# Surely the best rant to show why cocaine is bad for you...?



## Amber Leaf (Feb 25, 2011)

Charlie Sheen rant audio | listen Charlie Sheen Alex Jones | Gossip Cop

Vatican assassin.


----------



## Dudester (Feb 26, 2011)

He's spending money like a drunk sailor on leave. 

As of right now, his TV show is on hiatus-CBS has decided not to shoot the four remaining episodes of this year-costing everyone money. Also, the show is contracted for next year, meaning that if Charlie doesn't clean up his act by August, the show might be cancelled.


----------



## Blood (Feb 26, 2011)

Dudester said:


> He's spending money like a drunk sailor on leave.


Because sailors are rich!!!!!!


----------



## garza (Feb 26, 2011)

I don know of Charlie Sheen. Is he someone worth the trouble of googling for to find out who he is?


----------



## Dudester (Feb 26, 2011)

Garza said:
			
		

> I don't know of Charlie Sheen


 
Movie/TV actor. Son of Martin Sheen-well known movie actor. Also brother of Emilio Estevez-also a movie/TV actor. 

Martin Sheen also had an addiction problem. Somewhere out there is a behind the scenes DVD of Apocolypse Now where Martin is seen on set-frequently drunk and/or high. 

Charlie has a history of substance abuse and a history of being with high dollar escorts and porn stars.


----------



## Dudester (Feb 26, 2011)

Blood said:


> Because sailors are rich!!!!!!


 

Sometimes ships are out to sea for a long time. In the case of the USS Ranger, the aircraft carrier was at sea for 14 straight months because of the Iranian crisis (1979-80). When the Ranger got back from sea, a lot of San Diego women folk went to greet the ship because they knew the sailors had been without for 14 months. Instead 99 percent of the sailors went straight to the airport and went home because they had forty days leave coming.


----------



## Writ-with-Hand (Feb 26, 2011)

In the material sense Charlie Sheen is a winner. 

And in the contemporary West that's all that matters. The exceptions to that rule of thumb being to walk on egg shells, or ignore the obvious if it's unflattering about black peoples, women, homosexuals, or Jewish peoples. 

By rule of thumb one must attack the metaphysics of the Eucharist, the cult of the saints (e.g., the Madonna), the image of the suffering Christ, critical thought, and promote contradiction, scientism (strictly the material, excepted the worship of the strictly the material), and the cult of the celebrity as appropriate role models (as opposed to saints).

The contradiction is that popular society expresses shock at the celebrity Charlie Sheen in his rather honest comments about winning materially in this world and seems to suggest his iconography should not be venerated or have a cult following. Like Charlie Sheen I'd prefer the popular world to pull its head out of its ____ and get its story straight. Construct a narrative that logically follows from one thing to the next. 





I sympathize with C. Sheen's view about not living in the middle. It comes with its dangers and like betting large on the stock market comes with great risks. You winner large and fail big.* 

I also sympathize to an extent with his view on winning big in the materialistic sense. But unlike C. Sheen I probably have greater sympathy for the non-material aspects of life. Therefore, I'm not antagonistic towards the physically unattractive, those of us that exist in the mediocre middle-class, or the life of the mind and metaphysical be its expression in the form of non-religious people like garza, Olly, Sam, Edge etc., or if it comes in the form of religious people like Baron, Patrick, Voodoo priests, Hindu nuns, or bearded Orthodox Jews. I'm not antagonistic towards the homeless either, even if they are unbathed, sleeping under bridges, and soaked in their own urine.

C. Sheen is correct about AA in some sense. The organization is very cult like to some degree. One old-time AA member got very angry at me once when I suggested members in Cocaine Anonymous must follow the instructions of their sponsors. He sharply responded that sponsors are there to listen to you. His point being they are not their to dictate. But in fact in CA, NA, and AA sponsorship has evolved to dictate. A Catholic priest acting as your spiritual director instructing you to be wary of dreams of power (potentially addictive), that potential abuse can come with paying for prostitutes, to thank God for life each morning, and to take account of one's fears is regarded by popular society as intrusive, malicious, brainwashing, and useless. But a sponsor in AA, sober but actively adulterous, instructing you to write 3 pages of things about your fears, read 10 pages from the Blue Book, and attend an AA meeting each night is regarded as salvific and wise advice. And be sure AA is ritualistic like any Catholic Mass. The Blue Book is venerated in one year by individual AA, CA, and NA members more than any Catholic - aside from the religiously vowed (e.g., monks, nuns) - will venerate the Bible during the entire span of their life. 

