I suppose this was inevitable: they’ve invented a mouth spray that causes you to become instantly intoxicated, but lasts only briefly and leaves no hangover.
The secret, apparently, lies in how the small amount of alcohol (.075 milliliters) is aerosolized. Rather than having to guzzle Cosmopolitans or Manhattans for hours — less if you’re a lightweight — until the alcohol is finally absorbed into your bloodstream, you’re immediately affected by the alcoholic mist. When the effects wear off, you don’t have a headache and, if the story linked above is to be believed, you could even pass a breathalyzer test.
I think this product misses the point. You should achieve a state of intoxication only after moving progressively through stages of the drinking process, such as the stage of wondering whether you should have another drink and the (much later) stage where you think you are the most hilarious person in the bar and wonder why no one else seems to agree with that assessment. Drinking should be a long-term social experience, not a quick spritz from a sleek inhaler.
That said, I wonder whether sales of the inhaler will skyrocket when last call comes around and people looking for companionship feel their standards need some quick and effective adjustment.
Here are things that always — always! — happen whenever I am on a business trip and book an early morning return flight:
1. I get no sleep because I’m worried that, despite setting countless alarms and requesting a wake-up call, I’ll oversleep.
2. The only coffee packets for the hotel room brewpot are decaf.
3. There is no readily apparent gas station within a five-mile radius of the airport at which I can gas up my rental car.
4. The rental car return scanner-clerk is irritatingly cheerful.
5. The concourse and gate from which my flight is leaving are as far as possible from the airport entrance and look out on virgin forest, unspoiled since the glaciers receded.
If you’ve watched many TV “news” shows lately, you know they don’t really report much traditional news anymore. You don’t see footage of reporters on the scene interviewing witnesses or the newsmakers themselves. Instead, you see a suit in a studio, discussing the “news” with a suit in another studio. Virtually everything is filtered through the mouth of some talking head.
This situation becomes worse as elections near. Then, the talking heads fall into two categories: those with an agenda, and those who state the obvious. As an example of the latter, consider the headline on a Gallup release yesterday: “National Mood a Drag on Obama’s Re-Election Prospects.” The folks at Gallup have consulted their polls, see that the polls indicate that people are unhappy with the economy, aren’t satisfied with the direction the country is heading, and lack confidence in the President’s ability to turn things around. From this, they conclude that the President’s re-election prospects are “uncertain.”
Wait a second — you mean citizens might actually decide how to vote based on prevailing economic factors and their respective confidence in the candidates’ ability to fix the problem? They might actually hold the incumbent accountable if they think he’s done a poor job?
What an amazing insight! I wonder if these guys could express a view on the challenging question of whether night follows day?