Showing posts with label Fundamentalism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Fundamentalism. Show all posts
AA didn't work for Debra Oberlin....apparently
Former president of MADD arrested on DUI charge
Published: Thursday, February 24, 2011 at 11:58 a.m.
Last Modified: Thursday, February 24, 2011 at 11:58 a.m.
Last Modified: Thursday, February 24, 2011 at 11:58 a.m.
A former president of the defunct local chapter of Mothers Against Drunk Driving was arrested recently by the Gainesville Police Department on a DUI charge.
Debra Oberlin, 48, was arrested after she had difficulty on a field sobriety test. She registered a .234 and .239 on breath alcohol tests. Florida's legal limit for driving is .08.
Oberlin, a Realtor, had no comment when contacted Thursday by The Sun.
On Feb. 18 at 1:10 a.m., an officer spotted Oberlin driving erratically on Northwest 19th Street, swerving and crossing lanes, an arrest report states. Oberlin was pulled over in the 3600 block of Northwest 39th Avenue.
The officer wrote that Oberlin smelled of alcohol and had watery, bloodshot and dilated eyes. The report states that Oberlin told the officer she had four beers.
Gainesville's MADD chapter existed for several years in the 1990s before closing in 1996 because of lack of financial support. Oberlin was the chapter president for three years.
Disclose.tv - Former President Of MADD Arrested On DUI Charge Video
Blogger Jeremy Witteveen (Le Café Witteveen) posted a blog entry entitled "I love you, Debra Oberlin" and got this response:
"This hippocritical bitch should be public beat to death or better yet,turned over to any 100 of the thousands whose lives she helped ruin with her holier than thou bullshit,and let them deal with her.It would be too much to ask for that the system will subject her to the full extent of the law. They will probably coddel her because of the income flow she helped create."
Mothers Against Drunk Driving "was originally formed by Candice Lightner, who later left the organization. In 2002 she said that MADD 'has become far more neo-prohibitionist than I had ever wanted or envisioned ... I didn't start MADD to deal with alcohol. I started MADD to deal with the issue of drunk driving.'" MADD, like AA, the "recovery" system, and IDIP providers here in New Hampshire like Amethyst Foundation, Inc., Serenity House, Inc., REAP, Inc., don't want to eliminate drinking and driving--they want to eliminate drinking entirely in keeping with the religious/cult doctrines of AA (while making quite a nice, tax-free, profit doing so).
Good job, AA! You took an organization that once had merit (MADD) and ran it into the ground, trampling people's civil liberties, creating a legion of people that absolutely despise you.
Atheism: Ready for Primetime!
It's great to see an admired, lead character in a popular prime time television program trash religion. This makes me optimistic about the future of society.
I Don't Care If People Don't Like Me
Senator Franken got it almost right with his character, Stuart Smalley. But Stuart is kind and assumes the best in people (just not himself). The twelve-steppers of AA, founded on Christian born again fundamentalism, aren't They are full of fear, intolerance, and hate. The audience of SNL wasn't (and probably still isn't) ready for this type of honest depiction, however. It's still taboo to criticize religion. Hopefully people will start to see these psychotics for the irrational, dangerous, lunatics they are.
Naturally Incapable of Rigorous Honesty and Suffering From Grave Emotional and Mental Disorders
Every AA meeting opens up with this prayer:
If you have any independent thought, you will soon grow extremely tired of its astounding degree of condescension, blaming, arrogance, and shockingly blatant effort at manipulation.Rarely have we seen a person fail who has thoroughly followed our path. Those who do not recover are people who cannot or will not completely give themselves to this simple program, usually men and women who are constitutionally incapable of being honest with themselves. There are such unfortunates. They are not at fault; they seem to have been born that way. There are naturally incapable of grasping and developing a manner of living which demands rigorous honesty. Their chances are less than average. There are those, too, who suffer from grave emotional and mental disorders, but many of them do recover if they have the capacity to be honest.
"Rarely have they seen a person fail who has thoroughly followed our path"
Wow. It sounds like AA is very effective! This is a lie. Even AA admits it. They qualify this statement by "thoroughly." If it doesn't work for you, it's your fault--you didn't follow their (simple) path thoroughly enough. It's your fault! You can't even follow a simple program!!
The truth is that people who quit on their own have an equal, if not higher, success rate than those that follow AA's path. The problem isn't with the person, it's with the program. AA simultaneously falsely legitimizes itself as effective when it is not, and then bashes the poor alcoholic when AA doesn't work for him/her. Charming.
"Men and women who are constitutionally incapable of being honest with themselves. There are such unfortunates."
This is perhaps the most condescending statement I've heard anyone utter. The idea that a group of deluded, unthinking, unquestioning sheep could know myself better than I do is outrageous. They can't even accurately assess their own lives or critically assess the AA program. They unquestioningly accept what Bill W. says as the truth. If they are unable to question themselves critically, they are in no position to do so to me. But they do, and take pity on me as a hopeless case...an "unfortunate" who they turn their backs on.
People who fail are either:
"naturally incapable of grasping and developing a manner of living which demands rigorous honesty"
I always snorted when someone said this. If AA members lived in a manner demanding rigorous honesty they would realize:
- that AA has been repeatedly shown, using rigorous double-blind, placebo-controlled trials, to be utterly ineffective in achieving sobriety. The likelihood of success is just as high in those that stop drinking on their own. One major study showed that people who attend AA are 9-times more likely to binge drink, compared with those who do Rational Emotive Behavioral Therapy (REBT). Even AA's triennial survey admitted to the ineffectiveness of its program. But AA members reject these pieces of evidence. They are in a constant state of denial, which is ironic because that's how they dismiss others (like myself) who disagree with them.
- that the evidence for a Christian God, which is what AA is based on, is nonexistent. Combine this with the many suspect, self serving reasons to believe in such a god (fear of death, fear of others unlike us, fear of change, selfloathing, etc...), and all this god talk begins to sound like a type of psychosis. I heard many testimonies about personal visits and conversations from God by people in AA meetings. I was scared that such delusional people were, not just walking the streets, but approved of by society.
- they are, in no way, superior to me in being capable of being honest with myself. Not only am I incapable of being rigorously honest, but I'm naturally incapable of even grasping it! I was evidently born defective mentally, and cannot operate at the high plane of mental functioning that average AA members are able. And even more, I'm so stunted intellectually and/or morally that I'm incapable of realizing it!
