Gibson fallout: When bloggers who respect each other collide!
posted at 7:54 pm on August 1, 2006 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
He apologized again today, although it didn’t stop ABC from yanking his project on the Holocaust.
This part is annoying:
I am in the process of understanding where those vicious words came from during that drunken display [From dad, maybe? -- ed.], and I am asking the Jewish community, whom I have personally offended, to help me on my journey through recovery. Again, I am reaching out to the Jewish community for its help. I know there will be many in that community who will want nothing to do with me, and that would be understandable. But I pray that that door is not forever closed.
As if Jews don’t have enough to do between worrying about Israel and dodging bullets outside the local JCC, now they have to help this moron understand that they’re not out sowing the seeds of world discord. Were I a cynic, I’d call this a calculated ploy to put the ball back in their court morally, a way to preempt grudge-holding by framing it in terms of denying assistance to a man in distress.
Good thing I’m not a cynic.
But maybe I’m being too hard on him. Dean Barnett finds the apology moving and Clint Taylor’s not so sure it was “the real Mel” who was speaking when he got pulled over, and I respect each of them enough to question myself when we disagree. There’s also the matter of a certain Greenwald-loving, bandwidth-drive-holding elephant in the room, whom Dean acknowledges in explaining why he’s a Gibson fan:
[I]t would be dishonest to deny this had some effect on me – he was hated by all the right people. Frank Rich, Andrew Sullivan, other self-righteous media types – Gibson was loathed by a virtual Who’s Who of annoying Americans.
It would also be dishonest to deny that it has been dispiriting to see these people get a victory lap because of Gibson’s antics. It was bad enough to watch Abe Foxman claiming vindication, but what was really painful was clicking over to Andrew Sullivan’s site to see Gibson’s shame had triggered a 48 hour gloat-fest on the Sage of Provincetown’s part. Somehow I doubt Frank Rich will be any more gracious in his column this Sunday.
Every new post about this at the Daily Dish, including and especially the ones that presume to tell us What It Means about “Christianism” in America, makes me a little more skeptical of my own judgment. I need to be careful or else someday that tool’s going to alienate me right into Pentecostalism.
Clint semi-defends Gibson on two grounds: people do and say uncharacteristic things when their inhibitions are down (e.g., beer goggles) and our uninhibited selves aren’t necessarily any more “real” than their inhibited counterparts. Gibson himself echoed the former point in wondering “where those vicious words came from,” as though the demon rum beamed down Jew-hating gremlins into his brain.
All I’d say to that is, however unpredictable its effects, booze doesn’t change political opinions. I’ve never gotten wasted and started arguing that we should raise the minimum wage, say, or close off ANWR to drilling. Inhibitions suppress thoughts that are already there, as anyone who’s ever been around a “one-drink drunk” can tell you. Replace them with a buzz and blurry vision and you’ve got beer goggles. Or, in the case of an anti-semite, a diatribe about how “Jews cause all the wars in the world.”
Clint’s second point is well taken and mirrors Dean’s conclusion that he’s willing to forgive Gibson because he believes his apology is sincere. If he’s truly remorseful, if he suppresses his prejudice when he’s sober because he doesn’t want to hurt the people he’s prejudiced against (which would be an odd position for a bigot, but fine), then yeah, he deserves some credit. But why should we give him the benefit of the doubt? It’s like the “doctrine of chances” in evidence: after the Passion and what his father said about the Holocaust, this little outburst can’t be a fluke or a coincidence. Why, at this point, should I believe he’s honestly sorry and not just doing damage control to protect his career?
And with that, let the comment sniping begin!
Update: If Karol is with me, who can be against me?
Except Clint and Dean, I mean.
Update: Ace and I are in sync:
Is there anyone who can manage to put out of mind Woody Allen’s numerous “jokes” about the sexual desirability of underage girls now that we know those weren’t so much “jokes” as sexual longings disguised as jokes?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
One time I drink 3 ounces of Nyquil instead of the recommended 2 ounces and found myself making disparaging remarks about Eskimos.
Frogbrother on August 1, 2006 at 8:05 PM
It seems you are basing your conclusion on anecdotal evidence: your personal experience and perhaps that of those you’ve known. Generalizing from such limited data puts you on thin ice.
The evidence of out-of-character speech and behavior among drunks (especially drunk alcoholics) is overwhelming and has been mentioned in previous threads here. Maybe you don’t believe what some of us have said. Oh well.
mikeyboss on August 1, 2006 at 8:16 PM
My point is, it’s not really that out of character.
