In Defense of Drink

In Defense of Drink

Okay, I don’t mean to be divisive, so let me start by being an equal opportunity critic: Gavin Newsome (Democrat) who is – at this moment -- seeking alcohol counseling for cuckolding his “trusted aide” and Mark Foley (the first hit if you Google “Republican child predator”) are weak people first and, probably, drunks second. Ditto: Mel Gibson and numerous others who seek explanations for their wickedness in innocent hooch.

They sin; they seek to blame alcohol; and we are encouraged to forgive them.

And perhaps we should.

But that’s not my point.

Fundamentally, I am tired of booze – one of the finest co-productions (along with cheese) of humans and nature – being derided as though it were kind of skeleton key to the devil within us. Maybe a stiff drink just helps us see who we really are. Perhaps a glass of wine, stein of brew, or a few shots of Jack Daniels, is all it takes to Windex the doors of perception and reveal to us our essential natures. If you’re an adulterer or a pederast, I got to believe that those predispositions influence much of your actions, so maybe alcohol would help you see and confront that wicked self in a way that years of therapy might just dance around. Alcohol could just be the savior, not the sin, the enlightener, not the enabler, the revealer, not the reason behind your moral lapses.

To quote James Crumley: “Never trust a man who doesn't drink because he's probably a self-righteous sort, a man who thinks he knows right from wrong all the time…They're usually afraid of something deep down inside, either that they're a coward or a fool or mean and violent. You can't trust a man who's afraid of himself.”

There are, of course, extenuating circumstances.

I have a good buddy who can’t drink; his stomach is just too frail; he gets a pass, of course.

I have many friends who are recovering alcoholics, and I respect them for their character and strength.

I’m not extolling the virtues of drinking too much, or falling down stupid, or (god for frickin’ bid) driving under the influence, but I resent the pious of whatever stripe, blaming their own spiritual failings on beneficent spirits.

Wine, beer and other alcoholic beverages are perhaps the finest fruit of the marriage between human imagination and earthly vegetation; it pains me to see them blamed by the weak– those who are not fit to bring such goblets of goodness to their lips – for their own failings.

Cheers.

Hammond

Years ago, on the old LTH list serve, I had occasion to quote one of the great speeches about alcohol by a politician of the Old (Granddad) School. This seems like the moment to resurrect it:

"You have asked me how I feel about whiskey. If you mean whiskey, the devil's brew, the poison scourge, the bloody monster that defiles innocence, dethrones reason, destroys the home, creates misery and poverty, yea, literally takes the bread from the mouths of little children; if you mean that evil drink that topples Christian men and women from the pinnacles of righteous and gracious living into the bottomless pits of degradation, shame, despair, helplessness, and hopelessness, then, my friend, I am opposed to it with every fiber of my being.

"However, if by whiskey you mean the oil of conversation, the philosophic wine, the elixir of life, the ale that is consumed when good fellows get together, that puts a song in their hearts and the warm glow of contentment in their eyes; if you mean Christmas cheer, the stimulating sip that puts a little spring in the step of an elderly gentleman on a frosty morning; if you mean that drink that enables man to magnify his joy, and to forget life's great tragedies and heartbreaks and sorrow; if you mean that drink the sale of which pours into our treasuries untold millions of dollars each year, that provides tender care for our little crippled children, our blind, our deaf, our dumb, our pitifully aged and infirm, to build the finest highways, hospitals, universities, and community colleges in this nation, then my friend, I am absolutely, unequivocally in favor of it.

"This is my position, and as always, I refuse to be compromised on matters of principle."  — Judge Noah S. Sweat, Jr, Mississippi, 1952

That's perfect.

I propose that we take a break from blaming drink and revive the short-lived but intensely satisfying practice of blaming rock 'n' roll. Not just "adult" lyrics, but the whole, base, jungle animal frenzy-inducing form, as was done with such vigor and righteousness when it first appeared.
That era pre-dated our advanced contemporary ability to take responsibility for nothing whatever, so that while R&R was successfully condemned, we missed the opportunity to actually transfer all our personal sins onto it. I believe, having worn out drink's ability to bear any more blame, that time has arrived.

Sorry, but the media is still focused on blaming video games.

I recently came across a letter written around 1818 by Thomas Jefferson in which he sharply criticizes a high tax on the importation of wine. In his view, Whiskey was all evil, while wine was good for both the physical and mental health of the people. He pitch was that the high levy on wine would drive the people from a benficial fluid to one that was highly damaging.

Jonah

The cake walk! It's the damnable cake walk that has made nancy-men of our lads and bedizened Jezebels of our womenfolk!

And don't get me started on the velocipede and the young people addicted to its hellbent speed like laudanum users!

Or, to bring this back to food, the electric butter-churn! If that's not Bolshevism in a man's own kitchen, what is?

Rehab seems to be the 'get out of jail free' card that does not have the same social stigma as a stay at Lenox Hill, McLean, etc. Imagine how much easier Margot Kidder would have had it if she could have blamed booze, rather than bi-polar disorder, for her conduct in the post-superman era?