- they were wasting half their lives at AA meetings in dark damp church basements where all anyone ever talks about is how great the program is, how close to death they were, and how they would be dead if it weren't for AA. Say it enough times, and people will believe it, maybe, is what they are shooting for. This is also called "brainwashing." Look into it.
"suffer from grave emotional and mental disorders"
I guess my doctors are all incompetent. I must be bipolar or schizophrenic and they missed it. Maybe I should trust AA instead of them, especially since they're so rigorously honest, unlike my physicians.
"many of them do recover if they have the capacity to be honest."
So all you have to do to succeed at AA is have the capability of being honest. I guess "honest" really in the language that AA uses means "gullible." It certainly doesn't mean believing the truth. It means believing the lies that AA tells you, and then spouting off constantly about how wonderfully it works.
This mean-spirited, "kick 'em when their down," attitude is common to christian fundamentalists. It's not the version of Christianity taught in the older, more traditional forms of Catholicism, Protestantism, or other religions. The christian "born again" fundamentalists are a sick, twisted, selfish, and hateful lot.
I don't know which is more shocking to me: that society has such a beneficent view of the AA, or that people in AA can be such gullible idiots. Society doesn't really know that much about AA. Most people only know of someone who has gone to meetings. If they had gone themselves, or have read the lunatic rantings of Bill W. in the "Big Book" that is read like scripture in every meeting and followed with blind obedience, I'm sure they would think differently.
The sad fact of the matter is that there are many people truly helpless at the hands of alcohol. They are decent people who, for some reason, cannot stop drinking. They are suckered into the scam that AA will save them, if only they are subservient enough and give up all critical reasoning ability. Why trust medical researchers and physicians, when you can trust a former drunk's uncritical, uneducated religious rantings in the basement of a church? The fact that AA preys on these, the real "unfortunates," is the worst aspect of this entire sham.
Atheists Aren't The Ones Who Are Arrogant
During my IDIP courses at Amethyst Foundation, Inc., the LADC who was "teaching" told me repeatedly that my "arrogant atheism" prevented me from ever being able to deal with my "drinking problem."
I encountered this same insanity during the AA meetings I was forced to attend (especially when I refused to hold hands in a circle and pray with those losers).
You know what's arrogant? Thinking that the supreme being is interested in your sorry ass or your whining about your "drinking problem." That's the height of arrogance.
It's also the height of stupidity. But if you've been through this, you already know how stupid these people are. Willful ignorance is a prerequisite to being a LADC, and it's why they drank to deal with their problems before being certified to push their nonthinking ideology on others. I'd rather they had stayed the pathetic drunks they were.
Interesting Feedback On My Posts From Reddit Readers
Interesting Feedback
Over on Reddit, I've gotten some interesting opinions I thought I'd post. AA cult members are very hostile to criticism of their fragile belief system. Belief trumps reasoning for them. They are extremely anti-intellectual. I call them members of the "Anti-Enlightenment" movement. I expected a lot worse feedback then I received. Some of it was very interesting.
On the post I did called "AA: What The Science Says," I presented the major scientific studies on recovery programs. The studies compared the efficacy of no treatment, AA, Rational Emotive Behavioral Therapy (REBT, or "SMART Recovery") or just conventional "talk" therapy (insight therapy). Reddit readers made the following comments. I was shocked by the faulty reasoning and logic in them.
They're only as effective as the person who is utilizing them.
Meaning: If the person really wants to quit, they're good resources. The only problem is the PERSON doesn't usually want to quit or isn't strong enough to stick to the programs.
Too much emphasis is placed on the programs.
I suspect this person is a present or former AA'er. This is the typical "blame the victim" reasoning. If AA doesn't work, it's because the person didn't want to quit badly enough, or isn't "strong enough" to stick with the program. At the meetings I'm forced to attend, each one is opened with everyone chanting:
RARELY HAVE we seen a person fail who has thoroughly followed our path. Those who do not recover are people who cannot or will not completely give themselves to this simple program, usually men and women who are constitutionally incapable of being honest with themselves. There are such unfortunates. They are not at fault; they seem to have been born that way. They are naturally incapable of grasping and developing a manner of living which demands rigorous honesty.
The Big Book, William G. Wilson, Chapter 5, How It Works, page 58.
See the reasoning? If AA doesn't work, it's YOUR FAULT! You are constitutionally incapable of being honest with yourself. You are one of the unfortunates. You are naturally incapable of even comprehending what self-honesty is. How incredibly condescending.
It shouldn't be "your fault" if a supposed "effective" treatment doesn't work. This is comparable as having a doctor give you a sugar pill, having it not work, and then telling you that it's because you are a worthless lowlife.
A "Ms. Kim" from the "court system" (read--drug rehab industry, probably a LADC) wrote:
Of all of the people I have worked with in the court system, the majority of people who were sober after having drug and alchol/drug problems said it was because of AA/NA. A few quit cold turkey but that was very few.
To which I replied:
With the New Hampshire court system, EVERYONE is assigned to AA. There is no alternative alcohol/drug program.
It may be that the people you have worked with used AA because that's all that was available or that secular alternatives were just not as readily available. Also, AA'ers proselytize just like any other fundamentalist group.
The science shows that AA is ineffective, or at least no more effective than spontaneous remission without treatment. Reliable scientific data trumps opinion, rumor, or anecdotal evidence, always. Not, "I heard" or "all the people I've worked with" or "around here" etc...
"Ms. Kim" replied:
People in the area were sentenced to rehab, treatment plans, AA, and a few other things through the drug court. I have yet to meet anyone who went to a treatment or rehab program and "got cured" (I'm sure there are some, I just haven't met them). Of the people I worked with AA is what people said worked. There is no hard data on the one cure all for alcoholism. If there was, everyone would be using only that one cure that worked. Now it is a hit and miss proposition and what works for one person may not work for another.
Ms. Kim completely misses my distinction between anecdotal, personal or hearsay evidence with real scientific evidence--large sample size, randomly assigned to different treatment groups, double-blind, etc...Then she states "there is no hard data." Evidently she didn't read my post, because there is hard data and it is not a "hit or miss" proposition.
I replied:
Yes...there is hard data on recovery programs. A simple search of the literature would have shown you this. But I guess it's easier just to say "There's no hard data on the one cure for all alcoholism," isn't it?
See, particularly, the meta-analyses below:
Ditman, K.S., Crawford, G.C., Forgy, E.W., Moskowitz, H., & MacAndrew, C. (1967). A controlled experiment on the use of court probation for drunk arrests. American Journal of Psychiatry, 124(2), 64-67.
