Drunks, Three-Year-Old Semantics and De-volution

I just had a conversation with an interesting guy. He is witty, intelligent and articulate. On the other hand he insists drinking alcohol is necessary at a party to “lubricate the conversation.”

I attempted to point out that we were having a pleasant conversation without “lubrication” but as often happens when I am right I didn’t convince him.

It has been over 30 years since I consumed any beverage to excess. I discovered then that the only thing I could do better drinking than I could do sober was make an ass out of myself. Since I am capable, competent and have credibly proven an ability of making an ass out of myself without any assistance I’ve avoided it (alcohol) ever since.

I have a theory that alcohol, television, computers and children are the major interrupters of quality romance and should be avoided. On the other hand children are the by-product of the romance, have a few redeeming qualities and sometimes can’t be avoided.

I’ve also noticed that over-consumption of alcohol reverses evolution. Sort of a de-volving situation. Add enough alcohol and 27 million years of evolution is out the window-or cave entrance if you prefer.

Take any reasonably intelligent human, add enough alcohol and you have a knuckle-dragging Neanderthal. Without alcohol he or she might be reasonably human with reasonable tastes and restraint. Add enough alcohol and he or she might see another vaguely human creature and the next thing is they are heading back to the cave.

I heard a story about a New Year’s Eve party. The guy said. “With all of the discussion of drunk driving, accidents and arrests, I’ve had to do some soul searching. When I left the party I’d had a little too much to drink so I did something I’d never done before. I took a cab.

As it happened I did the right thing. Just down the road was a sobriety checkpoint. Since I was in the cab they just waved me through.

I’m pretty pleased with myself. After all, I’ve never driven a cab before. I parked it behind the house since I don’t know who it belongs to.”

As long as I’ve opened the door to quoting other folks, here’s one of my favorites by an old friend. She says, “If it has a motor, or wheels or uh-uhh testosterone generators, it will give you trouble.” It’s funny but I’ve never met a woman who disagrees with that.

The same lady also says, “If you love something set it free, etc. BUT if it lays around your house making messes, eating your food and annoying you, you either married it or gave birth to it.”

I just got an interesting lesson in accurate communication from the three-year-old Grand-brat. He helps me work every Thursday. We deliver some papers and whatever else happens to happen. We got a call about a house fire.

When I told him we had to go get a picture of a fire he was delighted. “Yay, a fire.” I explained that some fires are fun but this was a bad fire. Someone is losing their home and clothes and toys. He thought for a minute and said, “That’s so sad. Everybody wouldn’t like that.”

Most of us who are adults and who would think we communicate better than three year olds would have said “Nobody would like that.”

“Nobody likes that” leaves room for ambivalence or indifference; “everybody doesn’t like that” doesn’t. I’m pleased to see his weird genes kicking in so satisfactorily.