Victoria Advocate from Victoria, Texas • 8

8A-THE VICTORIA ADVOCATE. Monday, July 8, 1936 dJJ mwm MDN OrVkY. HAVE IT YOUR WAY. W'LL MOVE THE SECURITY FENCE. BACK.

TO fP: Addiction theory subsides on the wane A fever Letters to the editor The difference Editor, The Advocate: Back in the 1970's, Nixon errand-boy and erstwhile co-conspirator Charles Colson was sent to prison for allowing a reporter to view the contents of a single FBI file. Now, more than 20 years after the Watergate scandal, we learn that Mr. Colson could have easily avoided both the scandal and his incarceration had he simply had the good sense to: a) deny everything, b) characterize his misdeed as "a simple bureaucratic SNAFU," and c) be a Democrat This third condition is the most vital component for determining the true nature of a suspected wrongdoing. After all, were mere facts sufficient indicators of political malfeasance, then the misuse of over 700 FBI files would logically be 700 times worse than misusing a single file. Obviously, such is not the case.

No, Mr. Colson was guilty because his political affiliation was simply an outward manifestation of his evil nature; Mssrs. Marceca, Nussbaum et al, on the other hand, are obviously innocent of malicious intent because they are Democrats. At worst, they are grossly incompetent incompetence being inexcusable in a Republican but completely derigeur for a Democrat. This axiom is likewise evident in the Clinton administration's "data base," merely coincidentally and unthreateningly dubbed "Big Brother" an electronic of over 10,000 names of "right" and "wrong" people.

This list, of course, is nothing at all like Richard Nixon's "Enemies List." Nixon's list, while comprising only a few hundred names, was obviously evil because Nixon' himself was one of those corrupt Republicans; Mr. Clinton's list, though more than a dozen times longer than Nixon's, is clearly absent of malice because it is the brainchild of The Most Ethical Presidential Administration in History. As we all know: it's not the size that counts at least, that's what Paula Jones was led to understand. This basic truth also explains the' mainstream press lethargic response to the incessant allegations of misconduct in the Clinton White House: when news of Nixon's list hit the wires, editorialists like Tom Wicker and James Reston were understandably outraged and warned us of a potential secret-police state; there is no outrage about Clinton's list, though. Had Mr.

Clinton simply had the temerity to be a Republican, the front page headline for the New York Times wold have undoubtedly been, "Big Bubba is Watching You!" So, remember, voters of America, just because Bill Clinton stands there with his arm ensconced to the elbow in the Cookie Jar of Misconduct, never mind the crumbs on his shirt or the chocolate smeared on his lips. When he wipes his chin and drawls, "Ah thank these akkizayshuns are p'litically motivated," you can trust bihx. You have to; CNN says so. After all, he's a Democrat! TERRY MIRLX DeWitt County By John Leo (c) 1 996, Universal Press Syndicate the whole or even most of the story." Various speakers made these points: The psychological, behavioral and social factors involved in choices to drink or take drugs have to be taken into account Emphasizing the medical causes and consequences of drinking undermines therapy by giving drinkers the impression that they don't have to (or can't) take personal responsibility for their behavior and recovery. No one doubts that long-term drinking causes changes in brain chemistry that make it very hard for people to stop cold turkey, but they are more likely to stop if therapists explore why people drink and push them to take charge of their lives.

James Prochaska of the University of Rhode Island's Cancer Prevention Research Center said: "The disease model is predicated on the idea that alcoholism is something that happens to you, and it puts us into a passive-reactive mode that doesn't help us prevent or solve the problem." This discussion has some obvious echoes in the debates about smoking. There is no longer any doubt that nicotine is physically addictive. But nobody seems to notice that smoking has been just as narrowly medicalized as drinking. The anti-smoking forces have the tobacco companies on the run for many reasons, but one is that they have succeeded in medicalizing a problem that is just as much behavioral and psychological as it is medical There's no mystery about why this is so. The argument over health effects has been the trump card.

Seminars, conferences and grants have all been dominated by medical people and tech nicians, most of whom seem to be absolutely certain that a cigarette is nothing more than a nicotine delivery system. But people don't smoJSTjust for nicotine. They smoke for a great array of nonchemical reasons, from depression and peer pressure to a courting of danger, or a belief that smoking equals liberation. Or because lighting up has become embedded in day-to-day life as a ritual, a way of punctuating a phone call, the end of a meal. By pruning away all the meanings behind smoking, earnest anti-smoking people leave this field to the tobacco companies.

The result is that cigarette ads are rich with psychological come-ons, and most anti-tobacco ads just shriek about health dangers, which everybody knows about and which are often part of the allure. The passivity and poor results that Prochaska notes among drinkers who are told that alcoholism "is something that happens to you" also show up among smokers. In a forthcoming academic paper recommending aggressive anti-smoking campaigns, he says that how-to-stop-smoking clinics have little impact in the United States: When HMOs offer free clinics, only 1 percent of subscribers who smoke take advantage of the offer. There are lots of reasons for this. Stopping is hard and many smokers are demoralized.