Brandsma, J.M., Maultsby, M.C., & Welsh, R.J. (1980). Outpatient treatment of alcoholism: A review and comparative study. Baltimore: University Park Press.
Alcoholics Anonymous. (n.d., presumably 1990). Comments on AA.s triennial surveys. New York: Alcoholics Anonymous World Services.
I can tell you work in the court system and not the scientific system.
Let's hope Ms. Kim is not involved in choosing mandated self-help programs for DUI offenders. Or maybe she is, here in New Hampshire.
"Cananboy" wrote:
Statistically speaking, they are not very effective. However, I've been to several AA meetings (open) as an observer and there are many individuals that it is helpful for. There is nothing wrong with taking a placebo if it works. So many people get caught up in the science and numbers, that they forget the actual meaning of it. There are few places where people can go and find a supportive group of friends and strangers. More power to them.
I mostly agree with Cananboy, and I appreciated his honesty. Yes, there is something wrong with taking a placebo. If you have an illness (drug abuse/dependence), you should not be given a placebo (AA) when there is an effective drug available (SMART Recovery, or even doing it yourself). It's against the law for physician to do this.
Additionally, AA is not "optional" for me. I've been ordered to go. I'm an atheist. AA is a religious organization. Being forced to attend what are essentially religious services has been found by six federal circuit courts to be illegal. In the case of Grandberg v. Ashland County, a 1984 Federal 7th Circuit Court ruling concerning judicially-mandated A.A. attendance, the court said:
Alcholics Anonymous materials and the testimony of the witness established beyond a doubt that religious activities, as defined in constitutional law, were a part of the treatment program. The distinction between religion and spirituality is meaningless, and serves merely to confuse the issue.
--Wisconsin's District Judge John Shabaz
If people want to voluntarily go to a religious service (where the Lord's Prayer is said while holding hands in a circle), they are welcome to. They should know however, that in the largest and most rigorous scientific study to date, AA-treated subjects were over four times more likely to binge drink compared with the control group, and nine times more likely than the lay-REBT group. (Brandsma, J.M., et al., (1980). Outpatient treatment of alcoholism: A review and comparative study. Baltimore: University Park Press.)
This is called "Informed Consent." No one gives a damn about my consent, though, because New Hampshire mandated my AA attendance. Silly me.
On my post entitled, "AA: Of Course It's A Cult," I got a lot of responses from Reddit readers.
"bwthwy" posted:
I was involved in AA for around a year, and this was ultimately the reason I left. I was originally attracted to the program because I wanted to cut down on my drinking, and AA is one of the few drinking/drug programs that had meetings where I was. Coming in, I was pretty adamant with them about the past troubles I'd had with religion, but the party line is that your higher power can be anything, "even a doorknob," that keeps you from drinking.
After a few months, I noticed that, in reality, almost everyone had the same Christian higher power, but I decided to stick with it because another party line is, "many who leave the rooms die drunk within a year." One of the later steps is prayer. When I asked my sponsor about this, he insisted that I take the steps one at a time and that I act first, believe later.
I eventually read online about other secularists who had left the program and turned out fine. Many people like myself had grown tired of the slogans and dishonesty. I left a week before I would've picked up my one year chip and I've never looked back.
It's been six months, and things have turned out really well. I've had a few beers since then, but I do not drink like I used to. At some point, I think I just decided to grow up and take responsibility for my actions. As a result, I'm a lot more satisfied than I was either before or during AA.
"Canadian anarchist" wrote:AA lures you in by telling you that it's not a religious organization, but, in reality, it is.
AA actually has quite a abysmal success rate at 5% of "graduates" staying sober 1 year after the program. Meaning that 95% of people are still alcoholics. The failings of AA are directly attributed to its religious basis. By taking the blame and responsibility off yourself and placing it in God's care, you absolve yourself of all independent will to change. If you fail, it's God's fault; if you succeed, it's God's blessing. The best drug abuse treatment is when the individual accepts responsibility for their actions and their future, that way lasting progress is possible.It was so refreshing to hear someone who knew the actual science behind AA. More evidence that the US schools are failing to produce science-literate graduates capable of critical thinking (this poster was Canadian).
"RyanPsych" posted:
"spacepirate01"I've previously worked in an alcohol/drug rehabilition program- and yeah, AA is totally a religious program. In fact, several of the 12 steps require religiosity, including finding a "higher power" who is the only one that can solve their alcohol problems.
The fact that the majority of them take place in churches doesn't help the situation.
Ohhhhhhhhhhhh, I thought by AA you meant "American Atheists". Whew. Yeah "Alcoholics Anonymous" is definitely overly religious."TerXIII" said
I brought this up a few months ago. I was overwhelmingly shut down by the community, and downvoted into oblivion for stating my opinions of AA's perversion of scientific data, their low success rate, their semantic coercion, and the overall assumption that I was put into the program for a reason.
I refused treatment, and did my six sessions. I left the program of my own accord, despite their warnings that my problem would "consume you without our help.", and I have had maybe a handful of drinks in the last year. I have simply had no interest in drinking, but not because of the program, because I decided that I don't like being around alcoholics any more.
"CompactusDiskus" posted:I don't know what's with AA people, but they seriously chew your ass for bad-mouthing the program.
AA is hugely problematic. To call it a cult is a little far fetched though, as it doesn't necessarily meet a lot of the standard cult criteria.
And finally, I got this lively exchange:It is, however, based on completely unscientific foundations, discourages rigorous analysis of its practices, and reveres its founding "holy book" as doctrine that must be followed in order to succeed in overcoming addiction.
AA Refers To Atheists And Agnostics As "Those People"
Out of boredom during my last compelled AA meeting I picked up the most recent issue of my area's AA newsletter, "Pipeline." The New Hampshire Area Assembly of Alcoholics Anonymous, Inc., is Area 43.
In the June 2011 issue of Pipeline there was coverage of the 61st General Service Conference. The GSO, remember is AA. It's true (corporate name) is the General Service Board of Alcoholics Anonymous, Inc., a tax exempt IRS 501(c)(3) "non profit" organization that makes more than $10 million annually. The GSO, in turn, is made up of the two corporations, AA World Services, Inc., and The AA Grapevine, Inc.
So, every year the GSO has a conference. The attendees in question are 93 delegates from AA areas in the U.S. and Canada, trustees, AA World Service and Grapevine Directors, and staff from the GSO and Grapevine. This year, at the 61st General Service Conference, according the the June 2011 issue of the Grapevine newsletter, they spoke about:
- "Adding the AA preamble to the Big Book."