From a stand point of medical science, if AA or CA were a drug treatment for cancer of HIV it would be regarded as woefully inadequate with a poor success rate, and research into better drug treatments would be pursued. I've seen non-denominational Black Protestant Churches have as good a success rate as AA and CA. It never ceases to amaze me. I don't know what they do but they transform the human in a way that the large Catholic Church utterly fails in when it comes to substance addicts. 

That said, I'm don't share C. Sheen's antagonism towards AA. I think the organization provides a good service in society and has proven itself. C. Sheen seems to have a lot of bitterns towards AA. Possibly because his celebrity status and wealth did not impress AA members like it does popular society and women in general. Some AA members may have cut him down to size. AA members tend to be far less materialistic than the average Jane and Joe in society.


*The Man in the Arena - April 23, 1910 - Theodore Roosevelt Speeches- Roosevelt Almanac


----------



## garza (Feb 26, 2011)

So, bottom line is, not one of these people is worth worrying about.

Edit - Just as I clicked off I noticed the reference to TR's 'Man in the Arena'. That seems a strange thing to post in the midst of a discussion about a bunch of sprong-heads and drunks.


----------



## Writ-with-Hand (Feb 26, 2011)

garza said:


> So, bottom line is, not one of these people is worth worrying about.
> 
> *Edit - Just as I clicked off I noticed the reference to TR's 'Man in the Arena'. That seems a strange thing to post in the midst of a discussion about a bunch of sprong-heads and drunks.*



:lol: Well the C man is living on a certain wild level and he's also a talented and financially successful American. 

His celebrity status is both a blessing and a curse given his addictions - or even his points of view. Most of us "lesser beings" don't have our personal lives put up for public attention and judgment 24 hours a day.

I don't think celebrities should have their personal lives thrown out into the public to the extent they are today. I think it reflects equally - if not more so - poorly on popular society.

I also don't think sports organizations and media corporations should be penalizing atheltic and thespian celebrities for their unapproved of private lives if it's not impacting their professional work negatively. 

I suppose you can use the word "judgment" in two or more senses. I make "judgments" about the character and actions of celebrities all the time. However, I try not to "judge" them in another sense of that word. I try. Some of them I probably do "judge."

So, basically, I try not to "playa hate" and drink from the "hateraid." I try to worry more about raising my own pimping up. 

Certain thing will get me to "hating" though. Like jacking on the Virgin Mary. I don't play that. Not even from women. I don't care how big her breasts and butt are or beautiful her face. And I don't care how much money some dude has or how many attractive women he bangs down a week. And I don't care how many "cool" abortion loving women yap off at the mouth for me jacking on some "cool" dude they are enamored with. I draw that line in the sand. We can put our fists to the "chilly" (chest) and see which one is going to be the last one standing.


----------



## Writ-with-Hand (Feb 26, 2011)

:-k

1. Charlie Sheen: I'll Go Back to Men... Without Chuck Lorre - News - Yahoo! TV



> Continuing an anti-Lorre tirade  that began Thursday morning on the Alex Jones Show radio program, Sheen  unleashed more harsh words about his boss Friday afternoon on Pat O'Brien's Loose Cannons radio show.





> On Thursday afternoon, CBS and Warner Bros. Television announced they  were stopping production on Two and a Half Men for the remainder of the  season due to Sheen's recent "statements, conduct and condition." On  O'Brien's show, Sheen said he would fight to get paid for the remaining  unproduced episodes. The actor currently makes $1.8 million per episode  for his work on the show.





> Sheen called Men executive producers Lorre and Lee Aronsohn "a couple of AA Nazis and really just blatant hypocrites," adding that they "picked a fight with the wrong guy."


$1.8 million *per episode* is big time pimpin. That can spur a lot of jealousy among the mediocre middle-class who can be antagonistic against those that step-up their pimp game.

And I don't know the real story behind the beef between these producers and Charlie Sheen. Maybe the producers are right, maybe wrong, maybe guilt is spread between both sides. I have no idea. But... if they really are members of AA and really are just jacking on Charlie Sheen because they disapprove of his life style (drinking, promiscuity etc.) that is not right.

For critical thought... lets assume the producers were Roman Catholics jacking on C. Sheen because they did not approve of his "immoral" lifestyle?

Would not Sheen be portrayed as a martyr being persecuted by a tyrannical and evil Catholic Church?  

