|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
The Bobster
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
 Posted: Tue Oct 04, 2005 4:37 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| By all accounts he stopped drinking when he was 40. This would imply that he faced whatever problems "exist in his psyche" |
Actually, it implies nothing of the sort. There is no correspondence between chronological age and the kind of psycho-spiritual growth required to meet the underlying life challenges and contradictions that are evidenced by an addiction problem. A lot of people make the mistake of thinking that an alcoholic who doesn't drink is "cured." Evidence of a true cure can be found on those individuals who are able to drink or not drink at any particular moment, and then stop again merely because they no longer desire the moment of escape that drink affords them.
Frankly, many of George's actions, spoken utterances and goals that are evidenced in his career as governor and later in the White House betray a man who is being controlled by certain essential contradictions in his interior being. There is the Manichean worldview of good/evil morality that epitomizes his approach to foreign policy : "you are either with us or with the terrorists ..." (A rational human knows the world exists in shades of grey that brighten or lessen continually in intensity, not a fixed-pole North-South dichotomy as found in a physics text about magnetic fields.)
But then, what do I know about what goes on in the secret mind of this man? Not much, very likely, and not much more than you - your comment about the age he stopped drinking betrays the vastness of what you are not aware on this subject.
| Quote: |
| You know, I think you are right. OBL is probably just a figment of our collective imagination. |
Um, never said that, but what the hell. We do know that he has never been found. Odd, that, him being the most hunted man on the Planet Earth ...
| Quote: |
| Regardless that was not his response and you know it as well as I do. Afghanistan refused to hand over OBL and his crew and that's why America went to war with them. Had they given OBL up, it is likely the Taliban would still be in power today. |
You say that as if it would be a good thing. Very strange. A lot of us were very much opposed to the Taliban way back in the Clinton years and previous in Bush I's reign. They denied the freedom of parents to teach their daughters to read - something a little important to someone such as myself who teaches kids for a living - but were instead praised for finally being able to eliminate the agriculture of poppy flowers ... the War on Drugs, far more important than the War on Human Illiteracy, it seems.
EFLtrainer:
| Quote: |
| Changing behavior can be done without changing underlying causes. However, personality is considered to be relatively permanent thing so behavior can be changed but it will not likely last if the underlying causes aren't dealt with. Even then, vigilance is required. Anyone put into highly stressful conditions is much more likely to backslide. Bush doing this? Not likely. |
What I was getting at before. Most people see the drink and see the disease. It is only the symptom. The behavior is what the world outside of the person in question is most concerned about, and as long as the behaviors conform to what the world outside wishes to see, then no problem is perceived. It does not mean that the individual has done the necessary work to confront the issues that create the faultlines in the soul, and so the kind of growth that is required (that is indicated by the addiction) is inevitably thwarted.
Piaget tells us that learning happens by means of a series of plateaus, and before stepping up to the next one, there is a period of discomfort - that discomfort is necessary, a prod to the individual to do the work required by the learning process. Addiction is a very extreme case of that kind of discomfort, and if the work that is necessary is side-stepped and the presenting behavior is the only thing that is considered worthy of change, then the individual does not move forward to the next plateau.
Bush quit drinking at a certain time in his life. He did not enter a 12-step or any other kind of program to examine what it was that going on in the inside of his head thatg made him behvae in the ways he was behaving, nor did he seek any kind of counseling of advice from a professional aside from perhaps one or two lengthy (or brief) chats with Billy Graham. He jst stopped drinking, that's all. Myself, I do think he is haunted by demons, as the phrase goes - a lot of us are, life does that and few alive escape it (though the sumptooms are not always an addictive substance), but a lot of us don't have a guy following us around with the nuclear footbal and access to launch codes ... and most of us do not want such a job.
But again, what do I know about what goes on in someone else's head? I can't even figure out Joo Rhipp Gwa Rhee ...  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 05, 2005 4:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
EDIT double post
Last edited by TheUrbanMyth on Wed Oct 05, 2005 5:03 am; edited 3 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 05, 2005 4:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The Bobster wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| By all accounts he stopped drinking when he was 40. This would imply that he faced whatever problems "exist in his psyche" |
(1) Actually, it implies nothing of the sort. There is no correspondence between chronological age and the kind of psycho-spiritual growth required to meet the underlying life challenges and contradictions that are evidenced by an addiction problem. A lot of people make the mistake of thinking that an alcoholic who doesn't drink is "cured." Evidence of a true cure can be found on those individuals who are able to drink or not drink at any particular moment, and then stop again merely because they no longer desire the moment of escape that drink affords them.
Frankly, many of George's actions, spoken utterances and goals that are evidenced in his career as governor and later in the White House betray a man who is being controlled by certain essential contradictions in his interior being. There is the Manichean worldview of good/evil morality that epitomizes his approach to foreign policy : "you are either with us or with the terrorists ..." (A rational human knows the world exists in shades of grey that brighten or lessen continually in intensity, not a fixed-pole North-South dichotomy as found in a physics text about magnetic fields.)
But then, what do I know about what goes on in the secret mind of this man? Not much, very likely, and not much more than you - your comment about the age he stopped drinking betrays the vastness of what you are not aware on this subject.
| Quote: |
| You know, I think you are right. OBL is probably just a figment of our collective imagination. |
(2) Um, never said that, but what the hell. We do know that he has never been found. Odd, that, him being the most hunted man on the Planet Earth ...
| Quote: |
| Regardless that was not his response and you know it as well as I do. Afghanistan refused to hand over OBL and his crew and that's why America went to war with them. Had they given OBL up, it is likely the Taliban would still be in power today. |
(3) You say that as if it would be a good thing. Very strange. A lot of us were very much opposed to the Taliban way back in the Clinton years and previous in Bush I's reign. They denied the freedom of parents to teach their daughters to read - something a little important to someone such as myself who teaches kids for a living - but were instead praised for finally being able to eliminate the agriculture of poppy flowers ... the War on Drugs, far more important than the War on Human Illiteracy, it seems....
[b: |
(numbers are mine)
1. I didn't say chronological age had anything to do with why he stopped drinking. That was merely his age when he stopped. As for facing his 'demons' he had to do that without the aid of drink. You said and I quote "Alcoholism is not a disease, in itslef.It's a symptom of an individual trying to solve life problems...". So if he was using alcohol to solve "...problems that exist within his psyche.." and then stopped, wouldn't that imply he faced up to said problems? If he didn't what would he have used as a crutch? That's how I see it. But again none of us know what really went on in his mind. But he's been (by all accounts) 'dry' for a good long time.
2. Strange isn't it? But your comment about "muslim ass that MIGHT have been involved in this.." (Capitals are mine) didn't really make sense. OBL and his cronies were guilty and should have been handed over. By sheltering them, the Taliban became responsible too.
3. Seeing as how I supported the war in Afghanistan, I suppose that would be odd. No, I was merely noting that the Taliban could have likely saved their hides by giving OBL up. That is why America went to war with them after all. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Bobster
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 05, 2005 9:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
Your post offers nothing much for me to comment on, except that we agree on a few things, though you might like to think we do not.
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| didn't say chronological age had anything to do with why he stopped drinking. That was merely his age when he stopped. As for facing his 'demons' he had to do that without the aid of drink. |
Excuse me, but it sure did look like you were saying that.
Assuming the man has demons (and I've asserted that most of us do, it's part of what makes us human, a very lagre part of what makes a figure like Lincoln mythical before our eyes - and yes, you do percieve The Bobster to exhibit phyiscal signs of shudders at the thought of putting Lincoln in the same sentence as Bush) you have asserted nothing to suggest that merely quitting an addiction amounts to facing the essential contradictions in his soul, contradictions which all humans must face in order to be whole.
| Quote: |
| You said and I quote "Alcoholism is not a disease, in itslef.It's a symptom of an individual trying to solve life problems...". So if he was using alcohol to solve "...problems that exist within his psyche.." and then stopped, wouldn't that imply he faced up to said problems? |
That's a little like asking a vegetarian who needs ot work at a slaughterhouse if the aspirin he takes for his headaches is sufficient to get rid of the daily headaches and tremors in his hands. The aspirin will do what it can, but the next day, there are more headaches and the hands still shake, and why? Because he is still holding that great big hammer and slamming it into the heads of animals with large brown eyes brimming with kindness, and the contradiction between who he is and who the man is who participates in that action create a severe and strenuous shakedown that no little white pill by itself can put down on the canvass long enough for a ref to come along and ring the 10-second bell.
Alcohol is a pain reliever, and this is not news. Not so long ago, well-meaning parents used to dab a little whiskey on their finger and run in on the gums of their children crying at night from the pain of new teeth emerging in their mouths. This is a physical effect observable in the real world, i.e., the children stopped cryiing and fell asleep, and then the house was a peaceful place again. In just the same way, when people observe that drinking too much alcohol is causing pain in a person's life, they suggest that taking away the drink will take away the pain ... the drink just covered up some pain, and quitting the drink covered up the pain caused by the drink, and yet ... goddamn, the pain is still there, underneath it all.
Pain has a message, and when we become wise, we start to listen to the messages that come to us rather than concentrating all our energies on sending out messages of our own that onlyh seek to eliminate the pain and therby stopping us from hearing the message.
Again, did Geo Dubya do the work to sit down and listen to what those messages were trying to tell him? The evidence suggests elsewise, and most people I have met who have been through some pattern of addiction needed a lot more than an hour's stroll though a garden with Billy Graham to tell them where the pain was and what that pain was saying to them.
| Quote: |
| If he didn't what would he have used as a crutch? That's how I see it. But again none of us know what really went on in his mind. But he's been (by all accounts) 'dry' for a good long time. |
I have no idea if he's had secret drink from time to time, and I don't care, much as I don't care whether Laura is giving him enough head to keep him away from the interns - I seem to recall that the Republican rightwing was so very concerned about the "sancity of family" that they had no trouble dragging the recent president through all sorts of slime in that regard, though ... the kind of slime that almost certainly caused damage to thaty particualr family. (So much for the actual concern of the sanctity of family that comes from such people who espuse it.)
Your question is worth a response, though - and I won't psychoanalyze him in my answer, though I doubt very well understand what I say any more than you have understood anything so far. In short, relilgion is often a "crutch" for people who have tried to overcome the pain of being released from an addiction but who have not looked deeply enough into themselves to see where the real problems are - and this man has heralded in the single most religious-centered political administration in our country's history - and I say that not only about his references to Global War on Terror in terms of a"Crusade" but also a lot of his domestic policy : faith-based "initiatives," his opposition to the right of choice for for women and of the right s of gay people to enjoy the same legal rights afforded by marriage as anyone else - and his recent endorsement of "Intelligent Design" theology ... excuse me, but is there anyone else on the planet LESS qualified to speak of something that begins with the words "Intelligent?"
Okay, it's a cheap shot, and I admit it at the moment I lob it - but go ahead and try to show it's not accurate ...
Strange isn't it? But your comment about "muslim ass that MIGHT have been involved in this.." (Capitals are mine) didn't really make sense. OBL and his cronies were guilty and should have been handed over. By sheltering them, the Taliban became responsible too.[/quote]
I recall the few years prior to 9/11, and you know what? I never heard a mainstream or conservative source say a bad thing about the Taliban. I heard a lot accolades about how they were instrumental in bringing the Evil Empire of the Soviets to their knees, and that they destroyed hashish as a cash crop in the countryside. Those were good enough for the op-ed pages, but only a few voices spoke up and said, "You know, they outlawed teaching little girls to read, andmaybe that;s bot such a good thing to applaud ..." (Clue : That was NPR, not the National Review.)
As for OBL, I ask again - where IS he, and why has this very old man who suffers from diabetes and cannot live a week without dialysis, a man for whom all the world seems to be looking - why has he not been found and confronted with his crimes?
Could it be that he is more useful as an enemy than he would be as a prisoner?
| Quote: |
| No, I was merely noting that the Taliban could have likely saved their hides by giving OBL up. That is why America went to war with them after all. |
Afghanistan was a stepping-stone to Iraq. The Dubya was looking for a reason from the moment he took office - and Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11. though he USED that in the most cynical fashion any of us could imagine - you would think the surviving families of the World Trade Center would be his most vocal supporters, but they have been among the harshest critcs of the Iraq Adventure. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 06, 2005 8:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Bush: War an 'excuse'
Bush said the war has not caused hatred of the United States among radical Muslims or global terror attacks, but rather is an "excuse" to further the goal of creating an Islamic state across the Mideast. |
Bush is an idiot.
"The militants believe that controlling one country will rally the Muslim masses, enabling them to overthrow all moderate governments in the region and establish a radical Islamic empire that spans from Spain to Indonesia," Bush said.
| Quote: |
"The hatred of the radicals existed before Iraq was an issue," Bush said. "And it will exist after Iraq is no longer an excuse."
"No act of ours invited the rage of the killers, and no conscience, bribe or act of appeasement will change or limit their plans for murder." (Watch Bush describe radicals in the war on terrorism -- 8:24) |
Bush is an idiot. Hatred existed, sure, but did all the hatred we see now exist? Absolutely not. How can he claim that no act of ours has anything to do with Muslims turning radical? Isreal? The PLO? And how does he claim that an unjust invasion has had nothing to do with inflaming the situation?? The first Iraq war got little if any play with Muslims. They agreed with it. Afghanistan, too. Why is this war different? It's unjustifiable.
And the logic: we foiled n number of attempts since 9/11. And how does that have any meaning without comparative analysis to the period prior to 9/11? I recollect hearing of various plots being foiled over the previous decades. It's not as if the Middle East has been a hotbed of peace!!
If it were possible to do, I'm certain a polling of radical Muslims would show that a significant percentage have become radicalized since 9/11 directly due to the US response to 9/11.
I seem to remember there being almost universal support for going into Afghanistan. There has never been the same support for going into Iraq.
Bush is an idiot. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wangja
Joined: 17 May 2004
Location: Seoul, Yongsan
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 06, 2005 8:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| I seem to remember there being almost universal support for going into Afghanistan. There has never been the same support for going into Iraq. |
Well said. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 06, 2005 10:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Wangja wrote: |
| Quote: |
| I seem to remember there being almost universal support for going into Afghanistan. There has never been the same support for going into Iraq. |
Well said. |
Argumentum ad Populi |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wangja
Joined: 17 May 2004
Location: Seoul, Yongsan
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 06, 2005 10:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Glad you agree.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