- "Unbelievable action that may just turn things around for the Grapevine" whatever that means.
- Unauthorized sale of AA literature. "This is all about to stop!" it said breathlessly.
- A "proposed new pamphlet on Spirituality which includes stories from Atheists and Agnostics."
Of course, as an atheist being forced by the state of New Hampshire, I raised an eyebrow upon seeing the section on the proposed pamphlet. The author of the Pipeline article writes that, "[t]he piece reminds us that AA is not exclusive; we welcome all to AA that have a desire to stop drinking, regardless of their view of or belief in "God.""
The author continues;
It was heavily debated and my interest was deeply personal. One side of the argument was that AA is a program based on spirituality and that you cannot be an Atheist or Agnostic and succeed in the program. The opposing side's position was that many come into AA with no "God" (like me), while others have their own concept of a power greater than themselves and have successfully stayed sober.
The debate raged for two hours. At that point, a Delegate referred to Atheists and Agnostics as "those people." That's when I knew where I stood. When I came into AA, I was one of "those people." I told my sponsor I did not believe in God, and he said to me, "Be glad he does not feel the same way about you!" As I worked through the steps, I believed in a power greater than myself--but not "God" in the traditional sense. I found my higher power in my AA group and in the goodness of other people. I have since found a God that is beyond my dreams, and those that know me hear me talk of his grace with great frequency--I ask for help every day.
After I left the microphone, another person shared that he, too, was one of "those people." A gay man, he came to AA a drunk and an Agnostic, yet he found his version of god in AA.
Finally, the last person shared that she was a fallen woman who was welcomed into AA. She found her sobriety, her soul, and her God--but if she had not been so unconditionally loved in AA regardless of her beliefs, she felt she never would have made it.
The vote to approve the new pamphlet passed with substantial unanimity. At that moment, I felt God in the room and knew that AA would last for my grandchildren and yours.
Let me leave you with Dr. Bob's essay, "On Cultivating Tolerance," and I hope to see you all at the post conference June 18th to hear your thoughts.
Yours in Service, Rich P. Delegate 60/43, New Hampshire
What absolute bullshit. Let's take a moment to read between the lines and see what's really being said.
Yes...We welcome Atheists and Agnostics, but they have to find God to become cured.
Yes...We welcome Atheists and Agnostics, but they have to find God to become cured.
AA repeatedly tells this blatant lie: "AA is not exclusive; we welcome all to AA that have a desire to stop drinking, regardless of their view of or belief in "God."" Chapter 4, "We Agnostics" in the Big Book is always used to support this lie. This chapter says nothing about how agnostics and atheists are welcome to AA, or that they can succeed using the techniques of AA. This chapter clearly explains how all of the former agnostics and atheists in A.A. got converted into true believers in Bill Wilson's religion, and how all of the new skeptics must also be converted. In fact, the whole chapter is devoted to just one subject: how everyone must "abandon Reason and human intelligence" and come to believe Bill Wilson's religious beliefs.
Here the Big Book states that belief in a higher power is necessary for recovery. Atheism and Agnosticism, by definition, are both lacking in the belief of a higher power:
Bill W. himself was emphatically and repeatedly clear that the Higher Power was God:
Here the Big Book states that belief in a higher power is necessary for recovery. Atheism and Agnosticism, by definition, are both lacking in the belief of a higher power:
We needed to ask ourselves but one short question. "Do I now believe, or am I even willing to believe, that there is a Power greater than myself?" As soon as a man can say that he does believe, or is willing to believe, we emphatically assure him that he is on his way."Oh, but you can have your 'higher power' be anything you want!" AA members often lie. The author of the Grapevine article writes: "I found my higher power in my AA group and in the goodness of other people." What does this even mean?? One AA member told me that his higher power was a doorknob.
The Big Book, 3rd & 4th Editions, William G. Wilson, Page 47.
Bill W. himself was emphatically and repeatedly clear that the Higher Power was God:
We found that as soon as we were able to lay aside prejudice and express even a willingness to believe in a Power greater than ourselves, we commenced to get results, even though it was impossible for any of us to fully define or comprehend that Power, which is God.
The Big Book, 3rd & 4th Editions, William G. Wilson, Page 46.
At the moment we are trying to put our lives in order. But this is not an end in itself. Our real purpose is to fit ourselves to be of maximum service to God and the people about us.And what does a religiously converted AA member do next? Like any good cult member, they go out and lure others using the "higher power" lie, ultimately converting them to religion.
The Big Book, 3rd & 4th Editions, William G. Wilson, Chapter 6, Into Action, page 77.
From great numbers of such experiences, we could predict that the doubter who still claimed that he hadn't got the "spiritual angle," and who still considered his well-loved A.A. group the higher power, would presently love God and call Him by name.
Twelve Steps and Twelve Traditions, William G. Wilson, pages 108-109.
It apparently worked on the dupe who wrote this Grapevine article since he writes, "I have since found a God that is beyond my dreams, and those that know me hear me talk of his grace with great frequency--I ask for help everyday."
Courts don't buy this lie, either. In the case of Grandberg v. Ashland County, a 1984 Federal 7th Circuit Court ruling concerning judicially-mandated A.A. attendance, the court said:
Alcholics Anonymous materials and the testimony of the witness established beyond a doubt that religious activities, as defined in constitutional law, were a part of the treatment program. The distinction between religion and spirituality is meaningless, and serves merely to confuse the issue.
--Wisconsin's District Judge John Shabaz
So, the next time you hear some AA member say "We welcome everyone, even agnostics and atheists!" or "It's not religious, it's spiritual," you'll recognize them for the nonthinking cult members that they are.
It's always funny to me that AA members' first reaction to people who disagree with them is that they are "in denial." When I hear this, it's hard not to start laughing.
Oh, and if you fail to find God, and thereby fail to cure yourself of alcoholism, IT'S YOUR FAULT!
RARELY HAVE we seen a person fail who has thoroughly followed our path. Those who do not recover are people who cannot or will not completely give themselves to this simple program, usually men and women who are constitutionally incapable of being honest with themselves. There are such unfortunates. They are not at fault; they seem to have been born that way. They are naturally incapable of grasping and developing a manner of living which demands rigorous honesty.
The Big Book, William G. Wilson, Chapter 5, How It Works, page 58.
It's your fault because you are constitutionally incapable of being honest with yourself, you unfortunate! The real truth is that AA doesn't work. By the way, this passage is chanted to start every AA meeting.