But I’m intrigued. Give me an example of your political opinions changing after you’ve had a few. For example, whom do you blame for all the world’s wars after knocking back a six of Bud?
Allahpundit on August 1, 2006 at 8:21 PM
Heard about this site on the John and Ken show:
http://perezhilton.com/
Entelechy on August 1, 2006 at 8:29 PM
I’m kinda lost on Mel Gibson after this, but I can’t stand Andrew Sullivan’s obsession with this. He’s completely hyperventilating.
It seems like so long ago I used to actually like his blog…
frankj on August 1, 2006 at 8:35 PM
I may not be able to give an example pertaining to race or religion, but here’s something along the lines of taking out after a group I for whom I have high regard:
I love cops. My dad was a cop. My initial reaction when I hear of an accusation against the police is always in their favor. But, … I was arrested once for disorderly conduct (drinking, natch), and proceeded to become an a-hole I never knew I could be – verbal abuse of the police, attempts to escape, hung myself from the cell bars by my shirt sleeves (I wasn’t consciously suicidal, either).
And no, Dad never abused me. He was laid back and gentle. If I can recall any racist, anti-Semitic or other diatribes I’ll pass them along. Perhaps others who care to admit such a thing will comment.
mikeyboss on August 1, 2006 at 8:38 PM
Of course, this is just anecdotal but I don’t recall coming out of “The Passion” thinking worse of the Jews nor did anyone else I know who saw it. There were people on the internet and talk shows who hinted that the movie was anti-Jew, but I never saw it.
tdau1997 on August 1, 2006 at 9:19 PM
IMHO, until you have been there and seen it, you may never be convinced.
I would suggest that I never pegged Andrew Sullivan for the talking trout he has become either.
I still use my Biblical scale to weigh the evidence: “By their fruits ye will know them”. This wisdom separates words from deeds.
Ted (the Pope is an idiot) Turner has never said kill the Jews. He always apologizes for his blurts when pressed. But he does put his money where his mouth is, at the anti-Christian U.N.
There is a notable absence of religiosity on religious holidays and a preponderance of demon hell monster movies on TCM on Christian high holy days. In your face IMHO. Not killing Jews, or Christians, but dumping on Christians regularly. By his fruits I consider him a small potatoes
insulter of Christians. I don’t hate him. I think he is crying out for a reason to believe in God, and in Jesus.
Aside from building private chapels, producing The Passion of the Christ (which awes me), and some left wing anti-war stands I don’t see evidence of Jew hating behaviour by Gibson. The Catholic League accepts his apology, but they are Catholic.
I do see a pattern of the gross stupidity of someone who cannot handle fame. The dopey incident of him drinking from some babe’s shoe has the marks of a religious boy trying to be sinful.
If I had to tell Mel any one thing I would say: Mel, you are going bald. Get over it! The hair doesn’t come back. stop before you become a freaking Fatty Arbuckle. You don’t have to be a Saint to have made The Passion. You only have to respect the Saints and aspire to be what they were. They all had feet of clay. They were all little men who tried. Get a caretaker. Adjust your medication. You are a stone Catholic so you can’t cheat on your wife. Get over that too. Buddy, you’re losing your hair anyway, so any babe who cheats with you is a stone phoney after your aura and money. Go back to the Cross and pick it up. You just made it a little heavier. Who hasn’t. Come on home
entagor on August 1, 2006 at 9:29 PM
1.
It’s not contradictory to hold critical views about a group but not want to be rude on an individual basis. A lot of people don’t go around picking fights with or being needlessly rude to groups about whom they have profound political or religious disagreements. Obviously it’s a lot more politically sensitive and hurtful when the group is ethnic rather than ideological, and obviously a conservative or liberal’s opinions on the other’s policies are more widely shared than Mel’s opinions about Jewish influence on geopolitics. But the difference could just be in the nuttiness (and political heat) of the opinion, not the rudeness of the holder.
2. I agree that beer only makes you say things you don’t believe in the context of a genuine feeling. For example, genuine resentment is uninhibited so you release it with a nasty remark the substance of which you don’t actually mean. So say, using racism as a tool to vent a nasty feeling is one thing, but offering a geopolitical theory apropos of nothing is something else entirely.