My point is not to turn this into a "woe's the Catholic Church" tread, rather I'm using a known image (Catholic Church/Catholicism) of tyranny and persecution against the good, innocent, hedonistic. I'm just switching variables (AA, Catholicism) to tweak out _*perception *_in this public beef being played out between C. Sheen and his producers. 

Drinking yourself to death or heterosexual promiscuity may be potentially biologically dangerous things (e.g., damage to organs, HIV). But I'm not sure it is the place of business to be regulating your personal life if it does not negatively impact on your job or place of employment.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Feb 26, 2011)

garza said:


> I don know of Charlie Sheen. Is he someone worth the trouble of googling for to find out who he is?


 
No, don't bother.

Sorry, missed this, 





> So, bottom line is, not one of these people is worth worrying about.


You are entirely correct.


----------



## garza (Feb 26, 2011)

'...full of sound and fury, signifying...' What?


----------



## Bruno Spatola (Feb 26, 2011)

garza said:


> That seems a strange thing to post in the midst of a discussion about a bunch of *sprong-heads* and drunks.


 
What the smeg is a sprong-head? Is Hugh Grant one? I really have the urge to shout it at someone.


----------



## garza (Feb 26, 2011)

crack addict


----------



## Amber Leaf (Feb 27, 2011)

In no way was this thread intended to judge Charlie Sheen himself. It was just that I thought it was quite a good example of the kinds of thing a mind can come up with after a lot of drug abuse (esp cocaine). 

As somebody who has, and has known many people who had similar thoughts or  have gone on similar rants (although not to the degree where celebrity fame has come into the equation) I would say it is pretty reasonable to be saying that it says a lot about long term drug use without criticising the person making the rant.

AA and NA do seem to be quite dubious. I can imagine they may do some good somewhere but I don't personally agree with the whole religious aspect.


----------



## caelum (Feb 27, 2011)

Long-term drug abuse can really mess people up.  I worked with this guy Garth who was actively a crack-head, and had been for many years, and his nerves were just fried.  Said the most nonsensical, illogical crap.  Twitched.  2 days after payday was broke.  I felt bad for the guy.


----------



## Writ-with-Hand (Feb 28, 2011)

He's making $1.8 million per episode and kicking with top notch Hollywood hookers. Plus he eats what he wants, drives what he wants, and urinates where he wants. Ain't nothin bad in his land. He's "winning." 

You must be thinking of fat Wisconsinites with diabetes mad at Governor Scott Walker?


----------



## JosephB (Feb 28, 2011)

Almost to a person, the people I know who have problems with AA haven't really admitted to themselves that they have a problem. Their lives are a total mess, yet they still hold on to the idea that they know better than people who have managed to get sober and get their act together. And most of the people who say it doesn't work haven't actually gone through the 12 steps. How can you claim it doesn't work if you haven't done it? The idea it's cult-like is ridiculous -- especially if it's coming from someone who's life is totally out of control and every thought is geared toward getting his next drink or drug of choice. Cult-like compared to what? Of course, if you can get clean and sober without it -- fantastic.

And I'd hardly call Sheen a winner. The guy is a train wreck. I'm betting he'll be broke in a few years and doing infomercials -- if he isn't dead. Maybe he'll clean up and put his life in order. If Robert Downey Jr. can do it, anyone can.



garza said:


> So, bottom line is, not one of these people is worth worrying about.



Knowing about something and worrying about it are two entirely different things.


----------



## TheFuhrer02 (Feb 28, 2011)

So I heard Charlie Sheen even visited a local junior football team and told them that drugs can ruin your life. Interesting... Saw it on TMZ about a week ago, perhaps less.


----------



## garza (Feb 28, 2011)

Okay, Joe. So not one of these people is worth knowing about.


----------



## JosephB (Feb 28, 2011)

Heh. Well, if you lived here, you'd have to go out of your way to not know who Charlie Sheen is -- or run around with your hands over your ears yelling, la la la la!


----------



## garza (Feb 28, 2011)

Why? 

What makes him so omnipresent in everyday life? Remember I don't watch television and I seldom go to movies. I don't listen to radio because I've been on the radio so much it bores me. If he's on the front page of the local newspapers daily, that would draw my attention, but only briefly. With the exception of a few football stars such as Beckham and Ronaldo, the lives of professional sports people and actors are equally boring. When one of these people writes a good book about war, revolution, politics, economics, or the rate of development in 'developing' countries then I'll take notice and applaud.


----------



## JosephB (Feb 28, 2011)

Oh, I apologize for not having memorized your viewing, reading or listening habits. 