Why, some of my best friends are gay Agnostic alcoholics!
After the
After I left the microphone, another person shared that he, too, was one of "those people." A gay man, he came to AA a drunk and an Agnostic, yet he found his version of god in AA.
This reminds me of the hypocritical racist who says, "why, some of my best friends are black." But if you think about it, it's even worse. The author is really saying that AA is SO welcoming, why look at the immoral filth we open our arms wide for! Not only is he an Agnostic, but he's GAY!!! Look at us, everyone, we admit GAY PEOPLE!
Yes, the only thing worse than a nonbeliever, is a gay nonbeliever.
If you know anything about the founding of AA, this will not come as a surprise. Frank Buchman and his Moral Re-armament group (the founders of AA) were rabid homophobes and gay bashers. Here's a 1954 Moral Re-armament guide on how to spot gays:
Why, even women are welcome!
AA even welcomes women, imagine that. Here's what AA thinks of women.
Here is what AA tells a wife to do with regard to her abusive alcoholic husband;
Yes, the only thing worse than a nonbeliever, is a gay nonbeliever.
If you know anything about the founding of AA, this will not come as a surprise. Frank Buchman and his Moral Re-armament group (the founders of AA) were rabid homophobes and gay bashers. Here's a 1954 Moral Re-armament guide on how to spot gays:
The son of one of Frank Buchman's early disciplines has said that it was an open secret that Buchman was gay himself. Gosh, doesn't this sound familar? (Larry Craig, Ted Haggart, Mark Foley, Bob Allen, Glen Murphy, Jr.)There are many who wear suede shoes who are not homosexual, but in Europe and America the majority of homosexuals do. They favor green as a color in clothes and decorations. Men are given to an excessive display and use of the handkerchief. They tend to let the hair grow long, use scent and are frequently affected in speech, mincing in gait and feminine in mannerisms. They are often very gifted in the arts. They tend to exhibitionism. They can be cruel and vindictive, for sadism usually has a homosexual root. They are often given to moods.
...There is an unnecessary touching of hands, arms and shoulders. In the homosexual the elbow grip is a well-known sign.
Remaking Men, Paul Campbell, M.D. and Peter Howard, 1954, pages 60-62.
Why, even women are welcome!
AA even welcomes women, imagine that. Here's what AA thinks of women.
In Chapter 8 "To Wives" in the Big Book of Alcoholics Anonymous, a woman is instructed how she should react to news her alcoholic husband is cheating:
Sometimes there were other women. How heart breaking was this discovery; how cruel to be told they understood our men as we did not (Big Book, 2001).In other words, how can you blame the husband? He was just seeking out someone who could understand him.
Here is what AA tells a wife to do with regard to her abusive alcoholic husband;
Don't condemn your alcoholic husband no matter what he says or does. He is just another very sick, unreasonable person. Treat him, when you can, as though he had pneumonia. When he angers you, remember that he is very ill (Big Book, 2001).
The book goes on to tell women exactly how to handle their alcoholic husband;
Your husband has begun to abuse alcohol. The first principle of success is that you should never be angry. Even though your husband becomes unbearable, and you have to leave him temporarily, you should, if you can, go without rancor. Patience and good temper are vitally necessary.
The next rule is that you should never tell him what to do about his drinking. If he gets the idea that you are a nag or a killjoy, your chance of accomplishing anything useful will be zero. He will use that as an excuse to drink some more. He will tell you he is misunderstood. This may lead to lonely evenings for you. He may seek someone to console him - not always another man (Big Book, 2001).
A woman should never get mad if her drunk husband drinks his paycheck or sleeps with other women. And, when the situation becomes intolerable, you should leave without making any waves. Why is this? To not disturb your husband or his drinking!
If this was not enough, the book tells a woman that she should not tell the husband what to do about his drinking, because it might backfire and cause him to have an affair
.
.
Read the June 2011 Issue of AA's The Pipeline
AA: Of Course It's a Cult!
AA: A Fascist Cult Founded On "God-Control"
On the blog "Positive Atheism," author Jack Trimpey has a great post entitled, "Alcoholics Anonymous: Of Course It's a Cult." Trimpey is the founder of the secular AA alternative, Rational Recovery. He has been openly and aggressively critical of AA for decades.
“I kind of got a shiver during one meeting when they were putting one guy down for arguing against the powerless concept.”
Alcoholics Anonymous was formed by the Oxford Group in the 1930s. The Oxford Group was founded by Frank Buchman, a Lutheran minister from Pennsylvania. In one of Buchman's speeches during this period he stated:
--Birnie, W.A.H., "Hitler or Any Fascist Leader Controlled by God Could Cure All Ills of World," Buchman Believes. New York World-Telegram, Aug 26 (1936). cited from Thornton-Duesbury, J.P., The Open Secret of MRA: An examination of Mr. Driberg's 'critical examination' of Moral Re-Armament." London: Blandford Press, 1964. Also available here.
Ask any AA member about their group's origins and the Oxford Group and watch what happens. They'll get incredibly defensive and start rationalizing. Then suggest that perhaps they, and not you, might be the ones in denial.
On the blog "Positive Atheism," author Jack Trimpey has a great post entitled, "Alcoholics Anonymous: Of Course It's a Cult." Trimpey is the founder of the secular AA alternative, Rational Recovery. He has been openly and aggressively critical of AA for decades.
Some examples of the many phone calls from across the country that Trimpey and Rational Recovery regarding AA include:
“I knew from the start there was something creepy about those people.”
“They aren’t of this world; they’re way out there.”
 |
| Charles Manson |
“When they said my family also was diseased, I knew something was wrong.”
“When they started this thing about anything being my Higher Power, it felt wrong, like it was going against something very important inside of me.”
 |
| L. Ron Hubbard |
“After I stopped going to meetings, no one I knew from the groups would have anything to do with me, even though I wasn’t drinking.”
“My brother quit drinking by going to AA, but he’s become so weird. I hardly know him any more, and almost miss the way he was when he was drinking. At least he was sincere, and could talk about something besides himself.”
 |
| James Jones |
“Our son went to a treatment specialist for drug addiction, and now he says we are satanic child molesters.”
“I’ve been telling my husband that the meetings aren’t helping, that he now calls his binges relapses and feels less guilty afterward. He admits he is drinking more and more often, but says relapse is a normal part of recovery. When he goes to meetings after a relapse, though, he feels ashamed and depressed.”