3. A lot of reaction to the latest Mel statement seems to be “should we believe him or not?” and “what’s with asking the Jews for help?” I don’t think it was intended as slate-wiping in itself, I thought his statement implied his pennance and a supposedly genuine attempt at self-examination were only beginning. So I don’t think it’s a question of his sincerity just now, it’s ongoing. There may be some talking-past-each-other going on: one side is saying, yeah, that’s how it should be, if he shows ongoing sincerity we should be accepting; the other side saying, how can you exonerate him already, it’s obviously PR. The first side may look willfully gullible to the latter, but the latter look unwilling to ever be forgiving, even down the line.
As for the Jewish community line, I think that might be an acknowledgment that he has a problem with racism, not just alcoholism, lest anyone think this talk of recovery was only referring to the latter (cause it apparently wasn’t clear enough; I’ve heard commentators wonder if he meant some sort of Jewish AA group or something). Anti-semitism can be a particularly paranoid/mentally unhealthy form of racism, after all.
And it’s only an imposition on them if they weren’t going to be spending that time and energy denouncing him.
Alex K on August 1, 2006 at 10:08 PM
I was married to a drunk, his father was a drunk, his mother became one and this much I know from personal experience: who they are and what they think isn’t changed by booze…booze only makes them vicious or wimpy, but their views are their views. The aforementioned folk were seemingly “nice”, “normal” people and they could still be that. Years later, they were still basically the same and yes, they still drank lots of booze.
sharinlite on August 1, 2006 at 10:11 PM
Two thoughts:
1. he was blind drunk. Ever say anything you regretted when you were drunk?
2. if he had been a muslim and had made these remarks about jews, it would be forgotten by tomorrow.
Labamigo on August 1, 2006 at 10:23 PM
That bugs me too — treating racism as an illness. It goes back to his nonsense about “where these ideas could have come from,” as though they’re something external, like a virus. If he wants to cure his “disease,” he should do a little reading.
A spokesman from the ADL or some other Jewish organization analogized it to a disease today, too. Bad move. The stigma is useful but it lets them off the hook for their moral choices.
Allahpundit on August 1, 2006 at 10:28 PM
I agree the disease terminology is bad, as analogy or just diagnosis, when it comes to racism itself. But hatred or resentment, at least if they’ve become this destructive, are psychological problems, and if they’re directed at racial groups, that’s more than just a misinformed political view. Randomly shouting about Jews while drunk implies not just that you’ve been reading the wrong books, but that you’ve got psychic health problems too. It would seem to call for therapy, and a history lesson.
Alex K on August 1, 2006 at 10:50 PM
This is kind of weird… I know a lot of peole who will argue just to argue if they’ve even had one drink. People that were cool as hell the rest of the time, but the second they take a sip they are complete ass**les. They would argue against something you know they actually agreed with, simply because that was their “drunk” personality. That doesn’t seem to be what happened in Gibson’s case however.
In Gibson’s situation, I don’t know exactly where it came from. Perhaps he’s a psycho conspiracy theorist type. He fits the profile… Opposes Iraq war, praised Fahrenheit 9/11… He probably watched a little liberal media that day, got drunk and then started to unload on the Jewish people. But sounds like he may truly have his issues, but maybe not even know it.
I know racism can be realized when you move to a particular area that has a lot of members of a particular race, from an area that didn’t. While you may have been friends with the random member of that race in your original home, in the new location you find yourself dreading dealing with them in daily life. You might even have friends that are of that race that have the same issue with the “general” public of their own race, so that makes it all that much easier to become what one would call “racist”. One might not be in their own mind a racist, just observing particular behaviors and attributing them to a group as a whole. Even though a person might realize that it’s just a generalization, and doesn’t apply across the board, with a few drinks in them they might feel open enough to have a conversation about it, and come off as much more of a bigot than they really are.
I’ve had drunk conversations about politcal issues with people and I find myself having to pause to organize my thoughts, and even then it’s often tough, so my argument comes out different than intended. Instead of laying out a minute or two of points and pretty much ending a debate, I struggle through going point for point, and usually still “win”, but not as authoritatively as I might sober.
Recently my cousin and I were talking about Global Warming…. He, surprisingly, agreed what a pile of garbage it is, though he continued to rail against polution. His point wasn’t as clear as he probably wanted it to be and it was like an hour later when something “clicked” and I realized what he had originally tried to say in his first comment that would have virtually eliminated the entire stupid conversation. He said of Global Warming (paraphrasing) “it’s real, we’re obviously poluting, but they shouldn’t call it “global warming”". We went in so many circles, but later he repeated it more simply that he agrees that global climate change as a result of human activity is ridiculous, but that he thinks we’re obviously destroying the planet with polution. A position I pretty much agree with. His wording until the end didn’t convey the message that he through “global warming” out the window, because he kept sayign “it” was happening… but he was talking about “pollution”, which we know is happening. But our younger generations have tied that term to Global Warming so he was having trouble articulating that he didn’t agree with global warming BS at all.
