Their contribution to society has absolutely nothing to do with it. It's our sick idol worship of all things celebrity. If contribution to society had anything to do with it, headlines about the vets who died the same week with a needle in their arm would have drowned out this poor little misunderstood actor's tragedy.

I well remember "a nation in mourning" when Dale Ernhardt died at Daytona. One particularly insightful pundit said "yeah, well - six Marines died in battle that day. Name one."

A celebrity face only provides commonality. You can't assume that people "worship" a celebrity more than some unfortunate veteran, it's just a face that more people can relate to.

Umm, yeah. Not shooting up heroin might have worked.

I know that, ha! I'm putting myself into his family and friend's shoes. Is there anything that they could do, short of kidnapping him and locking him away? That's clearly a LOT of heroine. And he was going to kill himself sooner or later.

I doubt it. This guy knew what his problem was and had been in rehab before. He knew the consequences of his actions and still had enough heroin to kill 10 people in his room.

You can't fix stupid.

So I guess we should not bother responding to you.

Have known a few addicts. All of them seemed to understand that their addiction was ruining them and theirs. Addiction is a weird thing.

If the addiction is socially accepted (cigarettes), most aren't interested in the trouble required to quit and have few regrets (or will admit to none/few of them). If their addiction is not accepted/shameful, then the addict will frequently say they want to quit but can't (many play the victim card). The net effect is often the same. Not sure dying early in an addiction is more noble but if it was going to happen, early seems better. Rehab/relapse/rehab/relapse seems like a big drain. It seems least painful if it is rehab or early death for substance addicts. Pretty tough and best avoided entirely.

Agree and actually I has been my experience that some very smart and gifted folks get into drugs and really can't stop ever. Feeling a serious good high is tough to ignore, doing it repeatedly smacks of a drive (like sleep and sex or food).

The ability to create art (music, acting, etc...) or spit back data or solve problems or recite or interprete history are all gifts yet those that are really good at those things seem to get off on their talents and even more so when others recognize it and they don't want the feeling to end. Getting high gets you there as does getting drunk.

Its not self defeating like we want to think. Many talented folks who get a taste for it are plenty sorted out with confidence. It just feels really good.

You have a job that demands and insists you treat all humanity the same. The majority of us do not contain that compassion so its easy for us to see a talented person and want to think that their goods translate and transcend...they hardly ever do but we need them to because I think it helps us hope that there really is purity in the world when we all know there isn't...

He ws good in that roll, I actually knew several guys that were like that exactly - all Connecticut preps...couldn't stomach the lot. Funny how he totally nailed the part. He was amazing in as Truman Capote.

You people are really a sorry lot! You know nothing.*











* Except for Nostatus who has a piece of it.

In the end they are all flawed humans.."Nostatus

What Mr Todd don't get is that every human being is flawed and has their limitations Let us just limit the discussion to the cognitive scale of the equation. Everyone who has posted on this Thread has shown their cognitive and emotional understanding of the human condition, which is limited in it's understanding to a lessor or greater degree. It is not that one can not increase ones range of understanding, it is that you chose NOT to delve any deeper. You are not seekers of the truth or understanding you would prefer to remain blissfully ignorant of the issues involved.


With Mr Hoffman one posted the following:

The pain or "hole" that they are trying to escape from is in fact what makes them a whole person. It is part and parcel of themselves, it is the cards in life that you have been dealt. So when ya assuage that pain or try an fill that "hole" inside with dope you are negating yourself.

You simply have to embrace the "pain" as being part of who you are. Then you can be transcendent.

It is no easy task embracing the pain and or emptiness that is within. God did not promise that everyone would have a happy life where you all become millionaires living in the Hampton's nor Beverly Hills. All of us to one degree or another have been dealt a few Jokers in the deck, and what you can do is achieve clarity about your situation and about the HOS in general. It makes life much easier if you stand in the light of knowledge than in dark ignorance as you are not at the mercy of the tides anymore. In other words that emotional or psychic pain that you feel belongs to you, it is part and parcel of who you are. It makes you who you are. In the scheme of things even by remaining blissfully ignorant you are negating yourself much the same as Mr Hoffman did.

While the point you're attempting to make is valid, the pundit was not very insightful. Earnhart died 7 months before 9/11. No Marines died in battle that day.

