I can't believe it's not vodka!

Non-Alcoholic

I came to a conclusion on Thursday night:  I drink non-alcoholic beer for the alcohol.  I drank four of them last night at $4 each, and I cannot think of a reason why I wouldn't have opted for something cheaper, LIKE WATER.  I fear I am becoming a non-alcoholic.  Next thing you know I will contract "Splenda Diabetes."

The deal goes down like this:  The beer company calls their product "Non-alcoholic" so that when I ask "May I have a non-alcoholic beer, please?"  I FEEL like I am not getting alcohol, even though I and the beer company share a dirty little secret.  There is actually a shady transaction going down here. Something unspoken passes between myself and Shamus O'Doul, the breakdancing NA leprechaun mascot, and we each have a little internal laugh.  I will let you on the joke: Each bottle contains a whopping 0.5% alcohol.  That means that if I ever got the urge to kill 12 of those, I would have consumed a full beer.  A FULL BEER.  I don't have to tell you that I am playing with fire here.  What would happen if I sat down and decided, over the course of an evening, to drink 72 of these bad boys?  I could be well over the legal limit...  HOW SAFE IS YOUR PRODUCT NOW, ANHEISER? 

So anyway, I am sitting at Champp's on Thursday enjoying my NA's and some really bad Karaoke when an old guy starts singing "What a Wonderful World."  My friend Marc is totally enamoured with the fact that he can actually do the voice.  He says "Man, listen to that voice," about three times, gazing at the stage.  "He sounds just like Sasquatch."  That's right, Marc thought Louis Armstrong's nickname wasn't Satchmo, but SASQUATCH.  To think, the missing link was right in front of us the whole time, hiding in plain sight.  CASE CRACKED, thanks to MTD. 

Non-events Become Events

I don't know if it is my sobriety or what, but non-events have been becoming events lately.  I guess boredom in general will do that to you, and I guess this means I am becoming bored with not drinking.  Here is one 'event':

I am in the grocery store buying ketchup.  I notice that Heinz has "Celebrity Edition" bottles of Ketchup.  No shizzle, you can't make this stuff up.  Speaking of shizzle, they could have at least had a quote from Snoop on there, or something similarly cool, that would have been an event.  Here is the list of celebrities they've got, and their quotes:

Terry Bradshaw: "Served at the Immaculate Reception"

Lindsay Lohan: "Burger-licious"

Mia Hamm: "Worthy of a Gold Medal."

William Shatner: "Making Burgers at Warp Speed."

So, I come to my senses, standing in the condiment aisle, realizing that I have just spent a good minute or so deciding on WHICH CELEBRITY KETCHUP IS THE BEST.  I ask you folks, since I have most certainly taken one step further down the path to HELL, is it possible to turn back?  What happened to my mind?  Where did it go?  One thought that went through my head was "Which one would make the best conversation topic?"  I finally decided on the William Shatner Ketchup, because I like advertising that is straight forward.  I have officially entered dorkdom.  I am not even cool enough to be a trekkie, but a ketchup trekkie.  What bothered me most was that I actually entered into a thought process as to which ketchup would be of the most value to me, in general, over the long haul.  I don't use a lot of ketchup, so it would be in my fridge for awhile.  It was like picking a roommate, well not really, because I so would've picked Lindsay Lohan, I mean, come on. 

What is it about boredom that threatens to turn you into some kind of popcorn connoisseur?  A guy who could argue for hours about the best way to grow grass?  I guess this is how hobbies get started, maybe that is how this got started, or THIS.  The first link is a guy who publishes stories on the web with dolls, the second is a weird guy who JUST DECIDED TO DIG A HOLE.  I suggest you go through the pages until you get to the part about the snake.  Awesome.  So I guess my reason for writing this entry is:  If any of you out there see me posing dolls and taking pictures of them, or see me even start to dig a hole, INTERVENE, FOR THE LOVE OF ALL THAT IS HOLY.

Adventures in Sobriety - 3 Month Chip

For those of you unfamiliar with the theme of this site, it is an attempt by it's author to create an alcohol substitute.  I wanted to create an outlet, and also a drill to tap into that mysterious place within and emerge with something that is capable of sustaining me, and hopefully others.  "Blogging," to quote Boozie, "is good therapy."  I attended a meeting on Saturday, in my true style, just to get my chip.  I have 3 months of sobriety now, and I hope I will return to a meeting before it is time to pick up my six month.  Meetings are fascinating, and always give me something to reflect upon.

The reason I don't attend meetings regularly is that I find that there is often a "misery loves company" feel to meetings.  I sometimes think that everyone is there to suffer together, and if you aren't suffering, then you aren't part of the group.  I often feel pressure to complain while I am there. Granted, there are people in meetings who have had real difficulties in life, and have every right to vent.  However, I would rather choose to celebrate my sobriety, after all, I have found my way out of a lifestyle that was potentially destructive for me. 

