I'd love to see what you'd do with 84 & Tim & Damian!
84. Out Cold
Tim knew the guy was talking about him. One too many glasses of champagne always tended to loosen the lips of the board members at galas. Always brought out their worst thoughts. It wasn't new. What this man was saying about him wasn't new either.
Too young to be CEO. From a broken home. Unreliable. Bruce's pet project.
He was beginning to tune the man out, took his own sip of champagne, and turned to find someone to talk to himself - maybe Dick was done being flaunted over - when he heard a commotion from the direction of the board member.
He turned back just in time to watch Damian clock the man across the cheek with a mean left hook, and the man immediately crumple to the ground.
Women gasped and wailed in surprise. No men came forward to help their fallen colleague. All of them just stared at Damian in shock. The man himself laid there unconscious for at least five seconds, Tim was sure of it.
Because it was only after the man stirred that Damian leaned down and hissed, "Attempt to use a slur against my brother again and I'll do worse than just punch you next time."
The man made a guttural confused sound, but Damian paid him no mind. In fact, he had already stood and was halfway across the ballroom to go outside, loudly shouting to Bruce:
"Father, he has dared to disparage Timothy. Fire him."
Bruce looked over towards the man and grinned, taking a gulp of his own drink. "Done."
97 notes
·
View notes
pinned message, just to give a bit of an explanation of what this is
more than anything else, this is a place for me to indulge in the plots, world building and individual characters of my stories, since I have way too many. I’ll give a small overview of the stories I’m currently working on.
WT (Winding Trails) - Being posted on Instagram and Comic Fury. Currently working on chapter 2, redrawing the first 20 pages of chapter 1, and creating the prologue. Follows Flaxpaw and Whitepaw as they discover the dark, hidden underbelly of the 5 colonies.
TSF (The Star Forecast) - I’m currently working on the rough outline of the story. The script will probably either be done sometime in 2023 or 2024, when I’ll start the comic. Follows Arien, the prophet of his village, as he receives an ominous omen about blood soon to be spilt.
PaH (Planting a Hemlock) - Story is only just being drafted. Follows Vincent Hemlock, the young prince of a kingdom destroyed by pillagers, as he tries to restore his kingdom.
MD (Mayflower’s Decision) - Story is drafted, and I have a few scenes planned out. Follows Mayflower, a young member of Redwood Colony, as she unearths things left to fade into obscurity under layers of packed dirt.
I have more, but I think I should just write about those for now. I can’t guarantee that I’ll post much here, but I’ll probably pop in with some ideas at one point or another— it’s better than spamming my friends’ messages ^^”
1 note
·
View note
christian universalism strikes again
(Reposted from Twitter)
So a rabbi I know came back from LA pretty jazzed about a Jewish addiction treatment facility there called Beit T'shuvah and so we talked about their approach and that got me curious about non-AA approaches to dealing with addiction which, my friends, was fascinating.
I’ll admit that almost everything I know about AA is more or less from The West Wing. I'm fortunate in that no one in my immediate family has dealt with substance abuse issues, and as far as I know, none of my close friends are alcoholics. My knowledge is pop culture knowledge.
But hearing about Beit T’shuvah was very interesting to me because:
I'd heard that a lot of people who aren't Christian have a hard time with AA because it's so Christian.
The difference in philosophy was subtle at first glance but actually paralleled a lot of the differences between Judaism and Christianity if you dug into it.
Anyway, I got curious about whether success rates were different for Christians vs. non-Christians and started googling. I didn't find much in the way of the data I was looking for, but I did find something a lot more disturbing, which is that the whole 12-step thing is not science-based. At all. For example:
The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse compared the current current state of addiction treatment to medicine in the early 1900s, when there weren't a lot of standards for who could practice medicine. In order to be a substance abuse counselor in many states, you don't need much more than a GED or high school diploma.
A 2006 survey found "no experimental studies unequivocally demonstrated the effectiveness of AA or TSF approaches for reducing alcohol dependence or problems."
And I want to make clear here that I'm not saying AA is bad--clearly it's helped people. The problem is that it's touted as a universal approach, which is a problem when it's not based on any sort of actual science.
AA claims that its success rates for people who "really try" are 75%. (And boy does that mirror gaslighting diet language.) But the most precise study out there that's NOT coming from AA (https://amazon.com/dp/B00FIMWI1O) put actual success rates at 5-8%. One of the major textbooks on treating addiction ranks it at 38th out of 48 on its list of effective treatments.
So just like most fad diets, it fails for almost everyone who tries it, and then blames the individual for its failure.
A glaring issue is that the 12 steps don't really acknowledge--or provide any guidance or structure for dealing with--other mental/emotional health issues. That’s a giant problem when people with substance abuse issues have higher than average rates of those issues. (Take a moment to consider how the victim-blaming approach of “if you didn’t succeed, it’s because you didn’t try hard enough” is going to intersect with someone’s major depression.)
Now, if 12-step programs were just one available treatment approach out of many, this wouldn’t be that big of an issue.
