Legend has it that in 1904, a hot dog vendor lent out white gloves for his customers so that their hands would not be burned while eating. Unfortunately, he got very few of the gloves back. He asked a baker about a possible solution to his problem, and the baker created a bun to hold the hot dog.
The veracity of this history has been questioned, but it came to mind during my recent trip to North Carolina. Mrs. Mosley and I stopped at a Sonic to get snacks, including a Coney Island Hot Dog. For you Northerners not blessed enough to have a Sonic Drive In where you live, this particular delicacy is loaded with chili and cheese and comes in a little cardboard box sans lid. It also comes with a knife and fork, which many people choose to use since it can be so messy.
My question is this: At this point, why bother with the friggin bun?
It reminds me of a comedy bit which contemplated the practice of placing butter inside a warm box (Butter warmer) inside a cold box (Your fridge) inside a warm box (Your house). Oh, the wonders of modern invention!
Thursday, July 14, 2005
Friday, July 08, 2005
Headin' North
I'm off with Mrs. Mosley to the mountains of North Carolina for a much needed vacation.
See you folks next Thursday.
See you folks next Thursday.
Thursday, July 07, 2005
"hoisting their morning pints"
I spoke previously the affection Mrs. Mosley and I have for London and all things British. I can't really speak for her on the specifics, but this Slate dispatch from a journalist visiting London at the time seems to encapsulate a lot of my personal admirations:
But the reaction to today's attacks feels incredibly English. When I left the quiet area right around the bus bombing and returned to the busy streets of Holborn and Soho, London appeared just as it always is.
The natural state of the English is a kind of gloomy diligence, which is why they do so well in hard times. In 1940, Londoners went dutifully on with their business while the Luftwaffe bombed the hell out of them. Today, most of them are doing the same. I was in Washington for 9/11, and the whole city went into a panic. Offices emptied, stores shut, downtown D.C. became a ghost town. But in London today, everyone still has a cell phone clutched to their ear. The delivery vans are still racing about, seeking shortcuts around all the street closures. The Starbucks is packed.
And when I walked by the Queen's Larder Pub, not half a mile from the Tavistock Square wreckage, at 11 a.m., a half-dozen men were sitting together at a sidewalk table, hoisting their morning pints of ale. Civilization must go on, after all.
Skippy of the Day: George "W is for War President" Bush
After the London bombings early this morning, Bush made the requisite appearance for reporters to reinforce the resolve of himself and the other G-8 leaders. The select quote carried by the news services reflected this:
What other option is there, really? Does anyone, anyone (including the terrorists themselves) expect Bush to one day come out after a bombing and say, "All right, you win. We've had it. My administration will be out of the White House by dawn and you Al-Qaida guys can move in. We'll leave the keys under the doormat."? And, be fair you conservatives out there, do you honestly think that a President Gore or a President Kerry would ever do anything remotely similar?
Of course we will not yield. In actuality, the statement can be taken as a standard response that a leader makes almost out of courtesy. People expect the President to say such things after a crisis. But I'd like to make one other point about it. He uses the term "yield" to reinforce the concept that our fight against terrorism is a "war".
It's not a war. There's no yielding of territory in this fight. War, of course, usually has a clear and definable objective. Our fight against terrorism is a fight against dangerous ideals and individuals, not countries and armies. When this fight grew too abstract to yield satisfying results (like, oh I don't know, capturing Osama Bin Laden, perhaps?), Bush decided to invade a country that he knew he could conquer. Therefore, he could say defeating Iraq was a victory in his "War on Terror". After all, we had captured all this territory, so we must be doing well, right?
Some might think that I'm over-reading into a single word that Bush might have chosen on the spur of the moment. Perhaps he meant that we will not be frightened to the point that our daily lives are filled with fear. That is, after all, the best way to respond to terrorism: refuse to be intimidated. And that should indeed be our response (Along with forming ties with the world bodies and intelligence agencies to track down, capture and prosecute terrorists everywhere).
But Bush and this White House has made all of us jaded when it comes to their words. His advisors and speech writers do all they can to subtly and un-subtly connect Terrorism and Iraq. Their "War on Terror" is counted as one-and-the-same with the "War in Iraq" to the point that the fate of the later hangs in the balance equally with the former.
When it comes to Terrorism, there is no territory and there is no victory; only struggle. One day, we hope, that struggle will wear down terrorists to the point that their presence in the world is a mere shadow of what it is today. Until that day, the world will persevere amid any catastrophes (both terror-related and Bush-related) that come our way.
"We will not yield to these people."In all honesty and sincerity, I'd like to ask him at this moment: What does that mean?
What other option is there, really? Does anyone, anyone (including the terrorists themselves) expect Bush to one day come out after a bombing and say, "All right, you win. We've had it. My administration will be out of the White House by dawn and you Al-Qaida guys can move in. We'll leave the keys under the doormat."? And, be fair you conservatives out there, do you honestly think that a President Gore or a President Kerry would ever do anything remotely similar?
Of course we will not yield. In actuality, the statement can be taken as a standard response that a leader makes almost out of courtesy. People expect the President to say such things after a crisis. But I'd like to make one other point about it. He uses the term "yield" to reinforce the concept that our fight against terrorism is a "war".
It's not a war. There's no yielding of territory in this fight. War, of course, usually has a clear and definable objective. Our fight against terrorism is a fight against dangerous ideals and individuals, not countries and armies. When this fight grew too abstract to yield satisfying results (like, oh I don't know, capturing Osama Bin Laden, perhaps?), Bush decided to invade a country that he knew he could conquer. Therefore, he could say defeating Iraq was a victory in his "War on Terror". After all, we had captured all this territory, so we must be doing well, right?
Some might think that I'm over-reading into a single word that Bush might have chosen on the spur of the moment. Perhaps he meant that we will not be frightened to the point that our daily lives are filled with fear. That is, after all, the best way to respond to terrorism: refuse to be intimidated. And that should indeed be our response (Along with forming ties with the world bodies and intelligence agencies to track down, capture and prosecute terrorists everywhere).
But Bush and this White House has made all of us jaded when it comes to their words. His advisors and speech writers do all they can to subtly and un-subtly connect Terrorism and Iraq. Their "War on Terror" is counted as one-and-the-same with the "War in Iraq" to the point that the fate of the later hangs in the balance equally with the former.
When it comes to Terrorism, there is no territory and there is no victory; only struggle. One day, we hope, that struggle will wear down terrorists to the point that their presence in the world is a mere shadow of what it is today. Until that day, the world will persevere amid any catastrophes (both terror-related and Bush-related) that come our way.
London Calling
Mrs. Mosley and I pretty much fell in love with London the first times we ever visited (separately). We re-experienced that feeling when we went there together back in 2003. We feel a bond with that city more than any other we have ever visited. Our hearts go out to all the people in London right now as we wish them strength and perseverance.
Wednesday, July 06, 2005
Got any training wheels?
Putting political and ideological differences aside for just a moment: What is with this guy and two-wheeled vehicles?!?!
President Bush collided with a local police officer and fell during a bike ride on the grounds of the Gleneagles golf resort while attending a meeting of world leaders Wednesday.This little accident, combined with this one and this one, seems to imply the guy needs to stick with cars from now on.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)