Wednesday, October 13, 2010

A Response to Eating a Dinosaur, While Drinking a PBR

This was actually fun "homework". I had heard of the Unabomber before, but never knew exactly what it was -- I was completely interested in Ted Kaczynski, his Luddite ways, his extremism. Klosterman is a great writer (funny guy too). So all this talk about knowing the truth yet refusing to be proactive about it (Emerson once wrote "inaction is cowardice") provoked me to take a look at my own life, and attempt to psychoanalyze myself to figure out why I do the things I do.

Tonight's agenda -- beer. Good ole' frosty beer. I love beer, especially good beer (which as of late never can afford), and I like shitty beer. I like Labatts and PBRs, and my dad drinks Busch so I had to get used to swiping those in my high schools days. And liquor. Mostly, whiskey. No light liquors, give me some dark shit, and make it burn my lungs and wake me up and warm me up.

But why? Why do I love drinking beer? Do I love the actual beer or what comes with it? Can it be both? And why do most people my age and many younger and older drink so much of it? Why can't I go a week without drinking beer one night? (Yes I am aware that I will probably become an alcoholic one day -- it runs in the family).

I once read a book by Tom Robbins called B is for Beer a story about a little girl who persistently asks her parents what beer is, yet to no avail. Her parents are always busy, and eventually a beer fairy comes down and gives her a "tour" or beer showcasing different situations where beer is present (football games, the breweries, etc.). Without boring you with more plot summary, the book resonates with the idea that beer is consumed by humans because it reverts us back to our more animalistic state. It allows us to dance. It allows us to talk freely (which Robbins will argue is actually a good thing because it inhibits us to tell the truth). And though the book has its flaws and isn't really my book of worship, it was reminiscent when I was reading Klosterman's essay.

Why do we indulge ourselves in what we hate constantly? We're in a class vehemently arguing against the growth of media and it's ill-effects, yet here I am writing on a blog?? (I'm not criticizing you Prof. G!) Like Klosterman concludes, we get enough out of it to not totally isolate ourselves from it. The internet isn't insulting us or punching us in the stomach -- it's a passive hatred. A passive-aggressive hate, where you know the hate is there but you can never call it out. Fuck you internet you sly, sly dog.

Welp, the coincide with my blog's stereotypical-man, primitive theme I want to relate this idea to why we (America) drinks beer. We love beer. We're the only country (arguably) where most adolescents drink until they become zombies. We throw up at bars, on our friends, we shit and puke at the same time some mornings because our insides are confused as to where to put all this waste. I'm poisoning myself right now (and have been since sentence one) and yet fuck it. I'm feeling loose. (ASIDE: you probably noticed the grotesque picture of the girl puking up there near my blog's title. I literally typed in "football and alcohol" into google images and that's the first hit I got. Apparently she drank too much at a football game and that's what happened to her at half-time).

But I must admit, intellectually I feel weak drinking. In my purest state, I hate myself for using drugs to achieve states of mind (sorry, marijuana) because if I tried enough I wouldn't have to drink in order to dance at a bar. If I wasn't weak I could sit through my two-hour snooze class sober, instead of getting stoned to make my thumb-twiddling seem entertaining. Klosterman proposed that technology gives short-term satisfaction, but long term negative effects; couldn't the same be said about drugs?

If as I write this, I don't see myself in 20 years quitting drinking. I mean, I don't plan on being an alcoholic (fingers crossed), but I do believe that moderation is a good thing. I'll be advocating the legalization of marijuana until that shit goes down, but I don't plan on being stoned all day, every day.

Hmmmm. America is up there in terms of citizens who binge-drink. And I mean this is nothing new. I'm not trying to make the argument that heavy drinking simply started when media started expanding. But maybe it did (I'll do more research on it later, and I'd actually love to find out). But let's say, for a second, that my statement holds some merit. If drinking, symbolically speaking, is our response to our depression, our anxieties, a simple sedation -- and we acknowledge that over time it is bad for our bodies and minds (and physical appearance). And if the media is expanding exponentially, and has been for quite some time --- then isn't there some correlation? If what Klosterman (and our class, pretty much) says that more technology equals less personal freedom, and if drinking is increasing then there must be something up!?

I don't think this is the whole shebang, but I know when I drink I feel more alive. Not intellectually, not socially, but I feel the immediate effects of what I'M DOING to my body. I think Dan made the comment last week about piercing and tattoos giving us the power to make a choice -- I think my idea resonates in the same degree. When we drink we become more instinctual, which I think is inherently good but we usually overdo it and exaggerate it. We cut off that "blocker" between thought and word -- our thoughts spew out of us without regulation. We don't censor ourselves, we do, in Robbins' sense, become more animalistic.

Now I know my point is subject to debate, and I don't think that I'm covering every aspect of the beer-technology comparison. But I just wanted to offer it for thought. I feel like I preached enough and I thank you for reading if you've made it this far. I just find it interesting that I'm drinking a beer, feeling more in touch with my instinctual, active side -- but aren't I also ignoring the source of the problem? Shouldn't I be able to do the things drinking "allows" me to do; do I need to be empowered by a drug? Or is it society that causes me to have to do this? Do I have any other option?

And how can you criticize a beer drinker when you do the same thing with technology? What's the fucking difference?

2 comments:

  1. "Klosterman proposed that technology gives short-term satisfaction, but long term negative effects; couldn't the same be said about drugs?"

    Well, isn't technology our drug of choice? And because of its ill after-effects, don't we need actual drugs, including alcohol, to cope?


    You should check out Harvard School of Public Health studies on college-age binge drinking (ugly).

    Also, I wrote a book called THE DRUNKEN JOURNALIST -- it should be in the library; I'm pretty sure nobody has ever taken it out -- that you might want to skim.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I think that's exactly the point I was trying to make but couldn't find the words. And I've checked out what books you've written -- that one caught me eye. I'll definitely check it out, Prof. G. And thanks for reading my rant, I'll see you in class tomorrow!

    ReplyDelete