picture.)

What next?

The city council called for his resignation.

The Mayor refused:

"I'm not proud of it," he says. "That's not me, but that's the alcoholic within me." He's working with counselors, psychologists, and doctors, attending group meetings, and - in light of his latest stumble - says he's enrolling in an intensive outpatient program to supplement all those other sobriety-promoting activities.

(See my last post about how less-then-effective our most popular go-to therapies are.)

What is Gawker's editorial position (remembering that it expresses the cutting edge in youth outlook)?

And so this case pretty much exemplifies everything that's wrong with politics today (emphasis added): You've got a mayor who's being honest about his personal failings, and who's therefore being shamed and punished for it.

 Although, Laurie, he got honest after his public debacle, right?

Alcoholism tends to involve embarrassing behavior; it clearly does in Ryan's case. So I'm sorry but yes, you are trying to remove the mayor for his alcoholism (emphasis added).

That clearly won't do!

Let's shift to a Socratic method here.   Several other things uncontrolled drunkenness involve are violence and sexual misconduct, both often involving family members. 

This is not an abstraction.  Remember, the mayor got in a brawl when he was drunk.  (Do you count that as embarrassing behavior, Lauri?)

Socratic question I: What if the guy he fought was blinded in the fight?  Okay with that?

The victims of drunken violence are most often family members.

Socratic question II: What if he beat his wife or children when he was drunk, Lauri? Chalk that up to the disease?

As for the sexual misconduct, including family members, that's also not an abstraction.  Ms. Apple reports in her post:

In addition to the bender, Ryan's other displays of alleged bad behavior include making some sort of sex-comment about a relative and being accused of sexual harassment by a former female employee. So dude's got some behavioral problems.

Socratic question III: Lauri, what if he sexually molested his daughter, or raped his wife when he was drunk.  Okay there?

Given her low opinion of politicians in general, perhaps Ms. Apple doesn't think the Mayor's job requires that much sober time.

Socratic question IV: Would you feel any dfferently about the person continuing at his job if he were a surgeon, a teacher, a judge, a cop, a minister, the President? [All right - I know the President is a politician.  Speaking of which, wouldn't a U.S. Senator who got publicly drunk for three days and punched out a constituent have to resign? Does this, "It's-all-right-I'm-an-alcoholic" thing only work for municipal politicians?]

Ms. Apple has an addendum describing another drunken Wisconsin Mayor story, which is quite similar, but which most people are less sympathetic towards:

In Marinette, Wisconsin, city officials are trying to oust their mayor, Robert Harbick, following a July 2 incident in which Harbick crashed into a light pole while driving drunk.

Socratic question V: Lauri, you didn't give an editorial position on this one -- okay with this DWI mayor staying in office?  What if he killed a child while driving drunk -- any problem there?

This last is not an abstraction to me.  I testified for the prosecution in a case where a prominent AA member got drunk, crossed a medial strip in his car, and killed a woman driving the other way (it was the morning).

Socratic question VI: Lauri, okay for a guy like this to hold public office?

In fact, the man was convicted of manslaughter (maximum term eight years).  It turned out that he had set out that day driving from bar to bar.

Socratic question VII:  Would you have voted to acquit, Lauri (his defense was EXACTLY the one you outline) and does his conviction exemplify for you everything that's wrong with juries today?

The police told me, off the record, that they had been called to this man's home several times due to domestic violence (which was not admissable as evidence).  His wife sat dutifully at the man's trial with their baby on her lap.

Socratic question VIII: Any problem with this picture Lauri?

My questions indicate I disapprove of Lauri's position. But I think she is 100 percent indicative of where we are headed.  Who could possibly fault the Mayor?  That's what Lauri learned in school.

Another question, Laurie:

Socratic question IX:  Do you believe values affect people's likelihood of engaging in addictive behavior, and do you have a problem with pregnant addicted women getting drunk, smoking, or taking drugs?

Laurie, I do believe values critically influence addiction .  Here's one reason why.  Pregnancy (and parenthood) is statistically the single largest prompt to people's quitting addictions.  Many addicted people simply say, "I'm not going to subject my child to this." 