My approach to quitting alcohol has been to step outside myself to process my anxiety.  I don't ask "Why can't I drink?" I ask "Why can't alcoholics drink?"  Humans have a tendency to personalize their pain, and I think that is a habit to be avoided.  Pain happens, it doesn't mean you deserve it.  Learn from it.  Others in the meeting rely less on "processing anxiety" but on some vision of a personal God.  They believe that the only thing they can do is pray.  I find this impractical.  I prefer to take a more head-on approach to my problems, I try to solve them on my own. If God exists I am sure He has a full enough plate, and appreciates me for handling His light work.  Socrates said that frustration leads to wisdom, and I look for the lesson in all of my problems, so that I may overcome.  I don't wait for someone or something to show me, I am not that patient.  I think that imploring celestial aid is less practical than seeking earthly aid.

A lesson on perspective, from an attendee:  "I got drunk and ended up in a pretty bad barfight one time, and had to go to jail.  It was the worst jail, bad food, no air conditioning, bad cells.  I hated it there.  It wasn't long after I was finally released that I got a phone call saying I had to go back to serve time for some unprocessed charges.  I dreaded going back for weeks, but when I finally got there, they had built a whole new jail!  So you see, it's all a matter of perspective."  I love it.

The theme of the meeting seemed to be courage.  There are some very courageous intelligent people in meetings.  My contribution on the theme was that I haven't let myself get too hung up on the final end-all-be-all of some personal God, but have instead looked for signs that I am on the right path.  I don't think it matters if we follow a religion or which religion we follow, as long as we have the ability to find little guideposts in life that help us to know that we are headed in the right direction. These little moments are encouraging, and if God does exist, these moments are certainly from God.  I believe that the more alcoholism is viewed as a practical problem with practical solutions, the more the right path for alcoholics will make itself clear.

Introspection Direction

A funny thing happened.  I called Whoosh, and she says her real name on her voice mail.  It was like calling Superman's voice mail and hearing "This is Clark Kent... please leave a message."  I think I might have choked a little...  "Uh, um...  Hey uh, Whoosh..." 

Cranking out this blog has boosted my admiration for Boozie.  She seems to be able to sit down and knock out an entry at will.  It is not that easy for me.  I have been wondering for 3 days what I was going to write next, and then something occurred to me.  I started this blog, first and foremost, for myself.  This entry is going to be about Mr. "I can't believe it's not vodka" and you people are going to read it, and you are going to like it!!!!  (Breath)

Okay, I have been to one AA meeting.  There I got my 2 month chip, made a few connections.  I feel guilty about not going back, not for the whole "It is so good for me reason" but because the leader of the meeting gave me a copy of "The little blue book" and I found his picture in it.  I have been meaning to return that picture, my friend thinks it is a mug shot.  It looks like one, and the fact that the bottom is cut off might be a clue.  Deep.  I am however enjoying the self reliance, and knowing me I will probably go back next week if only to score my 3 month coin. 

So, time for an exercise.  Let's pretend that I actually KNOW I am an alcoholic.  Contrary to popular belief, I am not totally in possession of this "fact."  Most alcoholics don't know until they KNOW, when something happens that is indisputable and says without a doubt "You are an alcoholic."  Unfortunately, it is all too often more like "Damn it, can't you see you are a fucking alcoholic!  I hate you!" or something like that.  I heard a comedian say once: "Alcoholism is a disease, but it is the only disease you can get yelled at for having."  I have not had that experience.  I don't know that I am an alcoholic, and I hope I never do know.  For me, right now, saying I am an alcoholic would be a leap of faith, and that is why I don't like saying it.  For the purpose of this exercise however, I know that I am.

So-  Here I am, alcoholic.  I have a problem, alcoholism.  How do I solve it?  How do I even find it to solve it?  It is not like a Rubik's cube, it is an abstract, internal problem, unless you take the "physical disposition" argument, which I prefer.  See there are two schools:  Old school is that alcoholism is a character defect, and only one Christian denomination allows that it could be physical, and that's Presbyterian.  I believe alcoholism is more difficult for an alcoholic who believes it is a character defect.  The character belief makes alcoholism out to be something the alcoholic should be ashamed of, something that only a higher power can solve.  This takes a more introspective direction, the alcoholic begins to look for an abstract solution to an abstract problem.  They wait for their higher power to kick in. They are "helpless." The physical disposition argument allows it to be treated more like an addiction, and I have been told by some that NA is actually more helpful than AA in this respect.  The physical disposition problem can be solved by not drinking, one day at a time.  That is what Kelsey Grammer does.  I have read that just quitting drinking or going on antabuse will not cure an alcoholic, that counseling is needed.  I however also believe that once someone knows that they have a physical problem, they can step out of shame and begin to look at their problem objectively, logically.  That is why I am a proponent of the physical disposition argument.  There is a lot of data out there to support it.  Cultures that have had alcohol in their midst for over 7000 years have the lowest incidence of alcoholism.  Cultures that have had alcohol in their midst for 400 years have the highest incidence (American Indians have an 80% incidence of alcoholism.)   Enough said.