I suppose if you lived here and you weren't exposed to the Charlie Sheen story through the media, it's possible you might not have heard the story, if you're a total recluse with no human contact -- or if you had no friends, neighbors, coworkers etc. I'm betting if he hadn't been caught, Ted Kaczynski would know about Charlie Sheen, because even he had to emerge from his corrugated metal hut once in a while to buy provisions. Even my mother, who takes great pride in her ignorance of pop-culture knows about it. You don't have to be interested in it or care -- you just have to be awake.


----------



## garza (Feb 28, 2011)

There are too many events and too many people who are imortant to waste time reading about the kind of people mentioned in the posts above. for example, a bit earlier today another Libyan cabinet minister resigned. That's important. That's something I want to know about. And today a news item from Russia identifies the problem with Iran's nuclear reactor. And now there is word that a Danish family and their crew have been hijacked by Somalian pirates in the Indian Ocean. Those events and the people involved are important, not some drunk in California. We have sprong heads and drunks living in the streets of Belize City that _you've_ probably never heard of. What's the difference?


----------



## Writ-with-Hand (Feb 28, 2011)

ROFLMAO! Oh my God! I love this dude! 

Check him out in video interview on the Today Show.

I think the C man is close to losing his mind. He cured himself in his brain. :lol: Therefore by the grace of God go I. And "Adonis DNA." LMAO.

He doesn't look very health either. He looks like he could be binging (big time) on crack cocaine. Severe paranoia is not uncommon for those that can afford to smoke up South America - and frequently. 

Video: http://www.popeater.com/2011/02/28/charlie-sheen-cbs-war/?icid=maing|main5|dl1|sec1_lnk2|47229



> Charlie Sheen sat down with the 'Today Show'  for a candid conversation Monday morning and gave some insight into  what is no doubt one of the more bizarre celebrity stories in recent  memory.
> 
> CBS, home to Sheen's sitcom 'Two and a Half Men,' voiced concern over  the actor's reported drug binges involving multiple porn stars during  the past few months -- concern the actor took offense to, claiming he is  at war with CBS.
> 
> "[We're] definitely at war. The war is that they are trying to destroy  my family, trying to take all my money, leaving me with no means to  support my family," Sheen told 'Today.' *Watch clips from the interview inside!*


----------



## JosephB (Feb 28, 2011)

garza said:


> There are too many events and too many people who are imortant to waste time reading about the kind of people mentioned in the posts above. for example, a bit earlier today another Libyan cabinet minister resigned. That's important. That's something I want to know about. And today a news item from Russia identifies the problem with Iran's nuclear reactor. And now there is word that a Danish family and their crew have been hijacked by Somalian pirates in the Indian Ocean. Those events and the people involved are important, not some drunk in California. We have sprong heads and drunks living in the streets of Belize City that _you've_ probably never heard of. What's the difference?



 I get your point. There are many, many stories that are far more important. Just about all of them, in fact. My point is, there are some stories that are ubiquitous, and as long as you’re not in a coma, you’ll hear about them.

  I don’t give a rat’s hindquarters about Charlie Sheen either. That I know about him and his recent B.S. doesn’t mean I care or that I’m not following other significant stories.

  Really – it’s not some big deal that you’ve somehow managed to not know something.


----------



## Writ-with-Hand (Feb 28, 2011)

JosephB said:


> Almost to a person, the people I know who have problems with AA haven't really admitted to themselves that they have a problem. Their lives are a total mess, yet they still hold on to the idea that they know better than people who have managed to get sober and get their act together. And most of the people who say it doesn't work haven't actually gone through the 12 steps. How can you claim it doesn't work if you haven't done it? The idea it's cult-like is ridiculous -- especially if it's coming from someone who's life is totally out of control and every thought is geared toward getting his next drink or drug of choice. Cult-like compared to what? Of course, if you can get clean and sober without it -- fantastic.



I don't know if you're directing this at me or not. I'm not antagonistic towards AA - at least I don't consider myself to be. Charlie Sheen on the other hand certainly is.

All I'm saying is AA does have a cultish like quality in terms of ritual (every meeting like every Catholic Mass requires going through formulaic procedures/recitals) and has taken on a view that it's the only way to earthly salvation for those addicted to substances. But this is not the case. Some non-denominational "Black Churches" (Protestant churches predominately Black-American) have very good success at converting addicts (converting them from the "sins" of addictions). I've known them. One in fact used to go to Cocaine Anonymous. It was the Black Church that converted her from her ways however. She's been sober for well over a decade now. 