Last set of questions:

Socratic question X:  I know addicted women who have quit heroin, alcohol, smoking when they became pregnant -- do you know any women like this?  Why do you think they were able to quit successfully? Do you think the attitudes underlying your piece are consistent with, or run counter to, the ability these women displayed?

July 27, 2011

Topsy Turvy - the Death of Jeret Peterson

This post is a response to Who's Responsible for Amy's Death? by Stanton Peele

While mental health professionals like to claim they are the last, best hope for the tormented and addicted, as the recent examples of Amy Winehouse and Olympic aerial skier Jeret Peterson indicate, they may instead signal that people have entered the last stages of despair, disillusionment, and hopelessness.

Once again, we see how puny our leading therapies are (assuming the well-off and the well-known have access to the best we have to offer).  Hard on the death of Amy Winehouse -- fresh out of rehab -- we have the suicide of American Olympic skier Jeret Peterson, at the age of 29.

Peterson had both a troubled background, and he was in a high risk sport, enough to convict him to a life of emotional trouble, if you believe some theories.

I oppose those theories.

But Jeret had certainly been exposed to them.

When he was 5, his sister was killed by a drunken driver. In 2003, he disclosed that he was the victim of sexual abuse as a child. In 2005, a friend committed suicide in front of him.

I may be misunderstanding best-selling addiction theorist Gabor Mate -- whom I know many people respect, even worship -- but I believe he indicates such experiences set a person reeling through life, often leading to addiction and much else.

Sent home by American authorities after a drunken escapade following his appearance at the 2006 Olympics in Turin, Jeret quit drinking.  In a 2008 interview , Peterson said: "I had to (quit). I was headed down the wrong path and I just needed to kind of pull back the reins and say, 'What am I doing with my life?' Am I going to look back in 20 years and be proud? At that point, my answer was no."

Prior to his suicide, Peterson got into another drunken altercation and was also cited for drunk driving.

You can see him feeling he had betrayed himself and others.

But all of this was not due to his lack of treatment -- he had been in counseling for depression for a long time, as he revealed in the same interview where he discussed abstaining from alcohol.

How many times have we been told that people -- men in particular -- are hurt by their inability to own up to their depressed feelings, and that acknowledging these could save them?

It didn't help Jeret.

We love to pat ourselves on the back in the mental health professions -- "If only people turned to us for help, they'd be fine," we so often intone.

After Amy Winehouse's death, comedian Russell Brand wrote this letter , invariably referred to as moving:

When you love someone who suffers from the disease of addiction you await the phone call. There will be a phone call. The sincere hope is that the call will be from the addict themselves, telling you they've had enough, that they're ready to stop, ready to try something new. Of course though, you fear the other call, the sad nocturnal chime from a friend or relative telling you it's too late, she's gone.

But what does Brand's message say about Winehouse's only recently having completed substance treatment?  Hadn't she made the "really wanting to change" call, and quite recently?

Unfortunately, those aren't two mutually exclusive phone calls, Russell -- the "I want help and am entering treatment" call and the "we are sorry to inform you" one. Judging from recent history, they co-occur all the time.

July 26, 2011

The Ballad of Barry and Johnny: True Love Gone Bad

News item : Obama and Boehner offered dueling speeches on the deficit Monday night.

Damn, he's cool

Johnny and Barry had been eyeing each other across the lunchroom since the beginning of the semester.  They sat with entirely different crowds.  Johnny was with the jock bunch -- smartly dressed, wisenheimers, smokers. Barry sat with the intellectual, bound-for-the-Ivy-League group. (Come to think of it, Barry smoked too. A laid-back, cool kind of smoker.)

And never the twain shall meet.

Like Romeo and Juliet.

Then, one day, Barry sauntered over to Johnny's table. His buddies first elbowed each other as Barry approached; then they stared down at their lunches (they bought hot -- Barry's mom packed him some kind of sprouts on tofu).

"Want to go to a movie sometime?" Barry asked casually.

"Sure, why not?" Johnny responded, equally coolly.

