Comments on: The planet is your souvenir. So’s the umbrella in your drink.

By: NoahK

NoahK — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 03:55:29 +0000

I drink 40s every now and again. They are very, very cheap. But you will be sick the next day.

The strongest example you could employ would probably be “girly drinks.” But my mother made me promise upon leaving for college not to have sugary drinks at all because then you can’t taste the alcohol, so I’m going to opt myself out of that one too.

By: Helen

Helen — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 16:27:01 +0000

“In 1920, when some antitobacco people bravely reemerged in Indiana to renew their campaign (the same groups whose triumphs in the 1890’s had led twenty-six states to ban public smoking), they were indicted on charges of treason.”

–Richard Klein, Cigarettes are Sublime

By: Dara

Dara — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 14:08:07 +0000

So the phenomenon of drinking to drink is of course much more complicated than drinking to access identity indicates (this week I’ve been pondering the feasibility of rewriting Sontag’s Disease as Metaphor, which I’ll post more about today, to apply to booze) but I think that discussing “cost and flavor” does a little too much to overweigh consumer choice — after all, there are plenty of cheap ways to get drunk, plenty of which I’m sure you’ve never tried (and might theoretically like) because they’re not cheap ways Yale students get drunk. (Literally, we only drink 40s when they’re strapped to our hands. What does that say about the desirability of that particular identity?)

Another, more undiluted (distilled?) way of looking at this might be to think in terms of your own purchasing habits: What would you feel comfortable going into a crowded bar and ordering? What about a corner liquor store (in your neighborhood at home, say, where you knew the proprietor)? Underage drinkers might get let off the hook to a certain extent because, in the absence of being able to take fully public responsibility for consumption, the identity they’re most prominently indexing is “underage drinker.”

By: NoahK

NoahK — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 11:44:51 +0000

The previous comment stands alone, to emphasize it, but I do have a question. Does putting the identity=commodity connection into liquor actually weaken the case? I feel like when I [hypothetically] drink liquor, it’s either whisky that Rob gives me (absolutely identity politics), vodka in cranberry/orange juice (chosen entirely for cost, and the ability to play the Popov Challenge!), or either a gin and tonic or a tequila shot (I think the most delicious). It just seems to me that because cost and flavor play such large parts in my consumption decision, it’s all needs to be taken with a rim of salt.

Counterpoint: I am ferociously loyal to Sam Adams and Saranac, as I have connections to Boston and the Adirondacks. Ferocious.

By: NoahK

NoahK — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 11:40:08 +0000

So this post is awesome.

By: Will Wilson

Will Wilson — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 04:37:41 +0000

What really appalls me is the ad I saw tonight for a Smirnoff-brand Mojito mix designed to be combined with Vodka. Vodka mojitos? Who on earth can think up an abomination like that? One may as well drink a Mount Gay Martini while we’re at it.

Liquor globalization -> fine.
Liquor miscegenation -> not fine.