The Catholic Church doesn't do well in this area. The exception being its semi-monastic communities it sets up for drug addicts.

Saying AA *is the only way* is like me saying every religion is BS and only the Catholic Church can change people for the better.

You'll note I've never suggested AA doesn't work. What I've pointed out - factually I think - is that it has an overall poor success rate. I know AA would say I'm "intellectualizing" rather than surrendering to AA "and the process" of recovery. Perhaps. But such metaphysical musings never replace quantitative analysis and data in medical science. Research into cancer treatment is not satisfied with a 50% success rate. Currently, all known methods to sobriety seem to have a far less success rate then that.




> And I'd hardly call Sheen a winner. The guy is a train wreck. I'm betting he'll be broke in a few years and doing infomercials -- if he isn't dead. Maybe he'll clean up and put his life in order. If Robert Downey Jr. can do it, anyone can.


R Dawg was out there bad. :lol:

Nonetheless, from *a strictly materialistic level* the C man is a "winner." Pablo Escobar and Al Capone were winners too. 

Spiritually and intellectually is another matter. But how many women with big breasts and nice shaped butts hang around nerds and monks?


----------



## Writ-with-Hand (Feb 28, 2011)

garza said:


> There are too many events and too many people who are imortant to waste time reading about the kind of people mentioned in the posts above. for example, a bit earlier today another Libyan cabinet minister resigned. That's important. That's something I want to know about. And today a news item from Russia identifies the problem with Iran's nuclear reactor. And now there is word that a Danish family and their crew have been hijacked by Somalian pirates in the Indian Ocean. Those events and the people involved are important, not some drunk in California. We have sprong heads and drunks living in the streets of Belize City that _you've_ probably never heard of. What's the difference?



I can only speak for U.S. culture which I know. It may or may not be the same elsewhere. But in the U.S. the cult of celebrity is to popular society what the cult of saints are to orthodox Catholicism.

That's not an apologetics for Catholicism but a comparison of the two cultures, so to speak, as to who they place up as "role models" for the masses. 

For example, I look to the life of Saint Bernadette, a sickly, impoverished, once illiterate girl in the mountains of France (the people in that region once regarded as the "Indians of France") for life example. My peers in the U.S. often look to sports and thespian celebrities.


----------



## caelum (Mar 1, 2011)

Writ-with-Hand said:


> He's making $1.8 million per episode and kicking with top notch Hollywood hookers. Plus he eats what he wants, drives what he wants, and urinates where he wants. Ain't nothin bad in his land. He's "winning."


 
That's not the best definition of winning I can imagine, Writ, especially when coupled with severe drug problems.

Charlie Sheen's publicist just quit after this TV interview, and a few other impromptu media appearances without consulting him.  The guy's all over the place here.  Some great quotes: "Bi-polar?  No.  I'm bi-_winning_.—My brain isn't from this particular terrestrial realm.—I was banging seven gram rocks and finishing 'em because that's how I roll."

[video=youtube;h5aSa4tmVNM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5aSa4tmVNM[/video]

Too bad Charlie's in this state.  I really liked him in Scary Movie 3.  The interview lady seemed pretty combative in her questions, like she was goading him to give stupid answers.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Mar 1, 2011)

> I can only speak for U.S. culture which I know. It may or may not be the same elsewhere. But in the U.S. the cult of celebrity is to popular society what the cult of saints are to orthodox Catholicism.


To my mind the cult of saints is to Christianity what Bach flower remedies and homoeopathy are to science and the cult of celebrity is to culture what lewd limericks are to poetry and literature. But that is only my view and I realise I am probably in a minority in thinking the majority is usually led up the garden path by the manipulative who would rather they did not see.


----------



## JosephB (Mar 1, 2011)

Writ-with-Hand said:


> I don't know if you're directing this at me or not. I'm not antagonistic towards AA - at least I don't consider myself to be. Charlie Sheen on the other hand certainly is.



I was reffering to Sheen's comments.



Writ-with-Hand said:


> All I'm saying is AA does have a cultish like quality in terms of ritual (every meeting like every Catholic Mass requires going through formulaic procedures/recitals) and has taken on a view that it's the only way to earthly salvation for those addicted to substances.



There is a ritual aspect. But when most people refer to AA as a cult, it's usually more in line with this definition -- "a religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist." The same people often use the term "brainwashing" etc.

