I am no longer allowed to smoke at my desk or in a smoking room or anywhere in the building, I cannot tell jokes lest I offend by crossing neo-conservative lines of political correctness that have taken the place of actual social change and justice, I cannot wear a suit and tie lest my slovenly colleagues shudder in fear that "casual" attire will be eliminated as a dress code if too many people dress-up, although alcohol is served in very controlled company situations there is no longer the three-martini lunch and it is unacceptable to have the smell of alcohol on your breath in the afternoon.
The list goes on and includes alleged sensitivities to groups of allegedly disenfranchised people. The lists of the disenfranchised includes conflicting, diametrically opposed concepts. Single, childless adults are disenfranchised as are married parents. Women and people of color are disenfranchised even when they are millionaires; but white men living at the poverty line are not. The young are protected and the old are protected, but the middle-aged population is pretty much fucked. White men who are homosexual enjoy more protection than their heterosexual counterparts, and the richer the white homosexual man the more protection he can afford.
Sure, I believe there are groups that need protection. People of color, women, homosexuals, the handicapped, children, and the elderly all need to be protected. A decent society protects these people.
We, however, are not a decent society and instead of providing actual protection to these groups, we have proscribed language and cultural phenomena and instead of changing we have learned to pay-off members of the protected groups who are offended by anyone at anytime.
There is no actual change, there is just proscription and pay-off. It's sort of embarrassing.
The group I think that is treated most unfairly is the active alcoholic. Alcohol, though controlled and addictive, is a legal substance that is easily obtained almost everywhere in America. Until the advent of political correctness, which (not coincidentally) coincided with the advent of neo-conservatism, an alcoholic could have a drink (or two or three) at lunch and not really suffer any consequences in the workplace as long as her work was completed. Drinking at lunch, however, is no longer acceptable in the business world and it is rare that you see martini glasses on a restaurant table during lunch.
I noticed this over the past few years as I watched the price of a business lunch remain the same even though no booze was being ordered. What has happened is that restaurants, in an effort to maintain receipts, has had to raise the price of the food to cover the loss of liquor revenue.
Unfair I say! When alcoholics were allowed free reign during lunch, the price of food in pubs and finer restaurants remained low. Now that drinking at lunch is frowned-upon, the food prices have sky-rocketed!
How can we increase drinking at lunch to reign-in rising food costs?
One company, Pocket Shot, is facilitating the consumption of alcohol by offering " . . . a brand new way to enjoy your favorite hard liquor."
Each Pocket Shot is sealed in a near unbreakable, flexible, squishable, pocket stuffable pouch making them perfect for active activities, outdoor adventures, and glass restricting venues.
Bring a nip to the office, the morning commute, the toilet, the ballpark, behind the wheel, any place where it has become difficult to bring an old-fashioned flask or half-pint bottle.
If more people start using the Pocket Shot it is possible that drinking-at-lunch might come back into vogue! If drinking-at-lunch returns, then the food prices at restaurants can stabilize and those of us who do not drink can eat far more cheaply!
C'mon folks! Drink up! Visit Pocket Shot and spend spend spend!
Dick Mac does not condone underage drinking. So don't get caught!
Dick Mac Recommends:
Essential Sly & Family Stone
Sly & Family Stone