But stupid social theories play a role too. Addiction theory is a formula for no-fault, no-improvement misery. It tells us we are not in charge of our own lives, and that nobody should expect us to be. Should we be surprised that a theory like this has social effects? Addiction theory was one of the grander social mistakes of the 1970s and 1980s. Every conceivable hard-to-shake habit was declared an addiction and therefore beyond the control of the newly defined and helplessly passive addict Womanizers were revealed to be "sex addicts," and gamblers, joggers, daredevils and deadbeats were all labeled addicts as well Romance, as an alleged addiction, sold many thousands of self-help books.

The novelist Erica Jong said some men are addicted to behaving like babies. Chaka, a notorious graffiti sprayer who defaced 10,000 signs, walls and other surfaces in California, grasped the spirit of the age and explained that his behavior was "no different than an alcoholic." Alcoholism shed its aura of moral fault and moved from addiction to disease. Those of us who thought that heavy drinking often took place to escape or relieve conflict were told we had it backward: The conflict and stress are mostly a consequence of the drinking, not the cause. But this is the '90s, and some of the fever has passed. Many addictions have quietly been downgraded to habits and choices, and alcoholism may be in the process of being downgraded from disease to addiction.

At a recent Harvard Medical School conference on addictions, the conventional view of alcoholism as a disease under the control of biological factors was attacked in a way that would have been inconceivable a few years back. As reported by Alison Bass in The Boston Globe, some specialists now say that "while biology certainly plays a role in addiction it isn't Editorials Program must remain robust Some 35 years ago, when President John Kennedy challenged Americans not to ask what their country could do for them, but what they could do for their country, he offered them a new way to respond: the Peace Corps. Since then, tens of thousands of Americans have worked in the newly independent states of Africa, in an India struggling toward modernization and in Latin American villages reaching for a better life. They have been doing so ever since, making the Peace Corps a continuing success among government programs. It was a good idea, and it has had a successful history, introducing the world to more than 140,000 Americans who truly came to help, it is person-to-person diplomacy of the finest kind.

Like so many things nowadays, the Peace Corps is facing downsizing. Despite continuing bipartisan support in Congress, a shrinking budget will force elimination of some of the volunteer force deployed in 1995; esti-f mates range between 5 percent and 10 cent Corps members will be phasing out projects in Tunisia, Uruguay, Botswana and elsewhere. Cutbacks from its historic highs may be in- evitable given the fiscal realities of Washington today. But the Peace Corps can remain 0 vigorous and productive despite currently projected declines. The important thing is to maintain a program robust enough to ensure that its worthy aims and hard-won success will not be allowed to atrophy.

The notion of national service is a good one for all Americans a chance for citizens to make a contribution to their country and the Peace Corps provides a valuable option. In addition to the good it does around the world a water well dug in one village, a class in hygiene organized in another the -Peace Corps pays dividends for our own country. Volunteers return to the United States with their idealism informed and tempered by reality a valuable combination they can put to good use for themselves, and often for their country, for the rest of their lives. The nation needs more opportunities for such service, not fewer, the Peace Corps deserves continued support. Clarity, please The U.S.

Supreme Court has upheld the right of political parties to make unlimited independent expenditures on behalf of candidates, but stopped short of agreeing to what both Democratic and Republican Party officials had asked for an unambiguous declaration that campaign spending limits imposed on parties is an unconstitutional limitation on the First Amendment free speech right of parties. Writing for a fractured court there were four separate opinions Justice Stephen Breyer concluded that the Federal Elections Commission erred in fining the Wisconsin Republican Party for exceeding federal spending limits when it bought radio ads on behalf of its 1988 U.S. Senate candidate. Breyer's decision was based on narrow grounds. He said correctly that FEC was wrong to presume that all state party spending was coordinated with the candidate and therefore subject to the rules restricting coordinated expenditures.

But the ruling didn't reach the wider question: do parties have a First Amendment right to spend unlimited funds on behalf of their candidates, whether independently or in a coordinated fashion? Before this decision, wealthy individuals could spend unlimited funds on behalf of their own candidacies; PACs representing gun owners, teachers union, prison guards or any number of other special interests could make unlimited independent expenditures on behalf of candidates they supported. But political parties were strictly limited in their spending. That made no sense. While ending that absurdity, the decision leaves a lot of other constitutional questions about the rights of parties unanswered: Can they, for example, make unlimited contributions to candidates? Congress and a number of states and local 'governments are seeking to reform campaign finance laws, but the courts have failed to clearry signal how far they can go. A more comprehensive review from the high court is needed.

The sooner the court provides clarity on this issue, the better. Words worth remembering My soul thirsts for god, for the living God. When shall I come and behold the face of God? -Psalm 42:2 How narrow our souls become when absorbed in any present good or ill! It is only the thought of the future that makes them great -Jean Paul Richter, German humorist A vision of cellular hell Staying out of touch cm Caregivers thanked Editor, The Advocate: Several months ago my mom, Shirley Johnson, had triple bypass heart surgery. She is doing fantastic. I want to give special thanks to the very brilliant Dr.