One final note. I think Islam is evil. I’m sorry, I just don’t buy any of the religion of peace crap. I think it’s evil. Now as most of us know, free speech in public is generally reserved for liberals who want to bash Bush, Christianity, etc. But conservatives don’t dare speak their mind for fear of “bigot” labels and pleas for “open-mindedness”, etc. I would never just say flat out in public (around people, excluding blogs, etc.) “Terrorism won’t stop, as long as Islam is around”… But give me a few drinks and some bloviators who want to argue with me and you might hear it.
RightWinged on August 2, 2006 at 12:08 AM
If it’s Bud I blame Pete Coors (the drunk-driving lout). If I slug back a sixer of Heniz I blame Bush. If I would happen to down a 6-pack of Pabst then I’d blame the trailer parks of the world for all of my problems. Follow this pattern with Corona (Mexico is blamed), Harp (blame the Irish…those gits) or Becks (all Germans are Naxis, including that formerly hot singer Nina).
Don’t get me started on Sapparo.
Bellicose Muse on August 2, 2006 at 1:34 AM
I am bothered by what Mel Gibson said, but it troubles me more in the sense the he was not part of Liberal Hollywood. Even if we were to disagree on, for sake of arguement, a few non-religion related political viewpoints, I can at least be thankful he isn’t a moonbat. I am not wanting to write him off.
Of course the Left are gloating. They gloated during Rush Limbaugh’s “problem”. I always know that for whatever the Left endorses, the correct action is to do the opposite; hence I’m back to my “quagmire” with Mel Gibson.
For now, I’ll give him a black mark, but I’m not going to write him off. I’ll still watch his movies if I’m interested in the plot. I watch movies for the plot, not the star. It’s not like he’s Ben Afflek, who not only is he a Liberal moonbat, but I’ve decided to oblige him when he said he doesn’t want Yankee fans to watch his films anyway. Too bad, though, I did like Voyages of the Mimi.
hadsil on August 2, 2006 at 1:42 AM
I’m just curious: what would an acceptable apology look like? Or is there no redemption possible at all?
Grouchy Old Yorkie Lady on August 2, 2006 at 2:05 AM
I might be off base here, but I think that some people, Allahpundit included, are talking about Mel Gibson’s anti-semitism, and anti-semitism in general, like it is an either/or situation. Meaning either you are an anti-semite, or you are not. I don’t see it that way. I see it as more of a sliding continum. Let me explain. Below are the seven deadly sins.
Pride, Envy, Anger, Sloth, Greed, Gluttony, Lust.
All of us suffer from these. No one, unless your name is Jesus Christ, is entirely free of any of these sins. Some people are more guilty of certain sins than others, but none of us are entirely free of them. In my case, Envy and Anger trouble me the most. Even though I know I shouldn’t be envious and get angry, these two sins give me a great deal of trouble, even though I know they are sins. I have to struggle with them alot. Whereas Pride or Greed may cause others more trouble.
So since I think that all of us are guilty of these and other sins, the question isn’t are we entirely free of them or not. The question is, do we give in to our temptation to sin, or do we struggle against it, even though it is in our nature to do so.
And although they aren’t listed, I view racism and anti-semitism as similar sins, in that we all are to one extent or another, afflicted by them. But what marks us as moral beings is how we struggle against them.
Regretfully, it seems to me that Mel Gibson definitely is guilty of the sin of anti-semitism. So now, the question is, will he continue in his sinful ways, or will he strive to rise above it? Well, it is very difficult for us to know for sure. Only God really knows what is in Mel Gibson’s heart, and if he has truly repented for this sin.
Which brings us now to Allahpundits question.
Well, we arn’t talking about Divine forgiveness. We are talking about people forgiving Mel Gibson’s sin, and trusting him again. Because what Mel Gibson has done is damage the one thing his $850 million dollars can’t buy: his reputation. It appears Allahpundit no longer trusts or respects Mel Gibson. Which seems reasonable. As I don’t really respect or trust him much now either.