“A year after I quit drinking, my wife went to Al-Anon with a friend. Now she won’t communicate with me unless I go to AA.”
 |
| Marshall Herff Applewhite |
“The counselors at the treatment center were poorly-educated and acted like robots reciting every word.”
“I heard one man say, ‘I pray to God every day that I never get the idea that I can run my own life.’ When I heard this, I felt sick inside because I felt unable to leave the group.
It would be one thing if AA were actually effective, but it isn't. It's recovery rate is a dismal 3-7%. The spontaneous recovery rate for alcoholics who get no treatment is 5%. Binge/relapse drinking for those in AA is nine times more likely to occur than for those who get no treatment. The first of the twelve steps tells you that you must admit that you are powerless over alcohol. The subsequent steps tell you to admit your sins (defects) and that only God can cure you. AA's method of learned helplessness is disastrous.
 |
| Bill W. |
 |
| Frank Buchman |
"The secret is God-control. The only sane people in an insane world are those controlled by God. God-controlled personalities make God-controlled nationalities. This is the aim of the Oxford Group.
The true patriot gives his life to bring his nation under God's control. Those who oppose that control are public enemies....
World peace will only come through nations which have achieved God-control. And everybody can listen to God. You can. I can. Everybody can have a part."
--Buchman, F., Remaking the World. London: Blandford Press, 1961.
Buchman also said:
"I thank heaven for a man like Adolph Hitler. Human problems aren't economic. They're moral and they can't be solved by immoral measures. They could be solved within a God-controlled democracy, or perhaps I should say a theocracy, and they could be solved through a God-controlled Fascist dictatorship."
Adolph Hitler
--Birnie, W.A.H., "Hitler or Any Fascist Leader Controlled by God Could Cure All Ills of World," Buchman Believes. New York World-Telegram, Aug 26 (1936). cited from Thornton-Duesbury, J.P., The Open Secret of MRA: An examination of Mr. Driberg's 'critical examination' of Moral Re-Armament." London: Blandford Press, 1964. Also available here.
Ask any AA member about their group's origins and the Oxford Group and watch what happens. They'll get incredibly defensive and start rationalizing. Then suggest that perhaps they, and not you, might be the ones in denial.
AA: What The Science Says
AA is the opposite of evidence-based treatment.
Here are the Twelve Steps of Alcoholics Anonymous:
- We admitted we were powerless over alcohol—that our lives had become unmanageable.
- Came to believe that a Power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity.
- Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of God as we understood Him.
- Made a searching and fearless moral inventory of ourselves.
- Admitted to God, to ourselves, and to another human being the exact nature of our wrongs.
- Were entirely ready to have God remove all these defects of character.
- Humbly asked Him to remove our shortcomings.
- Made a list of all persons we had harmed, and became willing to make amends to them all.
- Made direct amends to such people wherever possible, except when to do so would injure them or others.
- Continued to take personal inventory and when we were wrong promptly admitted it.
- Sought through prayer and meditation to improve our conscious contact with God as we understood Him, praying only for knowledge of His will for us and the power to carry that out.
- Having had a spiritual awakening as the result of these steps, we tried to carry this message to alcoholics, and to practice these principles in all our affairs.
Surrendering power (becoming powerless) is irrational. Psychology and Psychiatry are areas of science from which we have empowered ourselves to cure our illnesses. To dismiss all these resources and instead state that we are powerless is plain stupid. To place that power in God, an imaginary being for whose existence there is zero evidence, and our motives in believing (fear of death, our reason for existence, etc...) are completely suspect and self-serving, is irresponsible. AA is the opposite of evidence-based treatment.
AA: What the Science Says.
The low success rate of AA's religiously-based "treatment" reflects this stupidity. There have been only two scientifically valid studies done on the efficacy of AA.
The Ditman Study
The first study, the Ditman Study, was done in San Diego in 1964. The subjects were 301 "chronic drunk offenders" who where defined as having had two DUIs in the last three months or three DUIs in the last year. The subjects were randomly divided into three groups: an untreated group, an AA treatment group, and a clinical treatment (type not specified) group. After a year, there was no statistical differences between the three groups in terms of recidivism rate, rearrests, or in time elapsed prior to arrest. AA was no more effective than no treatment at all.
Ditman, K.S., Crawford, G.C., Forgy, E.W., Moskowitz, H., & MacAndrew, C. (1967). A controlled experiment on the use of court probation for drunk arrests. American Journal of Psychiatry, 124(2), 64-67.
The Brandsma Study
The second study, the NIAAA-funded "Outpatient Treatment of Alcoholism," randomly assigned subjects to five groups: untreated, A.A., lay-led Rational Emotive Behavioral Therapy (REBT), professionally-led one-on-one REBT, and one-on-one Freudian-based insight therapy. In terms of retention rate, AA was the worst with a 68% drop out rate. All the other groups had 40-46% drop out rates.
In terms of drinking behavior all treatments worked: professional REBT 80%; lay REBT 100%; insight, 92%; A.A. 67%; untreated, 50%; reported decreased drinking. Significantly, A.A. treated subjects were over four times more likely to binge drink compared with the control group, and nine times more likely than the lay-REBT group.
The authors of the study concluded:
AA seems to have definite limitations of social class, ideology, flexibility of adopting new techniques, and the type of personality it appeals to. Our study suggests further conformation of this in our severe dropout rate from this form of treatment. It is probably, as Ditman et al.'s (1967) work suggests and ours confirms, that AA is just not effective as a coerced treatment with municipal court offenders.
(Brandsma et al., 1980, p. 84, emphasis added)
Brandsma, J.M., Maultsby, M.C., & Welsh, R.J. (1980). Outpatient treatment of alcoholism: A review and comparative study. Baltimore: University Park Press.
AA's Triennial Surveys
The AA monograph, Comments on AA's Triennial Surveys, while not a controlled survey, is worthy of attention. The Triennial surveys are large surveys of several thousand AA members.
The Comments document indicates only a 5% retention rate after one year. This "5% success rate" often mentioned, therefore, is only a measurement of continued attendance. Anyone who has gone to AA meetings can attest to the fact that not all members remain abstinent. The success rate, therefore is less than 5%. Given that the spontaneous remission rate is between 3.7% to 7.4%, AA recovery rate may be even lower than doing nothing at all. AA could very well be preventing remission.
Alcoholics Anonymous. (n.d., presumably 1990). Comments on AA.s triennial surveys. New York: Alcoholics Anonymous World Services.
So Why Have States Chosen AA as a Mandatory Rehabilitative Treatment Program?