But 12% of AA members are there because of court orders. Our legal system is requiring people to undergo treatment that is:
Christian-based
Not scientifically supported
A failure for the vast majority of people
I mean, here's a pretty comprehensive breakdown that talks about the lack of scientific support for it, alternative treatments (like those in Finland, and naltrexone), and the fundamentalist origins of AA.
The founder was a member of the Oxford Group, an evangelical organization that taught that all human problems stemmed from fear and selfishness, and could be solved by turning your life over to divine providence, basically. Sound familiar? He based AA on those principles, and given that the only alternative was "drying out" in a sanatorium, and that AA members would show up at bedsides there and invite inpatients to meetings, it must have looked really enlightened to people. In 2022, it bears a queasy resemblance to evangelizing to people in prison, literally a captive audience.
To be fair--to their credit--they were some of the first people out there saying alcoholism was a disease, and not a moral failing. But they didn’t treat it like a disease when it came to testing treatment options:
Mann also collaborated with a physiologist named E. M. Jellinek. Mann was eager to bolster the scientific claims behind AA, and Jellinek wanted to make a name for himself in the growing field of alcohol research. In 1946, Jellinek published the results of a survey mailed to 1,600 AA members. Only 158 were returned. Jellinek and Mann jettisoned 45 that had been improperly completed and another 15 filled out by women, whose responses were so unlike the men’s that they risked complicating the results. From this small sample—98 men—Jellinek drew sweeping conclusions about the “phases of alcoholism,” which included an unavoidable succession of binges that led to blackouts, “indefinable fears,” and hitting bottom. Though the paper was filled with caveats about its lack of scientific rigor, it became AA gospel.
And then Senator Harold Hughes, who was an AA member, got Congress to establish the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, which promoted AA's beliefs, and sometimes suppressed research that conflicted with them:
In 1976, for instance, the Rand Corporation released a study of more than 2,000 men who had been patients at 44 different NIAAA-funded treatment centers. The report noted that 18 months after treatment, 22 percent of the men were drinking moderately. The authors concluded that it was possible for some alcohol-dependent men to return to controlled drinking. Researchers at the National Council on Alcoholism charged that the news would lead alcoholics to falsely believe they could drink safely. The NIAAA, which had funded the research, repudiated it. Rand repeated the study, this time looking over a four-year period. The results were similar.
The standard 28-day rehab stay, prescribed and insured:
Marvin D. Seppala, the chief medical officer at the Hazelden Betty Ford Foundation in Minnesota, one of the oldest inpatient rehab facilities in the country, described for me how 28 days became the norm: “In 1949, the founders found that it took about a week to get detoxed, another week to come around so [the patients] knew what they were up to, and after a couple of weeks they were doing well, and stable. That’s how it turned out to be 28 days. There’s no magic in it.”
The last sentence here (bolded for emphasis) is especially chilling.
That may be heartening, but it’s not science. As the rehab industry began expanding in the 1970s, its profit motives dovetailed nicely with AA’s view that counseling could be delivered by people who had themselves struggled with addiction, rather than by highly trained (and highly paid) doctors and mental-health professionals. No other area of medicine or counseling makes such allowances.
There is no mandatory national certification exam for addiction counselors. The 2012 Columbia University report on addiction medicine found that only six states required alcohol- and substance-abuse counselors to have at least a bachelor’s degree and that only one state, Vermont, required a master’s degree. Fourteen states had no license requirements whatsoever—not even a GED or an introductory training course was necessary—and yet counselors are often called on by the judicial system and medical boards to give expert opinions on their clients’ prospects for recovery.
And, again, the idea that this is the One True And Only Way to deal with alcohol abuse leads to medical professionals ignoring research and treatment options that could be helping people. They are, in essence, taking all this completely on faith.
There has been some progress: the Hazelden center began prescribing naltrexone and acamprosate to patients in 2003. But this makes Hazelden a pioneer among rehab centers. “Everyone has a bias,” Marvin Seppala, the chief medical officer, told me. “I honestly thought AA was the only way anyone could ever get sober, but I learned that I was wrong.”
Stephanie O’Malley, a clinical researcher in psychiatry at Yale who has studied the use of naltrexone and other drugs for alcohol-use disorder for more than two decades, says naltrexone’s limited use is “baffling.”
“There was never any campaign for this medication that said, ‘Ask your doctor,’ ” she says. “There was never any attempt to reach consumers.” Few doctors accepted that it was possible to treat alcohol-use disorder with a pill. And now that naltrexone is available in an inexpensive generic form, pharmaceutical companies have little incentive to promote it.
I'm not saying that AA is bad. I'm saying its hegemony is bad. It clearly is effective for some people--a minority of people. But it's not for the majority of people, and that's a problem when it's being prescribed by courts (and doctors) as if it's a one-size-fits-all approach.
It’s not an accident that a Christian approach to treating addiction presents itself as the One True Way For All Humankind, insists that courts and doctors privilege it, demands that people take its effectiveness on faith, and blames anyone for whom it doesn’t work for not believing/trying hard enough.
Hegemony is a problem.
(Photo credit: Pixabay)
2K notes
·
View notes