So what can Mel Gibson do? His apology could be faked. So there is no way for him to undue the damage to his reputation overnight. It will take a long time, and many good deeds and good works to restore his good name. Which may or may not be what Mel Gibson wants, or is able to do. But yes, Allahpundit, the burden is on Mel Gibson to prove that he is not an anti-semite, or if he is, he truly repents of it and wishes to better himself.
EFG on August 2, 2006 at 4:21 AM
Exactamundo. Actually, more like in 5 seconds.
Coronagold on August 2, 2006 at 6:43 AM
But why should we give him the benefit of the doubt? … Why, at this point, should I believe he’s honestly sorry and not just doing damage control to protect his career?
What has he ever done that would lead you to believe otherwise?
Do we all think he plans to make the cop regret arresting him? Do we think he owns Malibu? Do we think the lady cop has sweet tits? No one seems to care about him saying those idiotic things.
We know his father is an unapologetic racist, and clearly Mel has had some of that rub off on him having grown up with the guy. But if he actively squelches that in himself, knowing that it’s wrong, why condemn him at all? Isn’t that what people are supposed to do?
This is so much reading of emotional tea leaves, and prosecution of thought crime. Feh.
When he makes such remarks without apology, then we’ve got something to talk about. Anyone who’s ever been a jerk and then regretted it ought to be able to figure this out.
Pablo on August 2, 2006 at 7:01 AM
What, you don’t believe in the tabula rasa?
mikeyboss on August 2, 2006 at 8:44 AM
You know it doesn’t bother me to hear people defend the indefensible, even here. It’s human nature. We sometimes defend things based on emotion. I’ve actually argued with a straight face that Terrell Owens ain’t such a bad guy … now that he’s playing for my beloved Cowboys. I know I’m wrong. But emotionally, I just have to jump in there, common sense be damned.
So I get it. I like Mel, too. He was always one of the very few celebrities I respected. I’m hurt and disappointed, and tempted to defend him, too.
So I don’t mind the defenders, even though I know – and they know – that their defenses don’t pass the common sense test. Not even close.
And I don’t mind that conservatives are defending him. Some conservatives sort of adopted him after “Passion” came out. More of my Terrell Owens theory – he’s one of “us” now, so we’re going to defend him.
Fine. Have fun.
But you know what is driving me batty reading all these threads?
What is driving me absolute apeshit is that the defenses sound SO FRICKIN’ LIBERAL.
This is all I hear from defenders:
1) You don’t know alcoholism. I know alcoholism. We’re not experts (except I am, wink, wink).
2) He couldn’t help it. He has a disease.
3) He has no personal responsibility here. It wasn’t his fault.
4) His daddy made him do it. His actions came from his childhood.
5) It’s not that bad, and he’s generally a good guy.
Do I need to go on?
The above arguments are so patently liberal, so completely opposed to conservative ideals of personal responsibility. They make me ill.
Every argument I’ve heard from defenders has been used to defend Hezbollah and Al Quaida, Cindy Sheehan, Ted Kennedy (and his relatives), Jason Leopold, Deborah Frisch, even Slick Willy himself. The. Same. Arguments.
Ugh. We laugh at those arguments.
Sorry. I don’t give a rat’s ass about his mythical “disease,” and I don’t care if his racist daddy was mean to him. Barf. That crap is liberalism epitomized.
He did what he did and said what he said. Him. His choice. Period. Now come consequences.
Defend him if you have to. But please … if we could drop the liberal style of rhetoric.
At the very least, quit stealing Tom Cruise’s material. He’ll sue, you know. ;)
——————————————————–
Note: although there’s a point in the above somewhere, I need to make something clear since some of the defenders are getting awfully serious. Nothing, and I mean nothing, I post here isn’t at least a little tongue-in-cheek. If the above offends you, you’re looking to be offended.
Take a pill. Better yet, have a beer. Then we can all tell Jew jokes and go for a drive. It’ll be fun.
Professor Blather on August 2, 2006 at 11:36 AM
Uh, scuse me, senor. Get these words you put in here out of my mouth, pronto.
I care personally quite a bit. The drunk driving (what a lightweight!) pisses me off immensely; dumbass coulda killed somebody, and its not like he couldn’t just buy a limo and driver with the cash in his wallet.
And his entire attitude is appaling. To cops just doing their job. The “sugar tits” thing was particularly disgusting, because it again suggests a core character issue.
The only reason the anti-Semitism is being harped on is because its particularly surprising, really damn bizarre, and strangely ironic considering its exactly what he was accused of a year ago.
But that doesn’t mean the rest is something I “don’t care about.” Not even close.