Nowhere in AA literature are there any claims that AA is the only way. Many proponents will tell you that they've tried everything else -- and it's the only thing that has worked for them. And some believe it is the only way, based on experience. But that's not the "official" AA position. There are a lot of folks in AA who would be the first to congratulate you if you got sober on your own or by using some other method.



Writ-with-Hand said:


> You'll note I've never suggested AA doesn't work. What I've pointed out - factually I think - is that it has an overall poor success rate.



I would contend that the success rate is very high for people who actually go through all 12 steps and make an effort to stay active in the program. Some of the steps are more about maintenance -- so technically, you never literally complete them. However, if you just show up to a few meetings or go about it half-ass, it's not going to work for any period of time. Certainly, if you factor in the many people who just dabble in it, yes, the success rates are quite low.

One of the problems is many people are forced into it by the courts, employers, or even family. Although some people in those situations catch on to it, that usually doesn't work. You have to be ready for it, admit you have a problem and that you need help.

Otherwise, the success rate is low compared to what? There are alternatives, but most are support groups who borrow a lot from AA. I don't know that any of then can claim higher success rates -- whatever those might be. There are some available drug therapies -- but obviously there is a compliance problem with those.

There are also moderation programs that are designed to help you cut down on drinking. Many experts in the field of addiction find the idea laughable, and while some who try it can often moderate for short periods of time, they're soon right back to alcoholic-level drinking.


----------



## Amber Leaf (Mar 1, 2011)

> But that is only my view and I realise I am probably in a minority in thinking the majority is usually led up the garden path by the manipulative who would rather they did not see.



You make a good point. It's strange how widely spread this story is. I don't really watch television but my friend played me the interview last week and now I'm seeing stuff about Charlie Sheen everywhere. 

In a way, I can imagine a few years down the line we will be getting reports of how Charlie has recovered and found God/salvation/something etc... that has returned him to the straight track. I do get paranoid myself and it does make me wonder how good an actor Charlie Sheen is. 

But on the other hand, it is like St. Bernadette and the saints. Just people picked to be role models/examples for whatever means to whoever's ends. 

Anyone who is under the delusion that they are not of this terrain and somehow above others who remain on the planet is surely going to end up alienating themselves?


----------



## Amber Leaf (Mar 1, 2011)

JoesphB - from what I know (which may not be the case so please correct me if I'm wrong), the original third step includes turning our lives over to God as we understand him. I've just got that from wikipedia but have seen posters in different places using twelve step ideals saying alternatives including submitting to a higher force after admitting you have no control over the addiction. Is this the case?

I've have never bothered with A.A. I understand the concept and can see how the whole twelve steps idea could be altered to adapt to the culture an addict may be in. 

Do you not think that a person should work through their addiction problems without having to submit on any level? 

In certain cases, previous submission to fears/paranoias/certain people's negativity/their own negativity etc... has been part of the problem where the addiction has formed.

Surely it should be about someone who has a problem with addiction controlling their own mind to adapt to understanding how these factors can have a negative influence on their choices?


----------



## Baron (Mar 1, 2011)

The whole issue of role models is about people who have achieved something that's considered worth trying to emulate.  Shipwrecked lives really don't fit the bill.  Making it through and providing direction to others is a lot more healthy.

Someone who can't get to grips with their own disease isn't going to cure anyone else's.  Neither will they offer an example of anything other than a direction _not_ to take.


----------



## Writ-with-Hand (Mar 1, 2011)

Olly Buckle said:


> To my mind the cult of saints is to Christianity what Bach flower remedies and homoeopathy are to science and the cult of celebrity is to culture what lewd limericks are to poetry and literature. But that is only my view and I realise I am probably in a minority in thinking the majority is usually led up the garden path by the manipulative who would rather they did not see.



That's because you were reared Protesant or maybe neo-Christan.

Saints provide examples for lay and clergy (including for the Pope). The Church claims all are called to be saints. But path to sainthood goes into metaphysical concepts like "grace" in combination with concepts of discipline akin to AA like "surrendering."

Aside from providing an example for living... the community of saints are akin to the Buddhist concept of "gods" (which differs from pagan concept of gods), and therefore believers can offer petitionary prayers for their prayers or assistance in life. "The Church" for Catholics and Eastern and Oriental Orthodox is one and exists in 3 different realms: earthly, purgatory, and in heaven. So, those that have passed on remain aware of those on earth. For the Catholic "death" might be viewed as watching a relative walk up a mountain until slowly they pass from your vision. The distance and lack of visually seeing them does not negate their "life" or existence and sympathetic connection to you.