I was just reading an article about the USC kicker who fell to his death, and they referred to his 0.23 BAC as "nearly three times the legal limit" in California.

This sort of misleading statement is pervasive in alcohol-related news coverage, and certainly is a symptom/cause of the attitude David laments.

Big difference between three times the legal limit for operating a motor vehicle and three times the limit to have in your body, which as far as I know, isn't legally proscribed.

...and there's this piece on the AP wire:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070207/ap_ ... vity_rehab

Waiting eagerly for news of poor booze's role in The Case of the Spurned Astronaut.

Given the combination of haggard arrest photo and maniacal determination to drive 950 miles without stopping, I'd bet on a less innocent substance having been abused than hooch.

Whose car can go 950 miles without stopping?

A special NASA car, apparently.

No one said she could, they only said she hoped to. Apparently she hoped all sorts of things with about equal probability of success. Sounds like something just came unsprung in there. Perhaps an alien spore penetrated the shuttle cabin and grew, slowly. Very sad, really. I've had a colleague go completely off without abusing anything to cause it. It's an eerie thing to see happen.

HI,

I have a diesel which can go 500+ miles without refueling. I enjoy stops just to stretch. It never occurred to me to consider an adult diaper as a marathon necessity. Now that I know, I still can't consider it.

Regards,

The Chicago Tribune in 2005 wrote:The crew's main preparation for the return of gravity is to drink copious amounts of fluid—about half a gallon each in the hour before the de-orbit burn. Weeks of zero gravity trick the body into thinking it has too much fluid, and the body responds by retaining less water. If astronauts do not drink a day's worth of salt-laden fluid just before re-entry, they can get light-headed when normal gravity returns.

That's why astronauts know all about diapers, and don't find the idea as weird as the other 99.9999998% of humanity does.

Try explaining these viewpoints to MADD.

bnowell724 wrote:Try explaining these viewpoints to MADD.

As mentioned in the original post, "I’m not extolling the virtues of drinking too much, or falling down stupid, or (god for frickin’ bid) driving under the influence, but I resent the pious of whatever stripe, blaming their own spiritual failings on beneficent spirits."

FYI, The Wife and I contribute to MADD and feel it is a fine organization doing good work, and as long as no one is getting under the influence and then behind the wheel, I got no problem with peoples' personal drinking habits...as long as they don't use them as an easy excuse for their real problems.

David "I've always enjoyed Foster Brooks" Hammond

Oh yeah, see that now. Even though I noted your mention of being annoyed with people blaming alcahol for their destructive actions, I think I misunderstood the attitude of your post as a general dismissal of the life-ruining, family-devastating side effects of it. Sensitive subject for me.

This is not an easy issue, and it is one that calls for both discernment and a sense of responsibility -- things often lacking among those who drink too much or for the wrong reasons.

The first thing that comes to mind is Shakespeare's statement (in Othello), "Why do we put an enemy in our mouths to steal away our brains."

Alcohol does lower inhibitions and make us do things we wouldn't do "in our right minds." To say that people who drink and then do stupid things are simply uncovering shortcomings that already exist is actually not as profound as it sounds -- because of course we ALL have shortcomings and dark thoughts and stupid moments, but the discernment that keeps us from blurting out the angry statement, the self-control that keeps us from acting on the desire to take a swing at someone, are precisely the things that make us not social misfits -- and it is these things that alcohol removes. It is not that we never have dumb or nasty impulses, it's that we don't act on them. Of course, some people have darker thoughts and worse impulses than others, so when alcohol removes inhibitions, things can get ugly -- so yes, it does unmask people. But drunkenness unmasks everyone, not just people we can easily label "bad." We're just more distressed when their maskes come off. And alcoholism is not an easy thing to escape, so some people simply spend more time unmasked.

So I do believe alcohol can be blamed for some of the shameful behavior we see. However, saying that does not remove the responsibility from the individual for having gotten into a drunken stupor -- even if that person had a miserable childhood/marriage/day at the office. Get help.

Having a nice drink doesn't demand drunkness, just as an occasional visit to McDonald's doesn't demand obesity.

I love a good drink -- hot buttered rum and mulled wine are the only really good excuses for living in an area that has winter, wine enhances great food, and there is nothing like a good margarita to announce that it's party time. So I agree that a good drink can be a realy pleasure. But I don't dismiss the really damaging aspects of alcohol, including the damage it does to people's judgement.

As for Thomas Jefferson's point -- people back then used to drink staggering amounts of hard liquor. The military actually considered a pint of rum a day to be a vital part of a soldier's or sailor's rations. There is almost no way to compare those days to these, as far as drinking. People didn't expect to live a long time, so protecting one's liver or one's brain was not a high priority.

Cynthia,

To me, the issue here is less one of "unmasking" and more one of "blaming."