The definition of addiction that I have learned is: ... any mood-altering event, substance, or thing that has life-damaging consequences.
.
The set-up for addiction is any kind of abuse...be it physical, sexual, emotional, psychological.
Even subtle indifference on the part of a primary caregiver is abuse and can create the narcissistic wound that the addict attempts to heal via salvific (salvation) measures.
Borderline success (failure) of navigation through the rapprochement crisis during the separation-individuation phase of childhood can create the environment for later addictive behavior. The psych community claims that no one is totally successful in navigating this crisis - thus, we're all susceptible to addictions.
.
Another point that I have learned: ...it's not what happened to us as children, but rather what our psyche does with it.
We come in with a certain "inclination" and the rest is based on how our particular psyche responds (reacts) to our "holding environment".
Therefore, each one of us is at the mercy of the particular character that our psyche develops.

.
Sorry, couldn't help myself. :o
.
~~~~~~~~
.
Margaret Mahler - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
.
~~~~~~~~~
.
Separation-Individuation Phase - The arrival of this phase marks the end of the Normal Symbiotic Phase. Separation refers to the development of limits, the differentiation between the infant and the mother, whereas individuation refers to the development of the infant's ego, sense of identity, and cognitive abilities. Mahler explains how a child with the age of a few months breaks out of an “autistic shell” into the world with human connections. This process, labeled separation-individuation, is divided into subphases, each with its own onset, outcomes and risks. The following subphases proceed in this order but overlap considerably.

Rapprochement –15–24 months. In this subphase, the infant once again becomes close to the mother. The child realizes that his physical mobility demonstrates psychic separateness from his mother. The toddler may become tentative, wanting his mother to be in sight so that, through eye contact and action, he can explore his world. The risk is that the mother will misread this need and respond with impatience or unavailability. This can lead to an anxious fear of abandonment in the toddler. A basic ‘mood predisposition’ may be established at this point. Rapprochement is divided into a few sub phases:
Beginning - Motivated by a desire to share discoveries with the mother.
Crisis - Between staying with the mother, being emotionally close and being more independent and exploring.
Solution - Individual solutions are enabled by the development of language and the superego.

Disruptions in the fundamental process of separation-individuation can result in a disturbance in the ability to maintain a reliable sense of individual identity in adulthood.[3]

-
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/support/smileys/clap.gif
-

Guys like him are not overly concerned with facts. They just get in the way of a good BS story.

You didn't read the rest of my post...

Sorry, I had the precise details wrong. It was a long time ago, and I did not bother to "google" it.

From the article:

On Feb. 18th. 2001, while racing for fame and fortune, Dale Earnhardt died in the last lap of the Daytona 500. It was surely a tragedy for his family, friends and fans. He was 49 years old with grown children, one which was in the race. I am new to the NASCAR culture so much of what I know has come from the newspaper and TV. He was a winner and earned everything he had. This included more than "$41 million in winnings and ten times that from endorsements and souvenir sales."
He had a beautiful home and a private jet. He drove the most sophisticated cars allowed and every part was inspected and replaced as soon as there was any evidence of wear. This normally fully funded by the car and team sponsors. Today there is no TV station that does not constantly remind us of his tragic end and the radio already has a song of tribute to this winning driver.

Nothing should be taken away from this man, he was a professional and the best in his profession. He was in a very dangerous business. But the rewards were great.
Two weeks ago seven U.S. Army soldiers died in a training accident when two UH-60 Blackhawk helicopters collided during night maneuvers in Hawaii. The soldiers were all in their twenties, pilots,crewchiefs and infantrymen. Most of them lived in sub-standard housing. If you add their actual duty hours (in the field, deployed) they probably earn something close to minimum wage.

The article:

TheVeteransPage

Bringing up Dale Earnhart brought back another right-wing BS story from days gone by. Remember when Ann Coulter, (or one of the other FOX News geniuses), claimed that the NYT ignored DE's death because they were cultural elites and NASCAR was too low rent and red state? Then it was shown that the Times put it on the front page with a big picture?

WTF do these BSers think? That their audience is too dumb to google? Based on some of the posts here, I'd say that they're usually safe.

Interesting. I only brought the story up as an antecdote to illustrate a point, a story that I admittedly did not recall in detail (like I said, it had been awhile). I guess I should have expected the sooper jeenyuses of PPOT to seize yet another "aha!!" moment for themselves, and dissect the story in detail, missing the point entirely. And one of our shining stars comes through in spades. Beautiful.