Despite this belief, I am still sort of a "transcend the question" kind of guy.  It doesn't matter if I have a physical dependency.  It doesn't matter if I have a character flaw.  It doesn't matter if I am an alcoholic.  None of this matters, so long as I DON'T DRINK. 

Sherry Enema

As much as I would like to rest on the laurels of my last post, I gotta keep rolling, besides, I don't how anyone could think I would pass on this:  Sherry Enema.  I am telling you people, you just can't make this stuff up.  A woman in Texas is being charged with criminally negligent homicide after it was determined that she poisoned her husband with what appears to be two 1.5 liter bottles of sherry, up his ass.  What is most intriguing about this story to me is not this guy's death (sorry), but his wife's choice of weaponry.  For a minute I thought maybe she was trying to do something nice for him that went terribly wrong, but then I read that she had burned his will.  Then I read that she received $240,000 in the insurance settlement.  I am sure, however, that she must have done alcohol enemas for him before because the poor guy had ulcers, acid reflux and was an alcoholic.   Sherry enemas are not part of any twelve step program, (they will have to edit the AA books from "don't drink" to "don't consume") so I can assume he wasn't a "recovering" alcoholic.  It is a terrible thing that alcohol can do to some people, and their families.  It was only a matter of time before it occured in that criminal mind of hers, as she was standing over him pouring sherry into his ass, that he was worth more to her dead than he was alive. 

Where are the lines drawn in this case?  Why "criminally negligent homicide" and not murder?  It must be because they would have a difficult time proving that she murdered him deliberately, in light of the fact that he probably asked for it to begin with.  But why use the word "criminally?"  If she didn't kill him by accident, it is criminal, that I get.  But if she did kill him by accident, it shouldn't be criminal, should it?  Doesn't the word "criminal" imply harmful intent?  I guess I have a problem understanding the term "criminally negligent."  Maybe this is another way of saying "so negligent as to be criminal," or "you would have to be seriously stupid to make this mistake."  So basically, the prosecutor will only have to prove that she was either a murderer, or seriously stupid.  Looks like an open-shut case to me.

Here is a question:  Now that we know that there is untapped market out there (men over 50 who can no longer consume alcohol in the traditional manner) do we have the Michelob light home enema kit to look forward to?  Maybe this could surpass the beer-bong in popularity among spring breakers.  One thing is for sure...  the truth is most certainly stranger than fiction.

As if things weren't hard enough...

"If an erection lasts for more than 4 hours, please seek immediate medical attention."  This is a disclaimer for the prescription drug Levitra. This got me to thinking.  If you show up at the emergency room with a 3 1/2 hour erection, do they tell you to come back in a half an hour?  You would think that a 3 1/2 hour erection serious enough.  If I had an erection for 3 hours, I don't know what I would do to distract myself for that extra hour.  It's not like I can go play golf, or basketball, I couldn't even be seen in line at a movie theater without being arrested.   I think that if it takes an hour to fill out the paperwork, I should leave the house after 3 hours.  What if someone only has a 3 hour erection, but his penis has turned purple?  Does he still wait the extra hour?  Man, I would be staring at the co... I mean clock.  How do the statisticians at Levitra come up with the 4 hour number?  It makes me wonder what happened to the guys in the clinical trials that waited over 4 hours. Here is something from the site:

LEVITRA may uncommonly cause:

• An erection that won't go away (priapism). If you get an erection that lasts more than 4 hours, get medical help right away. Priapism must be treated as soon as possible or lasting damage can happen to your penis including the inability to have erections.

Here is the obvious question:   What does the Doctor in the emergency room do to treat this?  An erection that won't go away?!?  The doctor must have a drawer full of pictures of hideously ugly women.  Okay, here is the scene. 

Doctor walks in, sees you with raging erection...

Dr.  "So, what seems to be the problem?"

Patient:  "Well, the fact that you can't tell what my problem is making feel a little small in a certain area, could you look again?"

Doctor:  "Oh, I see... have you tried thinking about baseball?"

Also, isn't this "priapism" condition self contradictory?  "I got an erection that didn't go away, and now I can't have an erection."  Trust me, if it didn't go away, you have an erection.  Here is some more:

In an extensive clinical trial program that included more than 50 trials and involved more than 4,400 men with erectile dysfunction (ED), the results of one or more of these clinical trials showed:

• In a broad patient population, LEVITRA helped up to 85% of men with erectile dysfunction achieve improved erections.
• Men reported having harder erections and improved overall sexual experiences.

4400 * 85% = 3740 erections.  Does this number include the guys who had hard ons that wouldn't go away? I wonder if this study involved scientists in white lab coats testing to see if there were "improved erections." How did they do that?  "Well Bob, that one isn't so big, but it is big for you, nice improvement."  Also, this info is misleading.  Notice it says "50 clinical trials where the results of one or more of these trials..."  Refresh my memory here, but doesn't "one or more" mean "a number as low as one?"  To me, that means 1 OUT OF 50 TRIALS.  1 out of 50 trials showed the desired results, and this drug is on the market.  God bless this country.