I believe I am old enough to express an opinion in a mannerly fashion. I feel I have worked enough with groups and individuals I know very well that, even if they disagree with my ideas, I can offer my simple view, supported with what I consider evidence, and then discuss the idea with whomever is involved. I admit I may be wrong in my decisions, but when I talk "against the grain" and get blamed for being an ass or a troublemaker for my own personal, deep beliefs, I don't appreciate it. It hurts.
Recently, I took some considerable criticism from those who disagreed with my view about an event. I felt belittled but not extremely upset because (1) I had served the organization for many years, and (2) in my view, my work for them allowed me a dissenting voice but still a needed understanding in the group. I thought about our argument, and I soon felt somewhat caught in my own dilemma of feeling right and the group's alternate decision that I had been headstrong and wrong.
Lack of communication can often discombobulate the actual reality of such a situation; however, a lack of communication can also hinder group members' beliefs that the situation is fair or just. I believe strongly in a lot of talk and consideration before rendering a decision involving a group of people and free speech that allows all views to surface before a controversial decision is made. How can you do that with adequate approval? I don't know -- solicitation from majority membership?
With no good pro-arguments, I admit all vices are horrid. I stand on shaky ground standing up for them. However, toleration of some vices is not unusual nor is it sinful (in my book). For example, drinking and smoking are not good for health or necessarily for happiness, yet I believe in certain circumstances that toleration of such behavior ... complete with a long history of both ... deserves a voice in the planning of a group event.
We could get into a long harangue about social lubricates and guarded freedoms, but that would not help to solve what I consider to be the problem in this essay. I guess I upset some people with challenging a majority. Gosh, I'm sorry ... maybe.
We could speak of safeguards and avenues for toleration for both drinking and smoking. We could consider safety in both. We could even change venues, and find one that does not prohibit theses vices altogether. Our long history of meetings in a drinking establishment offered allowances for both, and no one was ever harmed. But, the counter argument is, of course, they could and should not be tolerated in the first place. And, I admit it has irrefutable grounds.
An Event of Celebration Banning Drinking
Drinking has become a problem for many people. For some, it is a way to numb the pain of life. For others, it is a way to celebrate. But what happens when things go wrong? Drinking becomes a way to forget. And when things start going good, drinking can also become a way to excess. This is the problem with drinking: it can have negative consequences that we try to forget or avoid. It is commonplace but despised by many -- from appearing at pro ballgames to having a little wine at a wedding.
I do not, however, belief drinking in moderation is voluntary madness and a problem for the majority. In fact, after a beer or two, I generally agree with Ernest Hemingway: “I drink to make other people more interesting.” And, in fact Hemingway also said: “Always do sober what you said you'd do drunk. That will teach you to keep your mouth shut.” Funny? Often sadly true, I'm afraid.
I also do not belief social drinking is necessarily "an escape." I believe it is an added attraction under strict conditions. Why? I was raised to believe alcohol in moderation was perfectly acceptable.
F Scott Fitzgerald described its effect: “Here's to alcohol, the rose colored glasses of life.”
Friedrich Nietzsche even said:“For art to exist, for any sort of aesthetic activity or perception to
exist, a certain physiological precondition is indispensable:
intoxication.”
And, humorously, Stephen King once answered the question: “Do you drink?"
His response was, "Of course,I just said I was a writer.” Yes, I am guilty of greatly enjoying a drink once and awhile.
Deciding to meet and greet old friends is often painful for me without sharing drinks. I feel uptight, guarded, and less joyful without a beer or two among friends. I don't care if my friends do not drink. It's just that I find myself opening up more, sharing antidotes, and stories, and simply being happier as I finish my second beer. Talk flows with the liquor as do associations with past good times spent together. Yet, Oscar Wilde in warning claims, “Alcohol, taken in sufficient quantities, may produce all the effects of drunkenness.” Accurately funny as hell. What effects? He did not elaborate.
I want my close friends to accept my intricacies more readily, so I enjoy drinking with them. The reduction of formal friction is something I truly enjoy -- not slowing stooping into disgusting drunkenness, but having a great time sharing and engaging each other's company. Men like me, for example, would never consider fast-dancing until they've had a couple of drinks. Free expression and thoughtless reactions to the rhythm suddenly become acceptable then ... it destroys my tendency to be embarrassed and builds my joy level even with my quirky, jerky movements. Dick Clark rates those reactions to "the beat" as the power of the rhythm.
Pulling back into the theme of this essay, I wonder if those who opposer alcohol either (1) fear drunkenness, or (2) see it as a sin. I get it. I don't agree, but I accept the concessions to the argument of allowing drink. I sin, yet we all sin in some fashion. I don't have time to judge people, let alone my friends.
One can always cheat with flasks or frequent trips to the car during "drinkless occasions," but those people will counter their integrity with such hypocritical behavior at a party "necessary" and "perfectly sly with a purpose." I'm much too old for such shit I did with regularity in high school. In simple terms, "I don't want to lie to my own beliefs and natural tendencies." I gave up being sneaky and deceitful quite a long time ago. No drinking rules must be obeyed in my mind. I won't attend, and that's just fine.
Theme? I merely want the chance to express an opposing view as "nonsense." Does this make me an alcoholic or an evildoer? I'm not advocating for mass protest or for any one other individual to follow my lead or my thinking. I just don't want to be known as the "bad guy" trying to wreck an event. I fear I am now. I politely decline to go, and I wish the best for the sober crowd. Please, laugh, talk, and make all kinds of merriment sans alcohol. I pray that the attendance is at an all-time high and that everyone leaves satisfied as a bee in a honey jar.
I never saw this coming. I just was not willing to give up my annual night of revelry under the belief of my own accord. I'm sure I'll miss tremendously certain aspects of the gathering. I just am a little "spoiled brat" as my unloving, disagreeable spouse says. Then, of course, the coup de grâce follows: "All of this is your own fault, you old motherfucker."
"Disagreeable motherfucker" -- I believe I've found my modus operandi at last. After ten prior events like this that I have helped organized, I am finally revealed. Damn the luck. (Merle Haggard singing, "I think I'll just stay here and drink" in the background.) Better make the next one a double.
* P.S. I was under the incorrect assumption that all alumni of school were part of the official Alumni. Now I understand I was wrong. The group has a sole purpose of scholarship. Any real affiliation with school? Good question for which I have no answer. I know of no dues for inclusion. I remain confused and mildly interested. There's a tent -- but whose structure does it fall under?
No comments:
Post a Comment