Next thing you know, they were going at it hot and heavy. Necking behind the field house.  Holding hands in the hallway.  Eating lunch at their own separate table -- laughing, gossiping, touching.  (But we didn't think they went all the way.)

Came prom time, and everyone figured they'd go together.  Barry bought two tickets.  When anyone asked Johnny who he was going with, he just smiled and puffed on his cig.

And -- then -- disaster.  Johnny was heard asking around his locker if anyone needed a prom date.  With nary a word, Barry returned to the "brain table."

What went wrong?  The rumors were that Barry never introduced Johnny to his friends (how would that have gone?) -- didn't think he was smart enough.

For his part, Johnny bowed to peer pressure.  He was smoking with the boys behind the field house (yup, the same one where he used to canoodle with Barry), and they were ragging him something fierce -- "Johnny and Barry, sitting in a tree. . ."  You know how boys are together!  Johnny just turned on his heel and walked off in a huff.

:-)

Afterwards, no more lunchtime liaisons.

Of course, each one tried to control the spin. "I just got tired of his smarter-than-thou attitude -- and did you ever notice how weird his friends are?" Johnny told anyone who'd listen.

For his part, Barry never missed a beat.  Couldn't tell that anything was amiss in his neat little world.  It wasn't so much that he put Johnny down, as that he smiled and nodded at him in the corridors as though they were former chess partners.

Barry and Johnny during the good times

What would ever have happened if they actually would have made it to the prom together -- pinned on their corsages, danced together in the moonlight, went -- ahem -- somewhere after the dance?

But it wasn't to be.  Too wide a gap to overcome.  A good tan and cool can take you just so far together.

July 23, 2011

Who's Responsible for Amy's Death?

The writer of the song "Rehab" -- with the lyric, "They tried to make me go to rehab, I said 'No, no, no,'" -- has died at age 27 .  And, although a senior London police officer has urged the media not to speculate over the cause of her death (which is very wise), almost everyone assumes it is substance related.

So, was Amy's dislike for rehab the cause of her death?  Not only an addict, Ms. Winehouse was too stupid or too much in denial, in this view, to recognize rehab or a 12-step group would be her salvation.

Except Ms. Winehouse had been in rehab any number of times.  In fact, she had just gotten out.  According to the BBC: "She had recently finished a course of alcohol rehabilitation in London and at the time was under strict instructions not to drink."

Which reminds us that overdose deaths are much more likely after individuals leave institutions such as prisons or hospitals. They then return to accustomed levels of consumption of a substance after having lost their tolerance for it.

This story also reminds me that Ruth Fowler has recently revisited the vehicular homicides caused by Audrey Kishline, founder of Moderation Management. This incident occurred over a decade ago, in 2000.  (Ruth has the gift of treating familiar issues as though nothing were known about them other than what she decided when she got out of bed that morning.) Ruth's piece -- in the ever-reliable The Fix -- leans towards the interpretation that Kishline's behavior was due to her efforts to moderate her drinking.

But, in fact, Kishline was going to her car to down massive amounts of alcohol out of sight of prying eyes.  And this may have been related to Audrey's recent attendance at AA -- which she had announced over the MM list. Even Bill O'Reilly was able to cotton to this information when O'Reilly interviewed me.

It is tempting to ponder that, having no permission in AA to drink, Kishline was driven to all-out excess when she did drink. Only, now, she had no support group for drinking with caution, only people who had told her (like Winehouse was told), "DO NOT DRINK."  And, so, failsafe policies (called harm reduction ) -- such as, "You need to hold my car keys" or "I will be using/drinking and I need someone there to keep me safe" -- were not put in place.

Relapse is sad, but can be reversed.  Death is forever.

Of course, neither AA nor MM was responsible for Audrey's drunk-driving.

And there is no one left to blame for Amy's death.  Because the person in charge of her life is nowhere to be found.

It's a damn shame.