The science clearly shows A.A. is ineffective, while REBT/insight therapies have been shown to be effective. So why is the State mandating AA when other, more effective, alternatives are available? (I was told here in NH that only AA would be accepted--SMART Recovery, a from of REBT, would not.)
The answer should be obvious after examining AA's Twelve Steps (above) and noting the main difference between AA "therapy" and REBT/insight therapies. It all comes down to God and religion. Look at how many times the word "God" or "Him" appears in the twelve steps! AA members always argue, "it's not religious, it's spiritual"--which is complete nonsense. The Lord's Prayer is said, while holding hands, at the end of every single meeting I've been to. That is religious. It is not spiritual. In fact, it's cultish.
Christian fundamentalists, whose mission it is is to proselytize and convert the "unfortunates," are using influential lobbying groups to convince State Legislatures that AA is an effective and nonreligious treatment for alcoholism. It's a stealthy way of powerfully imposing their religious beliefs on a demonized segment of society, all with the State's blessings.
The Founding Fathers, particularly Adams and Jefferson, would be disgusted. As am I.
This Is Not A Form Of Brainwashing--The Pledge of Allegiance
"If it was good enough for the founding fathers, it's good enough for me."
—Sarah Palin, as quoted in a 2006 Alaska gubernatorial race questionnaire after being asked whether the phrase "under God" in the pledge of allegiance is offensive. Just days after she was selected as John McCain's running mate, the old questionnaire surfaced on political blogs across the U.S., with pundits pointing out that the Alaska Governor doesn't seem to know her American history. The pledge of allegiance wasn't written until 1892, and the phrase "under God" wasn't added until the 1950s.
The ideals represented in the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights written by the founding fathers constitute one of the noblest endeavors at self governance ever attempted. I have nothing but the highest regard for them. People (especially Glenn Beck and his ilk) should take the time and effort to learn them.
The original pledge of allegiance, which first appeared in the September 8, 1892 issue of "The Youth's Companion," and a month later recited in schools across the nation read:
I pledge allegiance to the Flag
and to the Republic for which it stands:
one Nation indivisible,
with Liberty and Justice for all.
In was in the beginning of the Cold War anti-communism movement in the U.S. that the words "under God" were added to the Pledge. On June 14, 1954, then U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed a bill into law adding the phrase, declaring "From this day forward, the millions of our school children will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our Nation and our people to the Almighty" (Act of June 14, 1954, ch. 297, 68 Stat. 249).
I pledge allegiance to the Flag
of the United States of America,
and to the Republic for which it stands:
one Nation under God, indivisible,
with Liberty and Justice for all.
Under California law, “every public elementary school” must begin each day with “appropriate patriotic exercises.” Cal. Educ. Code Ann. §52720 (West 1989). The statute provides that “[t]he giving of the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America shall satisfy” this requirement.
Newdow I-IV: Does The Pledge of Allegiance Violate The Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses?
On June 26, 2002, an atheist father in California objected to the Pledge being taught in his daughter's school and sued the School District, arguing that the addition of under God was an unconstitutional endorsement of religion. The complaint sought a declaration that the 1954 Act’s addition of the words “under God” violated the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the United States Constitution, as well as an injunction against the School District’s policy requiring daily recitation of the Pledge. This court found that the pledge did not violate the Establishment or Free Exercise Clauses.
Newdow then appealed. In June 2002 a 3-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that "(1) the 1954 Act adding the words ‘under God’ to the Pledge, and (2) [the Elk Grove School District's] policy and practice of teacher-led recitation of the Pledge, with the added words included, violate the Establishment Clause [of the Constitution]". Newdow v. U. S. Congress, 292 F. 3d 597, 602 (CA9 2002) (Newdow I).
The Elk Grove School District appealed the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court which, in June 2004, refused to hear the case stating that Michael Newdow "[lacked] standing to bring this suit in federal court."
On September 14, 2005, U.S. District Court Judge Lawrence K. Karlton again denied Dr. Newdow's standing. However, he affirmed the standing of the new plaintiffs who were represented by Dr. Newdow. Bound by the 9th Circuit's previous ruling, Judge Karlton once again held "that the school district's policy with regard to the pledge is an unconstitutional violation of the children's right to be free from a coercive requirement to affirm God. . .. [T]he school districts' policies violate the Establishment Clause." The opinion continues;"
"The recitation that ours is a nation 'under God' is not a mere acknowledgement that many Americans believe in a deity. Nor is it merely descriptive of the undeniable historical significance of religion in the founding of the Republic. Rather, the phrase 'one nation under God' in the context of the pledge is normative," the court said in its decision."To recite the pledge is not to describe the United States; instead it is to swear allegiance to the values for which the flag stands: unity, indivisibility, liberty, justice and -- since 1954 -- monotheism," the court continued. "A profession that we are a nation 'under God' is identical ... to a profession that we are a nation 'under Jesus,' a nation 'under Vishnu,' a nation 'under Zeus,' or a nation 'under no god.'"
Newdow's estranged partner, now a fundamentalist, appealed, and argued that their daughter was a Christian who believes in God and has no objection either to reciting or hearing others recite the Pledge of Allegiance, or to its reference to God. Newdow v. United States Congress, 313 F.3d 500, 502 (9thCir. 2002) (“Newdow II”). The court affirmed it's original holding.
The reaction was strong. President George W. Bush said that the court's decision was "ridiculous." Senate Majority Leader Thomas A. Daschle described it as just nuts." House Majority Whip Tom DeLay called it "sad" and "absurd." Senator Robert Byrd labeled the judges "stupid." The Senate unanimously approved a resolution in support of the Pledge. Members of the House of Representatives gathered on the front steps of the Capitol recite the Pledge en masse. After the 9th Circuit rejected a petition to review the decision en banc the following February, the panel stood by its holding but issued an amended opinion. Newdow v. United States Congress, 328 F.3d 466 (9th Cir.2003) (“Newdow III”).
In the months following the court's decision, Attorney Generals from all 50 states filed papers asking the Supreme Court of the United States to review the decision, 49 of which joined a legal brief sponsored by Oklahoma Attorney General Drew Edmondson and Idaho Attorney General Lawrence Wasden. California filed a separate brief, also urging the Supreme Court to hear the case.
In 2004, the Supreme Court heard Elk Grove Unified Sch. Dist. v. Newdow, 542 U.S. 1, (2004), an appeal of the ruling, and rejected Newdow's claim on the grounds that he was not the custodial parent, and therefore lacked standing, thus avoiding ruling on the merits of whether the phrase was constitutional in a school-sponsored recitation.