Professor Blather on August 2, 2006 at 11:43 AM
Well said.
Allahpundit on August 2, 2006 at 11:44 AM
PB, those were questions, not words put in your mouth. And they remain, as of now, unanswered. Does anyone think he’s out to get the LASD? If not, why not? He said it, therefore it must be his true core belief, right?
Exactly. He was a complete asshole in a whole rainbow of ways, which carries consequences that he’s going to have to deal with.
I’m a big fan of personal responsibility, which is why a little bit of respect creeps in when I see him say things like:
“I acted like a person completely out of control when I was arrested and said things that I do not believe to be true and which are despicable…”
“I am deeply ashamed of everything I said.”
“Also, I take this opportunity to apologize to the deputies involved for my belligerent behavior. They have always been there for me in my community and indeed probably saved me from myself. I disgraced myself and my family with my behavior and for that I am truly sorry.”
He could have done what every fricking celeb/politician does when they flash their ass, which is to blame it on someone else. Gibson owned up to it, which is to say that he’s taken responsibility for his actions.
How about Ventura to Santa Monica? We can take PCH! :-P
Pablo on August 2, 2006 at 12:03 PM
Well, I would usually agree with Dean over Allahpundit any day of the week… if it came down to it; which is rare. I have to support Allahpundit on this one. I won’t lie; I have drank a few over the years and frankly Allahpundit is just dead right about this. The things Mel said were not a mistake, alcohol does not turn someone into a rascist; they already had to be one to begin with. Unless there is a rehab for racist jackasses; all the drug and alocohol therapy in the world won’t help him. I usually hate borrowing over-used phrases but: Can we just call a spade a spade here and move on?
Cary on August 2, 2006 at 12:07 PM
Actually I would suggest his detractors don’t pass the common sense test, as they persist in trying to build a mountain out of molehill.
I would further suggest you are using liberal tactics of political correctness to label and smear someone you take exception to or the comments he made while intoxicated, with your own agenda of political correctness. It seems some succumb to the virulent virus of moonbatism after all.
Then you have the nerve to suggest his apology (not needed in my opinion)is not sincere but damage control, because you would rather malign his character and works.
Puts my tonuge next to my cheek!! :)
MarkB on August 2, 2006 at 12:29 PM
Last night I swore to not post any more comments on this topic, as it has made me completely ’sick’. Mel is ‘troubled’, did bad things and is left to sort the rest of his life out. Que sera, sera. Done.
We have bigger issues to address. Middle East, the free world’s security and survival, Nov. 2006, to list a few.
Professor, if you and your wife are in the San Diego area, I hereby give HotAir permission to share with you my e-mail address. Just announce yourself so your preferred provisions of food/drink are taken care of. I live next to one of the world’s most famous spies, who shares your preference for fine cigars. Only cigar-smoking, for those with a dirty (Clinton) mind. We’d spend a most interesting afternoon, one from which all parties would be enriched.
Entelechy on August 2, 2006 at 12:53 PM
Now that would be racist!
And the politically correct term is “garden implement,” since, you know, political correctness is the point here
(Insert eye roll emoticon here).
Unfortunately I’m a couple thousand miles away, or I would very much take you up on that offer!
Professor Blather on August 2, 2006 at 12:59 PM
As Christ said when the pharisees were going to kill a prostitute ‘Let he who is without sin cast the first stone’.
Interestingly, no stones were cast.
docdave on August 2, 2006 at 1:14 PM
-mythical “disease- That, sadly, is what many do believe.
Explain to me why drunks/alcoholics say the absolute worst things to the people they love the most.??? Husbands, wives, their kids. Do they then mean all of the horrible things they said? NO…let me repeat NO. But what we want to do is judge and condemn. Judging is what people do, condemning is what we should not do.
I dont know what the real answer is here, I cant know and no-one here can know. Alcoholics say many many things they do not mean to say, thousands every day. Mel and I dont talk much, so I cant tell anyone what id in his heart.
Ask an alcoholics spouse what they’ve heard.
shooter on August 2, 2006 at 1:37 PM
Not to mention we have to ignore all the sober comments on this post, because we know that what they truly mean can only be validated when they are intoxicated, arrested for speeding, in the custody of a police officer recording them on audio.
Otherwise we must look askance for they are suppressing their true motives and agenda.
Will someone please bring me another beer, so I can get a genuine post here….I guess you have to ignore this one as well….as I am not there yet
MarkB on August 2, 2006 at 1:45 PM
Comment pages: