Thursday, January 6, 2011

Of Addicts and Entitlements

Of Addicts and Entitlements

I have a friend who has a once beautiful sister who is living in hell. He is able to do nothing for her, even though he has tried everything. This sister is getting on in years, but imagines she is still a head turner. Growing up, she developed a taste for clothes not found in J.C. Penny's. As a maturing lady, she immersed herself in People magazine. Her main skill became manipulating people. Eventually, she translated this into a talent for selling clunkers.  Her beliefs and values became completely negotiable, depending on her needs of the moment. She married young and often, and she had numerous children --- all with smart and eventually successful engineers. Now older, her entire calculus revolves around how given inputs will lead her to the buzz she requires. This led her to an off-the-charts stage 3 addiction to alcohol.  Since she considers her habits more like entitlements than hurts, she believes no one in the public square should have any moral business or funding to tell her otherwise.

Rather than return to honest employment, this sister began haunting internet hook up sites. Her specifications require rich single or divorced and retired men, with a taste for the life of luxury and a need for companionship. She imagines she will eventually find and induce one of them to love her and agree to indulge her every want for the rest of her life. Oddly enough, there seem to be many men who partly fill the bill — but only partly. It’s doubtful that any of them want to take on the responsibility for indulging her for the rest of her life. Rather, she seems to fill their need for disposable companionship, without the need for paying an escort service.  Her only requirement is that they fund her travels and meals. Obviously, none of them will be insane enough to take on permanent responsibility for a stage 3 entitlement alcoholic who has no intention to work and whose only visible means of support consists in a substitute for welfare, i.e., alimony, which is all but petered out. They well know their invites serve only to lead her into further desolation. Yet, their moral codes somehow allow them to rationalize the way they lead her on, to her further abuse and desolation. Then they abandon her and sail themselves overseas.

This sister has passed out cold, fallen hard, endured numerous concussions, and ridden on many taxpayer funded EMT rides. She has pitied her way out of numerous public intoxication charges. She has several times been arrested for public intoxication, served time, been in detox, and been in rehab and halfway houses. She has endured numerous episodes of being lost and wandering. She leaves the same messages, repetitively, until all memory storage is exhausted.  Her propensity for losing jobs, computers, cell phones, and purses is legendary.  Amazingly, her liver is only just beginning to show signs of damage. Once, she misplaced her purse while in a haze waiting to board a plane. A good Samaritan found the purse, found her cell phone in it, and dialed one of her contacts. The contact identified the sister, so the Samaritan was able to find her in the boarding line in time to return the purse and phone, sort of like a Bent Spear.

The sister always returns to homes of her aging children, just long enough to detox just enough to scour internet date sites, always leaving her children stressed, unhappy, and likely with reduced expectancies. Even so, the sister’s children have been resilient. One is a successful businessman who regularly attends church with his wife. One is rather perpetually upset, but most are good naturedly and responsibly employed. All are horrified, but nothing they do helps their Mom.

My friend tried to provide a home for his sister, but found her drinking, often. Bottles were hidden in numerous places. Chaperoning did not work. She would simply hide small containers in her purse and periodically drink from them while in various public restrooms. When all else failed, she would drink Listerine – for the alcohol. She would be found (actually, tripped over) at his home, passed out in the dark. She would demand the keys to her car, even while drunk. Upon refusal, she would call the police and claim to have been beaten. Eventually, she was given the keys to leave --- after she loaded her stuff and was asked not to return.

Had the law allowed, the friend could have forcibly rehabilitated her. But he knew the law would not allow. The law would take her side to prohibit him from keeping her locked in when she was drunk. If he tried to restrain her, he knew she would cause an uproar and then call the police and claim to have been assaulted. So, when she was arrested for DWI, the friend asked the Court either to keep her in jail for the max or to refer her to forced rehabilitation. The Court told her she would likely be released sooner, were she to hire counsel. She laughed and declined. So, the Court, not wanting to pay any longer for her board and room, essentially pushed her out. Once upon a time, there was a program for court ordered referrals to forced rehabilitation. The funding for that program has dried up.

So, the law will not rehabilitate her, and the law will not allow my friend to rehabilitate her. The sister’s only hope appears to be to commit crimes serious enough to result in an extended incarceration. That seems unlikely, unless she first maims some people.

This encapsulates the liberal ethos: People are entitled to stupify themselves and then to require taxpayers to pay to detox them — for from now until the nation is bankrupt – financially and morally. Our Progressive government will not sponsor the tough love that is required to rehabilitate this sister, nor will it allow my friend to rehabilitate her. Although she laughs at God, her only real chance is between her and God. My friend is Uncle Sam. His sister is America.

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

From A.T. --
Re: "leftism is a soul-disease. The first step to curing this malady is understanding that the ones who are sick must want to be cured."
Well, until those who are soul diseased want to change, we have little power to change them. Rather, any change must be made in "meetings" between them and God. The desire to change will continue to be delayed so long as we finance the Left's delaying tactics for avoiding the meetings. Progs need to be allowed to feel, much more immediately, the consequences of behavior. That tends not to happen in a society encompassed under a system of entitlements. Co-dependent types will simply not take personal responsibility so long as they find it efficient or convenient to blame others. The more successful a society becomes, the more it promotes codependents. The more codependents a society promotes, the less successful it becomes. The cycle continues, while God laughs and cries. To manage the cycle, the herd needs to be periodically thinned of Progs. A humane society would find a way to do this by undermining their political influence.

Anonymous said...

It's not the system that's broke; it's the people. We have imported and welcomed too many people who simply are not suitable for life in a representative republic. Even our President is now part of that progeny. This will not be fixed by any degree of legal tinkering, not even wholesale change. Rather, there will have to be a fundamental reassimilation, entailing changes in hearts and minds. A representative republic simply cannot survive the snakepit of central laws we have invented. Without assimilated respect for traditional mores, a nation has no choice but to rely on a quagmire of legalisms. We are now up to our necks in this godless quicksand.

Anonymous said...

That said, I do not share Rorty’s atheism. Rather, I consider the field of consciousness to be God; I consider that the field is responsive to, and cares about, our feedback; and I consider that we can appreciate IT spiritually (religiously), but not empirically. Ironically, some of Rorty’s more significant ideas seem easily to translate to an appreciation of the religious, merely upon apprehending that the broadest and most fundamental of fields, from which all others are derivative, is the Field of consciousness. To my lights, Rorty should have based his foundationalism on consciousness instead of on absolute empiricism.

In any event, Rorty considered that analytic philosophy may not have lived up to its pretensions and may not have solved the puzzles it thought it had. "A foundationalist believes that in order to avoid the regress inherent in claiming that all beliefs are justified by other beliefs, some beliefs must be self-justifying and form the foundations to all knowledge."

Of fundamental concern to each person is this: Does he wish to be the free and authentic arbiter of his own relation to God, or does he simply wish the security of conforming to what he is told to do and to believe? Secondary to that is this: To what extent should lovers of individual freedom and responsibility resist the juggernaut of borgdom ("social justice") that is so relentlessly and mindlessly pursued by the gland driven moral zombies among us?

Anonymous said...

When Progs get real power, nothing will stop the force of their crusade to create a false idol of heaven on earth, until there is great desolation. Progs and Twelvers are quite similar in that respect, and they are uniting against everyone with a modicum of common sense. Aside from material metrics, the only qualitative aspects these people have been trained to value consist in their own subjective pleasure and power. Their morality is entirely solipsistic. It is the kind of parasitic morality that cannot build a decent civilization, but that can only eat the stuffing as it rots. These people have no hope until they learn to cry out to a forgiving God. We cannot save them with mere arguments. They are too convinced they have all the answers. The best we can do is to leave them to sort things out for themselves, with God. If we try to hang on and save them, they will simply drown us all. Either we must ban them from Eden of we must depart and take Eden with us.

Anonymous said...

Using criminal law to make a "war on drugs" seems insane. I often think it would be more appropriate, less expensive, and more conducive to decent society to give adults wide rein to occupy their time howsoever they desire. However, by the third time they have caused a public disturbance as a result of being intoxicated or high, probably having endangered others and children in the process, and having wasted my tax "contributions" in public ER's, I suspect society would do better by requiring forced dryout and rehabilitation (as in lockdown) than by allowing the behavior to continue or by branding the offender with a criminal record. It's one thing to not be harming others. It's another thing to be publicly endangering other drivers and pedestrians, to be calling on public resources to treat your voluntarily induced ailments, and to become a millstone against the limited resources of your own family.

Anonymous said...

Feb. 8, 2010, C. Edmund Wright wrote an article for A.T.: "While some Tea Partygoers are hung up on single issues like TARP or immigration or AIG bonuses or even NAFTA, they are in the minority. Not everyone holds passions consistent with the Santelli inspiration or with Palin's emphasis, but it is beyond debate that the heart of the movement is a conservative, pro-business, pro-self-reliance, anti-big government sentiment."

I think that is correct. That said, if Libertarians think they own the brand, and everyone else with social concerns is disinivited, even fought against, so as to align Libertarians with Libertines on social issues, then they will lose. No doubt, a lot of Libertarians would rather vote with Libertines on social issues than vote with Social Conservatives on limited government issues. This leads me to ask: Which is more important to them: getting government institutions to grease a fast and complete slide into weed, polygamy, and beyond, or cutting government red ink? The answer to that may well determine whether the country keeps circling the drain or suddenly flushes into it. Failing to block an avalanche of sludge is a choice to be buried under it. As near as I can tell, more in scarce and governmental resources is spent by the ACLU and its fellow traveling Libs to use gov to force a sludge agenda than is used by social conservatives to fight against it. I doubt Social Conservatives will follow the lead of Libertarians, once they learn Libertarians and their candidates have not the slightest intention to resist the strategies for burying the country in the sludge that is sinking decent civilization.

Anonymous said...

I'm all for those adults (in age, anyway) whose visions of "liberty" consist of phantasms within hazes of stupor --- so long as they don't ask me to pony up the cost and taxes to rehabilitate their screwed up kids. Just take that liberty right into the Congo and let it fold in after you. But that's not what they want. They want to be entitled to their dope, polygamy, and socially irresponsible life style, but they want the rest of society to pay the clean up costs. No thanks. Grown ups tend to understand that it's much more than coincidental that our economic fall and our moral fall are occurring together. If enough of us don't grow up and figure out the sort of federal, State, and community laws and Mores that can sustain decent civilization, then we all fall. Yes, get the feds out of it. No, don't let sludge advocates sell their stuff to judges to force it on state electorates through the back door. Enough!