St. Bernadette (her corpse remains incorrupt) had her life set to film. Romantic Hollywood version or not her real life did demonstrate humility and submission. Humility and submission usually have some correlation. In the case of Charlie Sheen we see (perhaps through mental illness or impact from drug abuse) an unwillingness to submit and a lack of humility correlating with that.

I think that might be one point (if not a few more points)  both AA and Catholicism agree on. Many in Protestantism might agree with it too. I'm sure in Buddhist monasteries or Hindu ashrams as well. 

Clip of classic movie on St. Bernadette. YouTube - Saint Bernadette Soubirous.THE MOVIE. 5/11

(her devotion to doing her job with perfection if even it means washing floors and toilets suggests a humility)


----------



## Writ-with-Hand (Mar 1, 2011)

JosephB said:


> There is a ritual aspect. But when most people refer to AA as a cult, it's usually more in line with this definition -- "a religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist." The same people often use the term "brainwashing" etc.



Yeah, that is true. I was using the term with no negative connotation intended though. Catholicism and all religions are cultic. But cults in this sense are not bad. The founder of Japanese Aikido was a member of a number of cults. i think he ended up in a monotheistic cult. But his martial art is very "spiritual."  

But I know the term is used in modern times to imply something very negative.


----------



## Writ-with-Hand (Mar 1, 2011)

Amber Leaf said:


> JoesphB - from what I know (which may not be the case so please correct me if I'm wrong), the original third step includes turning our lives over to God as we understand him. I've just got that from wikipedia but have seen posters in different places using twelve step ideals saying alternatives including submitting to a higher force after admitting you have no control over the addiction. Is this the case?
> 
> I've have never bothered with A.A. I understand the concept and can see how the whole twelve steps idea could be altered to adapt to the culture an addict may be in.
> 
> ...



Joseph can answer your question better.

But AA was created by members of the Oxford Movement as I understand it, with the help of a Catholic nun (to whatever I don't know). So, it has Christian influence and or origins. Protestant mainly. 

As I understand it the "high power" thing came about as a we to attract an agnostic or atheist Jewish friend of some AA founder or member.

I'm told the 12 Steps have similarities to Ignatius Lyola's spiritual rules he came up with for his Jesuit order. I've never read those spiritual rules of the Jesuits though, so, I have no idea if they are in fact similar in some respects. 

But the point is AA draws from Christian influence and not atheist, Hindu, or Buddhist.


----------



## JosephB (Mar 1, 2011)

Amber Leaf said:


> JoesphB - from what I know (which may not be the case so please correct me if I'm wrong), the original third step includes turning our lives over to God as we understand him. I've just got that from wikipedia but have seen posters in different places using twelve step ideals saying alternatives including submitting to a higher force after admitting you have no control over the addiction. Is this the case?



Of course that's the case. And if someone has a problem with the concept of a higher power, then AA might not be for him. That said, I know atheists who consider the larger group and the support that it provides a higher power.



Amber Leaf said:


> Do you not think that a person should work through their addiction problems without having to submit on any level?



If he can, great. But many people who have tried that time and again and failed have eventually come to the realization they need help. Surrendering, in the context of AA, NA or CA, is an admission that you've been defeated by your addiction and that you can't beat it on your own. It's subtle, but surrendering and "submitting" are two different concepts. Submitting suggest that you have to do things against your will. 



Amber Leaf said:


> In certain cases, previous submission to fears/paranoias/certain people's negativity/their own negativity etc... has been part of the problem where the addiction has formed.
> 
> Surely it should be about someone who has a problem with addiction controlling their own mind to adapt to understanding how these factors can have a negative influence on their choices?



AA or the other 12 step programs don't preclude trying to understand what might be at the root of your addiction and dealing with those things. It's not really part of the 12 steps -- but discussing them, including knowing your triggers and how to deal with them, and how to make better choices, is all part of the shared experience. 

But dwelling on the past and "reasons" for an addiction can go beyond simply understanding and become more about making excuses and self-pity. It's a fine line -- so you're encouraged to focus on the solution -- and not do too much navel-gazing.


----------



## Writ-with-Hand (Mar 1, 2011)

Baron said:


> The whole issue of role models is about people who have achieved something that's considered worth trying to emulate.  Shipwrecked lives really don't fit the bill.  Making it through and providing direction to others is a lot more healthy.
> 
> Someone who can't get to grips with their own disease isn't going to cure anyone else's.  *Neither will they offer an example of anything other than a direction not to take.*



That's assuming you are talking about all cultures and subcultures that hold similar values as you.

