Once again, a hypoic, George W. Bush, is running for president and was in public denial until caught about it today. Of course we all knew something like this would eventually surface. The republican hypocrisy, to minimize its impact on the election, is currently acutely overwhelming.

See also: http://www.geocities.com/prohibition_us/dui.html

Remember Clinton? Sins of omission? Lying by omission and commission? Lying to the public led to Clinton's impeachment, but Bush can continue on his way into the white house despite his addiction and his lies. Sure, Bush told us he stopped drinking but not that he was a recovering addict; not that he had been arrested and pleaded guilty to a DUI. Should this lie rule Bush out for the presidency? Where does Pataki stand on this? Where does the NY State Legislature stand on this? Where does the NY State Health and Education departments stand on this revelation? How does this relate to me and my medical license? The issue here is hypocrisy and double standards. If Bush isn't dangerous to the public, why am I? If Bush can be president, why can't I practice medicine? I never lied about my addictions, ever. In fact, my honesty was used against me by all involved with my career punishments in the name of public safety. Who has more character, me or him?

Bush is sober 14 years, all of it undocumented.

I'm clean and sober 9 years, documented.

Bush can be the President of the United States according to the republicans.

I'm too dangerous to resume medical practice, according to the NYS republicans in the Education Department.

Bush is a recovering addict. So am I.

Bush withheld this from the public. I never did.

Bush never hurt anyone. Neither did I.

We're both addicts who never hurt anyone, but one can be president and one can't be a doctor.

He lied about it and got caught, yet he can be president while I never lied about it and can't be a doctor, even while being monitored for potential relapse. I told the truth and was punished for not having sufficient remorse, yet he lied. Where's his remorse? Isn't lying about an addiction worse than insufficient remorse for an addiction?

Of course, the media and the public forgive Bush his mistakes. So do I. He has been given a chance for public forgiveness. I haven't. The public has been kept in the dark by the media about my case. The public can't forgive me because they don't know about me. No one will publish my story so that I might be given the same opportunity for forgiveness. Rather, I have to prove to a New York State Court Judge that the Education Department abused their discretion in order to overturn my lack of license restoration. My indefinite punishment has been kept secret from the public and for good reasons. The public would be outraged if they knew it. Why punish a highly respected recovering doctor who never hurt a patient indefinitely? Not for public safety, for sure. Yet this is the reason given by the authorities. This nonsense is discussed elsewhere on my web site under, http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/thedoctordrugwarwrongandwastefulp1/

Is Bush's DUI important to me? No. What is important is that Bush needed to lie exactly as Clinton needed to lie, and that Bush needed to give stupid reasons related to protecting his daughters from this information as an excuse for why he didn't disclose the DUI. I discussed all this mumbo jumbo in my book as well as in letters to the editor of the New York Times. Bush needed to lie. Clinton needed to lie. I got punished for speaking the truth about my addiction.

What's the real issue here? Hypocrisy. Double standards. Arbitrary discrimination and treatment of addicts. Expediency. Ideology. We discriminate when we please and don't when we please. Punishers punish when they please and don't when they please.

Under the current paradigm of addiction, these cultural and legal idiosyncrasies thrive. Discrimination occurs when people in power, and the people who follow their lead, want to discriminate. This is called discretion. The NYS Public Health law gives the Department of Education discretion. In other words, they are given the power by law to discriminate when they please. Thus, their use of the highly subjective evaluation of the depth of remorse of the "perpetrator," someone like me, in assessing the restoration of a license. Have you heard the NYS Medical Society object to this? The CPH? No. They are too frightened to do so.

Moreover, the US Supreme Court says they are not aware that the states are abusing their powers of discretion and this is why they have ruled that the ADA need not apply to the states. States, according to the US Supreme court, are doing a fine job upholding the laws equally, absent arbitrariness and capriciousness.

My letter to the NY Times years ago about Clinton requested him to come out of the closet and admit he was a sex addict, go into recovery, and then come out for a realistic public approach to addictions based on a disease model of addictions such as Hypoism; that Hypoism is a disease, causes addictions, and when the hypoic finds he/she's addicted, he/she can go into recovery and then continue with life activities. This would change forever the landscape of addictions. But it never happened. The letter wasn't published. Clinton didn't go into recovery nor come out for a realistic way to deal with addicts. So, here we are again. Will Bush cop to this attitude? I doubt it. Why? Because he's not an addict. He's not an alcoholic. He's fine. Real addicts like me need to be punished and ostracized while he becomes president. Deja vu all over again.

And, the talking heads on TV? The ones on the right, for Bush being president, the same ones that a year ago wanted Clinton impeached for lying, and the same ones who probably believe I should never be restored to practice still, are saying, "It was a youthful indiscretion. He really didn't lie to the public. It's no problem whatsoever. It's a democratic party dirty trick." The ones from the left, Clinton's supporters during the impeachment are saying, "But he lied, he failed to disclose. He has no character. He shouldn't be allowed near the white house." Either way, I'm still swinging in the breeze from a short rope.

Why must this scenario repeat itself over and over while hypoics suffer, are punished hypocritically, and the next generation of hypoic politicians grows up to have it happen again. Remember Nixon? Kennedy? We just got over Clinton and here comes Bush. But we still can't allow this to be public addiction. Somehow Bush is different from Dr. Umanoff and others like Dr. Umanoff. So, we can elect another hypoic in denial and continue punishing the hypoics who actually deserve it. Even the ones who don't lie about it.

Stop!

This is all nonsense. This is all about stupid ideas and fears about addictions perpetuated by absolute ignorance of addictions and recovery, and perpetrated by addictionologists, NIDA, and the NIAAA, who espouse ignorance on a daily basis about addictions. The paradigm is wrong. Under the correct paradigm there would be no stigma for being an addict. Public disclosure about ones' addictions would be as routine as one's diabetes or heart attacks or cancer. People with diseases get in the media daily to inform people to seek help for these ailments, not to hide. Even A.A., the program that revolutionized addiction recovery, is still promoting anonymity out of deep seated fear. Bush, as poor a president as he might be, would get elected or not, based on his votes, not on his lies about his addictions. Clinton would have admitted his sex addiction while he was still in Arkansas and would have been well into his recovery when it came time for him to run for the president. The Kennedy family, from which many more politicians will arise, will be in Hypoism recovery and not subject to the whims of a disease that will injure them and the public well into the future.

Do you get it yet? It's the wrong addiction paradigm that needs to be indicted today, not Bush, not Clinton, not me. Let's have TV shows about Hypoism instead of having to put up with talking heads discuss the pros and cons of this or that person's addictions and misbehaviors. All this nonsense concerning celebrities and politicians may be fun to watch on TV, but the real victims are the hypoics like me who are being destroyed by an addiction paradigm that is perpetuating the problems rather than curing them.

Let's get our perspectives straightened out. The rest, more important stuff than who will be president, will then fall into place.