Category Archives: Critique

‘Hail the Revelation’ By Stanton Peele

America, Critique, Psychiatry, Psychology & Pop-Psychology, The Zeitgeist

My guest on Barely a Blog today is Stanton Peele, Ph.D. Stanton is the iconoclast of the addiction field and a thorn in the fleshy flesh of the industry. Of Stanton’s many books—the latest is Seven Tools to Beat Addiction—Diseasing of America has profoundly influenced me. This piece first appeared in the Guardian. (You can find my pieces on addiction, including an interview with Peele, in the Junk Science archive.)—ILANA

Hail the Revelation

A spell in ‘rehab’ is all the rage among public figures. But what’s behind their sudden urge to get clean, and does it send out the wrong messages?

Stanton Peele

Florida congressman Mark Foley resigned at the end of last month when ABC News revealed that he had been sending sexual emails to teenage congressional pages. Almost immediately, Foley entered treatment for alcoholism, which he had discovered was a “longstanding and significant” problem for him. This might sound familiar, since virtually every US public figure recently exposed in some scandal has done the same thing. Ohio Congressman Bob Ney did so earlier in September after he admitted he had accepted tens of thousands of dollars in gifts from lobbyist and fixer Jack Abramoff.
In June, Rhode Island Congressman Patrick Kennedy checked himself into the Mayo Clinic for addiction to prescription pain killers after he crashed his car near the Capitol in the middle of the night. He was soon followed into rehab by actor Mel Gibson, arrested for driving drunk in Malibu, California.
Other great moments in rehab history include 1995, when Oregon Senator Robert Packwood confessed to alcoholism to explain why he repeatedly fondled legislative aides; 1990, when Washington DC Mayor Marion Barry sought help for drug addiction after being caught on camera smoking crack and wheedling a woman for sex; and 1974, when Arkansas Congressman Wilbur Mills ended his career with a drunken episode that saw his companion, a stripper known as Fanne Foxe, many reports say jump, some say dive into Washington’s Tidal Basin.
Although initially Mills drew a facetious moral from the incident: “Don’t go out with foreigners [Foxe was an Argentinian] who drink champagne,” he soon turned serious about his alcoholism. After being treated, Mills found an alternative career on the alcoholism recovery lecture circuit – a profitable enterprise.
In all these cases, prominent Americans had been moved to recognise and acknowledge their addictions when their wrongdoing became public. The exception is Patrick Kennedy. Although he rushed to the Mayo Clinic as soon as he appeared on the front pages of US newspapers following his car crash, he has already been treated several times for various addictions.
With Kennedy, the question is why we should expect a better result this time. At his press conferences, Kennedy’s rote recitations about the insidiousness of his disease and his susceptibility to relapse indicate that he had undergone the brainwashing that passes for treatment. His failure to stay clean is more typical than not. The Cochrane Collaboration, which reviews medical evidence, found in 2006 that research “does not demonstrate the effectiveness of AA [Alcoholics Anonymous] or other 12-step approaches in reducing alcohol use and achieving abstinence compared with other treatments.”
But do public figures really care whether treatment works? Suspicions can easily arise that most have suddenly become so forthcoming about their problems and need for treatment because of their misconduct being uncovered. Their media or legal adviser must tell them: “You’ve got to rush into treatment. I’ll inform the press that you are frankly acknowledging your problem. What is your problem?”
Purification
The roots of this process extend deep into revival Christianity in America. The temperance lecture was delivered by a former carouser who had an epiphany that his drinking was evil and turned his life over to God. There is a direct connection between the sinner’s religious conversion and modern politicians and entertainers purifying themselves through treatment. This connection is the 12 steps of AA on which virtually all substance abuse treatment in the US is based. Some of the 12 steps are: we admitted we were powerless over alcohol; we came to believe that a power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity; we made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of God as we understood him; we admitted to God, to ourselves and to another human being the exact nature of our wrongs.
Cynical observers of temperance lecturers – such as Mark Twain, who often shared a podium with them on his speaking tours – noted that reformed drunkards spoke mainly about their past shenanigans. This was the part of their talk, before the obligatory and perfunctory expression of contrition, which audiences responded most to. The same focus on bygone drunken escapades occurs at AA meetings today—AA was founded in 1935.
The fact that prominent people decide they need treatment only after being caught suggests that their substance use was fun. American TV personality Pat O’Brien went to rehab after his explicit sexual phone call offering a woman a threesome with him and his girlfriend became public. In case this sounded like a good time, O’Brien made clear to TV therapist Dr Phil how painful the episode really was. O’Brien said: “Everybody has a bottom. And I hit my bottom that horrible weekend in New York. Do I remember most of it? No. And that’s where the bottom is. It was a weekend of fun, I thought, a weekend of drinking, which turned into a little bit of craziness.”
For those not versed in recovery terminology, “hitting bottom” – a necessary part of the mythic alcoholism arc – means having done the absolutely worst thing possible that made you recognise your addiction. As the interview indicates, one part of this process for those now in the public eye is appearing on a television interview show to confess your sins and vow not to repeat them. But the nagging question remains: would O’Brien have happily made a similar call if the woman had said “yes” instead of sharing his phone message with the world?
Americans are more accepting than the British when it comes to alcoholism therapy and personal contrition. Oprah Winfrey has become America’s most beloved and successful television personality as the godmother of sobbing confessionals. In the UK, on the other hand, you won’t get many arguments when suggesting Kate Moss sought therapy not because cocaine was bad for her so much as it was bad for her modelling career.
To understand how central recovery from alcoholism is in American culture, keep in mind that when George Bush ran for governor of Texas, his Democratic opponent, Ann Richards, was a recovering alcoholic. Where she differed from Bush, who had also been a heavy drinker, was that Richards joined AA to sober up while Bush quit drinking due to a personal religious experience.
But to dry out and fly right, you don’t need treatment or AA. In fact, American government research shows that a large majority of alcoholics get better without either. The idea that these are the only routes to sobriety is a bill of goods that disgraced celebrities are only too glad to buy into. But it is a fiction cooked up by AA advocates and America’s vast private alcoholism treatment industry.