Addendum: August 23.  Amy's parents revealed that the toxicology report on their daughter showed that she had no drugs in her system, but had consumed alcohol.  I regularly hear that Winehouse died from alcohol withdrawal, which (a) makes no sense, (b) is inconsistent with the data.  She withdrew from alcohol in rehab, presumably under medical supervision.  And she wasn't withdrawing from alcohol at the time of her death -- she was drinking.  She either exceeded her tolerance level after abstaining through treatment, or else she had some other drinking mishap (if she had trouble breathing, drinking can further suprress oxygen inhalation).  In either case, treatment did not prepare her for the eventualities she experienced.

July 22, 2011

America Is Sinking: Told You So

This post is a response to America Is Already Gone by Stanton Peele

Last December, I pointed out that America has entered an irreversible decline -- a rather steep one -- and nothing we are doing can reverse it.

I cited five primary indicators-disaster areas. All have gotten worse because emergency measures being debated and negotiated in Washington can't afford to address any of these pressing needs.

1. Infrastructure deterioration. There is $2-3 trillion dollar backlog in the repair and upkeep of American bridges, sewer and water systems, highways, public transportation, airports, etc. These will only continue to get worse. Although we are not in danger of replicating the situations in developing nations, we are being far outstripped by our major world economic competitors in these areas (think Chinese trains). The President has half-heartedly proposed a National Infrastucture Bank to address these problems. The idea is going nowhere.

2. States are going down the tubes. It is amusing to watch someone like New Jersey's Chris Christie rise to national prominence by addressing his state's financial quagmire (I live in New Jersey), only to plummet in state polls. Being a governor is not a path to popularity and political success. They are presiding over their states' largest depreciations in budgets and resources in our history as federal stimulus money expires, no economic recovery looms, state pension obligations come due, and states take on current public employees (including teachers and police) to limit future obligations to state workers. This NY Times headline gives a good flavor for the situation governors face: "No Matter How Debt Debate Ends, Governors See More Cuts for States."

3. Public education is failing. Public services must decline along with decimated state and local budgets. Thus, despite incessant noise about the need to upgrade education in the United States, there is a steady, inexorable erosion of public education . All the famous proposals -- Race to the Top, charter schools, etc. -- are eyewash, as large-scale cheating has been revealed in the Atlanta public school system under its national-award-winning superintendent (and many more such scandals will follow), and as charter schools prove no more exempt from students' troubled backgrounds and family deficiencies than standard schools.

4. Entitlements. What America (and Europe) are struggling to "accomplish" is to pass along the excesses of baby boomers and the costs of their continuing care and entitlements to future generations. The Times' Thomas Friedman labels this "The Clash of the Generations : The generation that came of age in the last 50 years, my generation, will be remembered most for the incredible bounty and freedom it received from its parents and the incredible debt burden and constraints it left on its kids." As the AARP (to which I belong) and other senior lobbying groups fight tooth and nail any revisions of current Medicare and Social Security, the proposed changes simply mean later retirement ages, greater contributions, and fewer benefits for younger people -- all of which are inevitable.

5. Health care inflation. This major source of America's econmic decline both underlies, and extends far beyond, the coming Medicare crisis. All economists know what it is -- but it can't be spoken. So, at the same time that Times conservative columnist David Brooks applauded the possible rapprochement between the Speaker of the House and the President on the debt ceiling (oops on that!), Brooks announced: "We won’t fundamentally address the debt until we control health care inflation." Which we will never do because (a) conservatives insanely propose continuing a privately funded free-market health care system, (b) a legion of powerful interest groups (AARP, insurers, pharmaceuticals) resist all efforts to deinflate health care, and, most important of all (c) Americans won't hear of restricting our everyone-gets-to-have-everything approach to health care.

I call this "addiction to health care." As Brooks writes :

The fiscal crisis is driven largely by health care costs. We have the illusion that in spending so much on health care we are radically improving the quality of our lives. We have the illusion that through advances in medical research we are in the process of eradicating deadly diseases. We have the barely suppressed hope that someday all this spending and innovation will produce something close to immortality.

But that's not actually what we are buying. As Daniel Callahan and Sherwin B. Nuland point out in an essay in The New Republic called "The Quagmire," our health care spending and innovation are not leading us toward a limitless extension of a good life.

NOTHING being discussed addresses this; we are doomed.