(Justice Thomas in his dissent wrote that "[t]he text and history of the Establishment Clause strongly suggest that it is a federalism provision intended to prevent Congress from interfering with state establishments." For Justice Thomas, an official State religion would apparently be constitutional.)
Almost immediately the Becket Fund, a religious group, led a group of plaintiffs and appealed the 9th Circuit's original ruling in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. Newdow v. United States Congress, 383 F. Supp. 2d 1229 (E.D. Cal. 2005) (“Newdow IV”). On Mar. 11, 2010, the court published its opinion upholding the constitutionality of the teacher-led recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance by students in public schools. The 2–1 majority found that the recitation did not constitute an establishment of religion prohibited by the United States Constitution.
So, we are back to where we started. However, I'm sure we haven't see the end of this. Of course my opinion, as an atheist, is that any law that espouses any religion is a violation of the Establishment Clause. To have my government force me to acknowledge the existence of a supernatural being for which there is zero evidence seems crazy and, certainly, deeply offensive. But then again, the government is also forcing me to go to A.A. meetings where I'm coerced into holding hands and saying the Lord's prayer, too.
Former MADD President Arrested For D.U.I.--Oh, The Irony!
Former president of MADD arrested on DUI charge
Published: Thursday, February 24, 2011 at 11:58 a.m.
Last Modified: Thursday, February 24, 2011 at 11:58 a.m.
Last Modified: Thursday, February 24, 2011 at 11:58 a.m.
A former president of the defunct local chapter of Mothers Against Drunk Driving was arrested recently by the Gainesville Police Department on a DUI charge.
Debra Oberlin, 48, was arrested after she had difficulty on a field sobriety test. She registered a .234 and .239 on breath alcohol tests. Florida's legal limit for driving is .08.
Oberlin, a Realtor, had no comment when contacted Thursday by The Sun.
On Feb. 18 at 1:10 a.m., an officer spotted Oberlin driving erratically on Northwest 19th Street, swerving and crossing lanes, an arrest report states. Oberlin was pulled over in the 3600 block of Northwest 39th Avenue.
The officer wrote that Oberlin smelled of alcohol and had watery, bloodshot and dilated eyes. The report states that Oberlin told the officer she had four beers.
Gainesville's MADD chapter existed for several years in the 1990s before closing in 1996 because of lack of financial support. Oberlin was the chapter president for three years.
Oops! What confuses me is why she lied and told the officer she had four beers. That's more than enough to be over the legal limit (it takes only two). And it certainly wasn't enough for the whopping .239 she blew. I thought the president of MADD would be a little more knowledgeable about D.U.I. laws. I hope she appreciates the strict punishment she'll get as a direct result of MADD's lobbying efforts.
My experience with the New Hampshire workers who run the Impaired Driver Intervention Programs (IDIP) suggest that they are mostly self-loathing, hateful, former alcoholic AA true-believers and religious fundamentalists whose mission it is to get you to admit that you are an alcoholic and get you to AA to find God and sobriety. They are of low intelligence, gullible, rigid and inflexible thinkers, who are afraid of change. They've been give some power by the state and want to flex it by bending you to their will and making you suffer as much as possible.
MADD, like AA, is a religious fundamentalist anti-alcohol movement. The Women's Christian Temperance Union and the Anti-Saloon League spearheaded the constitutional prohibition effort. Groups such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) assume that mantle today. They are a neo-prohibitionist organization founded on self-righteous anger and grief. MADD wants to eliminate alcohol consumption entirely. The founding president of MADD, Candy Lightner, left in disgust from the organization that she herself created because of its change in goals. "It has become far more neo-prohibitionist than I ever wanted or envisioned," she says. "I didn't start MADD to deal with alcohol. I started MADD to deal with the issue of drunk driving." MADD is now the most powerful anti-alcohol lobbying group in the country.
There are many good sites that accurately describe MADD and which include citations to record. One is Dr. David Hanson's "Mother's Against Drunk Driving: A Crash Course in MADD." I've also posted some in the margin on the right. (In general, don't trust Wikipedia for information on powerful groups like MADD or AA. Their multitudes are no doubt constantly editing the pages, putting forth what they want you to read. Only trust pages that cite to reliable sources for their information.)
Perhaps I'm jumping to conclusions about the typical MADD member, but I doubt it. When I look at Oberlin's mug shot, I see the same self-loathing, hateful, self-righteous, stupid stare I saw in all the people involved in New Hampshire's IDIP program. It has been frightening and infuriating to be at the mercy of people like this. Don't let it happen to you. If it already has, read on and arm yourself for the battle ahead!
My experience with the New Hampshire workers who run the Impaired Driver Intervention Programs (IDIP) suggest that they are mostly self-loathing, hateful, former alcoholic AA true-believers and religious fundamentalists whose mission it is to get you to admit that you are an alcoholic and get you to AA to find God and sobriety. They are of low intelligence, gullible, rigid and inflexible thinkers, who are afraid of change. They've been give some power by the state and want to flex it by bending you to their will and making you suffer as much as possible.
MADD, like AA, is a religious fundamentalist anti-alcohol movement. The Women's Christian Temperance Union and the Anti-Saloon League spearheaded the constitutional prohibition effort. Groups such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) assume that mantle today. They are a neo-prohibitionist organization founded on self-righteous anger and grief. MADD wants to eliminate alcohol consumption entirely. The founding president of MADD, Candy Lightner, left in disgust from the organization that she herself created because of its change in goals. "It has become far more neo-prohibitionist than I ever wanted or envisioned," she says. "I didn't start MADD to deal with alcohol. I started MADD to deal with the issue of drunk driving." MADD is now the most powerful anti-alcohol lobbying group in the country.
There are many good sites that accurately describe MADD and which include citations to record. One is Dr. David Hanson's "Mother's Against Drunk Driving: A Crash Course in MADD." I've also posted some in the margin on the right. (In general, don't trust Wikipedia for information on powerful groups like MADD or AA. Their multitudes are no doubt constantly editing the pages, putting forth what they want you to read. Only trust pages that cite to reliable sources for their information.)
Perhaps I'm jumping to conclusions about the typical MADD member, but I doubt it. When I look at Oberlin's mug shot, I see the same self-loathing, hateful, self-righteous, stupid stare I saw in all the people involved in New Hampshire's IDIP program. It has been frightening and infuriating to be at the mercy of people like this. Don't let it happen to you. If it already has, read on and arm yourself for the battle ahead!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)