Brangelina Of Benetton

Critique, Hollywood

The Brangelina “barforama” (as Lawrence Auster calls it) continues apace. No sooner had Jolie bred than she announced to CNN’s leading sob sister, Anderson Cooper, her intention to acquire another kid. This time around, the quest for couture kids would be fully color-coordinated:

“‘We don’t know which—which country. But we’re looking at different countries. And we’re—I’m just—it’s gonna be the balance of what would be the best for Mad and for Z right now. It’s, you know, another boy, another girl, which country, which race would fit best with the kids,’ she said, referring to her adopted children”

Back when I gave readers a run-down of 2005’s hottest trends, I mentioned that, just as Paris Hilton had made accessorizing with a Chihuahua “hot,” to quote the creature, so Jolie has made it hip to wear an exotic, adopted ankle biter on the hip.

I’ll leave it for readers to fill in the gap (pun intended) as to the typical left-liberal’s obsession with race.

Fierce, Fabulous Fallaci

Classical Liberalism, Criminal Injustice, Critique, Free Speech, The Zeitgeist

Here’s an interview with Oriana Fallaci in The New Yorker that doesn’t do her justice. Fallaci is unique in the annals of journalism. No superlative can properly describe the kind of irreverent grilling she subjected her interviewees to. The clubby, tête-à -têtes journalists conduct with their overlords are a disgrace—they’ll never come close to Fallaci’s skin-them-alive inquisitions.
Omitted from this interview is how Fallaci began her exchange with Qaddafi. It approximates the following paraphrase: “So your manifesto is so small and insignificant it fits in my powder puff. Why should anyone take you seriously”?”
When I attended journalism school, my teachers held her up as the iconic role model to emulate (of course, this would be unheard of in the left-liberal, groupthink dominated journalism schools of today). Thus one of the nicest compliments I’ve ever received was Reginald Firehammer’s. In “The Passion of Principles,” his review of my book for the Randian Free Radical, he likened my passion to Fallaci’s. The passion, perhaps, but never the courage, the life-force, or the capacity for adventure.
The New Yorker’s Margaret Talbot depicts Fallaci as pathologically anti-authoritarian. Is there any other way to be? Talbot, moreover, likes Fallaci’s classically liberal feminism, but flagrantly frames her crusade against Islam as a function of waning faculties. Yes, Fallaci is out of place in youth-worshipping America, where the lukewarm nonchalance of a Wonkette and her “Whatever” Generation is considered the ideal intellectual and existential temperament.
It would, however, be a grave mistake not to heed Fallaci’s warnings. This is an immensely cultured woman, steeped in the past. She understands history and the forces that shape it. More material, she has lived it.

The Torah And The TLS

Critique, English, Hebrew Testament, Ilana Mercer, Judaism & Jews, Literature

Leave a reply

Here’s a Letter-to-the-Editor of the British Times Literary Supplement. They wanted to publish it; I knew they would; Britons like a pedant. But they want private information about me, which I’m unwilling to disclose. What is it about so many private organizations these days that they act like government? On making a purchase, salesclerks will routinely ask for one’s address. Are they nuts? And most people comply. My husband takes cover whenever a salesperson dares to so pry.

Dear Editor,

In his review of Robert Alter’s The Five Books of Moses (TLS, June 24, 2005), John Barton praises the author’s translation of the Torah for “brilliantly imitating the Hebrew without sacrificing intelligibility.”
As someone who greatly admires the biblical narrator, I certainly agree that “welter and waste” does justice to “tohu vavohu” (Genesis 1:1), which Barton or the author transliterated to read “tohu wabohu.” Whence does that bowdlerization come? There’s no “wabohu” in Genesis 1:1—there’s no “wabohu” in the Hebrew language!
The first letter in vavohu is a “vav,” which is never a “w,” and here it’s pronounced “va.” The next Barton or Alter-bungled letter is an unpunctuated “Bet” (B), pronounced “v” too. Its enunciation here is “vo.” Hence, “vavohu.” I’m not sure how better to denote an unpunctuated “Bet” in English, but it’s certainly not a “b.”
So many scholarly writers, who profess to know Hebrew, habitually muck up the English transliteration of Hebrew words. Why?