Alcohol unmasks, certainly, and I actually think that's one of its potential benefits: pretensions drop, truth sometimes comes out.

What chaffs my sense of justice is when the fruit of the vine (and grain) is targeted as the cause of misbehavior, when in fact the cause is inside someone's brain or heart or soul.

Fundamentally, I don't think it's fair to blame these beverages for an anti-semitic rant, or for commiting adultery, or for any one of a number of bad behaviors that seem to be written off with a glib rationalization that amounts to "It was the booze talking (or...fill in appropriate gerund here).

Hammond

David,

We're not really disagreeing in spirit, just in focus. I agree entirely that it should not be used as a "glib rationalization" -- but I think that about a lot of things, including drugs or gambling or whatever else is consuming people's lives and causing them to do things they shouldn't do. However, alcohol is something that does in fact change people's behavior, and that was my point. One may think someone is attractive when sober, but might cross the line into adultery when drunk. Alcohol is the thing that lowered the inhibitions. Of course, that doesn't remove responsibility -- a person determined to avoid that landmine just doesn't get into the situation where it can happen. I don't disagree with you that the person is still the source of the behavior, I'm just saying that it is, in fact, true that alcohol can remove much of the judgement that makes us act "civilized." The nicest people in the world may do stupid things when drunk.

The flight from responsibility does concern me, as it does you. We have become a "no fault" society, with no one wanting to accept responsibility for anything, which leads to a lot of problems bigger than a few nasty remarks while in a drunken stupor.

Sadly, for reasons that range from abuse to a lack of hope to social atomization, a lot of people are getting trapped in addictions. I think that the combination -- cut free and no fault -- has led to the glib blaming you (and I) dislike. I agree that alcohol should not be viewed as an excuse, but it is a reason. The fruit of the vine or grain can, in fact, cause misbehavior, but that does not remove the responsibility. Which is why, even as we enjoy alcohol, we need to be aware of its potential and be careful.

So while I agree with you entirely that people should not get off the hook by blaming anything that has taken control of them -- and that can include passion, as we've seen with our little astronaut affair -- I do think we also need to acknowledge that people make stupid mistakes, particularly when drunk. However, one must also consider how the person reacts to their fall from grace. Do they accept responsibility and try to make things right? When someone does accept responsibility for their mistakes and tries to make restitution, their efforts should be accepted, just as we hope to be forgiven when we make stupid mistakes. And by forgiveness, I don't mean the penalty goes away, especially in a case of attempted murder, but that we let go of our own anger and let the person pay the price and get on with life.

But if we reduce it simply to not liking glib rationalizations, we have no point of disagreement at all. I'm a big fan of personal responsibility.

People make stupid decisions when they drink. Unfortunately the worse decision is usually the decision to have another drink.

kiplog wrote:People make stupid decisions when they drink.

That's true, though...

Some years ago, after a few drinks, I made a comment that I later regretted. So I tried a little experiment. I maintained total abstinence --and discovered that I was still making comments I regretted. My conclusion: with or without drinks, I'm going to make comments I regret.

This is not to deny that drink impairs judgment; it is simply to state that sometimes we blame drink for actions that would have happened one way or the other anyway, and at bottom, the bottle is not to be blamed.

Hammond

This discussion reminds me of a great line in a magazine article that I read many years ago on Prozac. It said something to the effect of, if someone is a lazy depressed asshole, with prozac, he will be happier and have more energy, but will remain, alas, an asshole.

-Will

I am not sure of the point of this thread, and have written no less than 3 long replies, all discarded now.

I like wine.

I have had more experience with alcoholics and substance abusers than I wish, and understand that some people do not control what they do when inebriated. For them alcohol is certainly evil and their only choice is whether they embrace or turn away from it. Within certain groups, and Native Americans come to mind immediately from my days on the Navajo reservation, this is true for a majority of the group, and the alcohol is a demon who effectively possesses them.

More people claim to belong to that group to serve their interests than actually do. Michael Richards and Mel Gibson may be pretenders in that sense - hard to know really.

But I also believe the difference between a saint and a sinner is not the impulses they have, but which they act on.

These things are very complex and nuanced. And the public discourse about them tends to be simplified and slanted in such a way as to serve a particular purpose, not to really talk about the subject in its entire, difficult span. Because that whole picture is disquieting, dark, even depressing.

But, sure I agree that those of us who do not have serious problems with alcohol and are not devoutly decrying the sins of man, find those who do either of those things tiresome, at least, if not dangerous to our well-being and happiness.

I suspect you were looking for a more lighthearted exchange.

It is time to go back and reread Loren Eiseley, and I think I need a drink.

"Sobriety divides, diminishes, and says No. Drunkeness unites, expands, and says Yes. Not through mere perversity do men chase after it." -- William James, _The Varieties of Religious Experience_

No hate crime: "the force behind this was alcohol."

http://www.cnn.com/video/player/player.html?url=/video/law/2007/03/13/rowlands.seattle.hate.crime.kiro