Should I put up a video of Pimp Snooky? :lol:

I can provide rap videos (music evidence certain values in a culture) where all that is glamorized as important is money (like "making it 'rain'"), having material positions, sex with women, and *selling* cocaine. 

Actually, a commercial ad for a pair of lawyers in Milwaukee have cash falling and state, and I paraphrase, "Call us and we'll make it 'rain' for you." :lol:


----------



## Writ-with-Hand (Mar 1, 2011)

I love this song. YouTube - DJ Khaled "All I Do Is Win" feat. Ludacris, Rick Ross, T-Pain & Snoop Dogg / Victory In Stores Now

(the stove thing is about cooking up cocaine into crack)


Actually... this Nickleback song is old but timely. It mentions using drugs too.

YouTube - Nickelback - Rockstar (OFFICIAL Music Video) [with lyrics in description]


----------



## Amber Leaf (Mar 2, 2011)

Baron - 





> The whole issue of role models is about people who have achieved something that's considered worth trying to emulate.



I don't fully agree with you on this. 

Although it can be useful to take meaningful inspiration from people you meet in everyday life, celebrities, saints and even characters in books who have achieved things that you feel are inspirational, it can also be destructive to adopt values from them before looking at the reasons a role model acts the way they do. 

I mean this more in the case of saints/celebrities where someone has been elevated to role model status to imply a mode of living but it could also apply to people you meet in everyday life.


----------



## Amber Leaf (Mar 2, 2011)

JoesphB - 





> AA or the other 12 step programs don't preclude trying to understand what might be at the root of your addiction and dealing with those things.



You mention the 'other' 12 step programs. I have experienced and also read about various help groups/agencies/support networks that deal with employment, diet issues that also use the method of 12 steps to combat addiction. 

I heard from a few sources that the success rates are fairly low but don't know this for sure. Do you know of any statistics/personal accounts of people where someone has been able to avoid the dis-ease that was causing them trouble in the first place?


----------



## Amber Leaf (Mar 2, 2011)

> I love this song. YouTube - DJ Khaled "All I Do Is Win" feat. Ludacris, Rick Ross, T-Pain & Snoop Dogg / Victory In Stores Now
> 
> (the stove thing is about cooking up cocaine into crack)



Reminds me of Charlie's rant in the OP.


----------



## Writ-with-Hand (Mar 2, 2011)

Amber Leaf said:


> Reminds me of Charlie's rant in the OP.



That was a good song. Nice motivating song too.

But it is materialistic and glorifies the material. It's very much the opposite of say.... Black-American Gospel Music. 

But the former has conquered in an increasingly dechristianized Black-American community. Which follows that same trend of mainstream United States and Europe.

The profits in cocaine significantly increased that culture of materialism. Author Peter Robb credits heroin in Europe for what he has called "changing the structures of society."

Given that I'm critical of certain aspects of materialism, contemporary America, and Black-America it's important I make special note (like I did) that _I love _said song. Otherwise, I'll be regarded as if not called, "A hater" or "Playa hater."

Which may seem trivial to someone not immersed in the culture I'm speaking of. But that comes with great social price at times. As science is a language of power in the modern era, English in the international world of business and financial markets, there is a certain way of speaking that is the language of power in the "hood." To a lesser extent in the world of Hip Hop as a whole.

You'll note early in this song (the rappers are not teenagers) "haters" are mentioned. You'll note the glorifying of materialism and violence and any way to achieve it. 


1. YouTube - DJ Khaled "I'm So Hood"


But not every Hip Hop song is like that. Some have greater depth and promote a "positive" non-material message. Like this one.


2. YouTube - *Good Day - Nappy Roots (w/ lyrics)


----------



## Amber Leaf (Mar 2, 2011)

... still, if Charlie was making crack and not an actor?


----------



## Writ-with-Hand (Mar 7, 2011)

Charlie Sheen still "winning." Duh! 

I have to tighten up my Sheenspeak. I guess Sheenspeak is starting up now. "Adonis DNA."

He's streaming on the internet: Charlie Sheen Goes Streaming


----------



## Amber Leaf (Mar 7, 2011)

Winning eh? He must have forgot the rules. I thought you could only loose.


----------



## Writ-with-Hand (Mar 24, 2011)

So, I hear the C-Man is coming back. I think he got a pay raise to $3 million too?

I think I'm going to have to become a chipped fang warlock and get myself a pair of "goddess" too.


----------