James Fuller, an excellent surgeon. Also thanks to the nursing staff on 2 South at Citizens and also the surgical ICU nurses. Tfr. Bruce Bauknight, who has been my parents doctor for many years, and Dr. Robert Oakley are the best in their fields.

I also give very special thanks to Galilean Baptist Church for providing the wonderful meals and prayers for my mom on her way to recovery. Thanks to everyone who made it possible for mom to spend many more years with her children and grandchildren. Thank you very much. RHONDA ROTH RODRIQUEZ Victoria Support appreciated Editor, The Advocate: The Victoria High Cheerleading Booster Club would like to extend their appreciation to the many businesses and individuals who contributed to out 1996 stadium seat cushion fund raiser. The funds will be used to allow the VBS cheerleaders to compete at the regional, state, and national levels once again.

Your pride and support in our two-year U.CA state champions and one-year national semifinalists is sincerely valued: LYNN MEADOR CARLA PETERSCHMIDT Victoria rupting. Has reachability become a value? If so, will it not soon become an expectation, as those totally in touch become touchy about privacy freaks who dare to self-isolate? Consider the personal liberty snatched away by the sense of cellular-communications entitlement. With no excuse for evading the caller, the reachee is denied a moment to reflect, causing snap decision-making And no romantic couple can ever be truly alone together. In the rage to be reachable, we sacrifice the freedom to choose solitude. Lost in the world of our imagination, we are too easily found by anyone who has our number.

Denied the ability to slip into the silences or go off on a toot we retaliate by punching and beeping our unwelcome way into the lives of others. Cellular slaves and pitiable pager-turners, touch "end" before it's too late. Have no hang-up about pre-emptively hanging up. Adopt the audio-libertarian slogan: "Don't call me, 111 call yoa" carry a cell phone, but I don't turn it on. I have this medical excuse.) By William Safire (c) 1996.

New York Times News Service cratic heaven is a cellular hell. The tintinnabulation of the bells and beepers assaults the eardrums. Business cards are crowded with four numbers: office, home, fax and mobile. The dining room of Jerusalem's King David Hotel has a sign asking patrons to turn off their pagers and phones while inside, on the assumption that a few Luddites among the Israelis might object A separate section is being put in for those who don't mind the ringing. To be sure, the professions of some people in any modem city require constant communicability.

Taxi drivers, for example, need a lifeline to their dispatchers. For call girls, the call is the essence of their ancient calling News photographers can claim, as the latest entitlement, "the right to be reachable." But to most others the lust to be part of the life of the cell is a status thing, in 1950, interviewing RCA's David Sarnoff, I gloried in being among the first to use his car phone, but soon the gag was "Sorry, Fve got someone on the other line." Now I see a man in front of Moscow's Metropole Hotel, responding to a pager on his belt while holding a phone to each ear. And in New York a Motorola ad urges fashionable women to sport 3-ounce phones as pendants. Today the telephonic Intruder is only our boss, stock tout or spouse; tomorrow the world on the Internet will be coming after us pushing, selling, annoying, demanding, and above all, inter The earliest electronic paging devices were distributed to the White House staff in Moscow in 1972. H.R Haldeman thought it would increase efficiency to have all 20 Nixon summiteers on call at all hours of the day and night while in the adversary's capital.

I objected on privacy grounds. Being placed on an electronic leash, yankable at any moment, carried reachability to an offensive extreme. How about if I just called in regularly? Negative. The new technology gave the chief of staff unprecedented control, preventing us from wandering off to hunt souvenirs or be subverted by Soviet agents. But Haldeman was not the martinet he was cracked up to be; he invited me to think up any excuse other than privacy to be freed of the reach machine.

I offered this: If startled by a buzzer going off on my belt, I would be afflicted by a sudden urinary urgency. "No problem," he said, crossing my name off the list of pager holders. "You have a medical excuse." This incident was brought to mind during a trip to Moscow and Jerusalem, covering elections and their aftermaths. In the Russian capital, late election night, I was transported around monitoring stations by a presidential candidate who kept answering speaker beeps by talking into a device in his fist Everybody who wore a tie in Moscow wore a cellular phone, or at least a pager. In Israel it was even worse; that demo- Advocate letters Die Advocate welcomes letters on topics of general Interest.

Length limits are as follows: ISO words for thank-youjet-ters, 300 words for election-related letters and 500 wordsJor an others. AH letters must carry the writer's signature, addiass and phone number. Aft letters are subject to editing. Individuals are limited to publication of one letter each 30 days. Letters may be delivered In person to the offices of The Advocate.

311 E. Constitution mailed to P.O. Box 1518, Victoria 77902; orfaxed to (512) 574-1220. THE VICTORIA ADVOCATE John M. Roberta, PresidentPublisher and Editor Catherine R.

McHaney, Secretary-Treasurer Vince Reedy, Associate Editor Jim Bishop, Managing Editor Daniel Cobb, Editor of the Editorial Pag Opinions published on this page under the heading "EdHoriala" represent the consensus views of the editorial board of The Victoria Advocate, whose members are named above..