OK, guys. On Friday nights, my wife and I often go out to the local Brewpub with friends. No big deal. Today, my daughter and her fiancé come in, earlier than I expect, and join us. No big deal. Another couple joins us too. No big deal. At the end of a pleasant meal, we divide the check, and I'm caught a bit short, because I hadn't expected the kids to come, and of course, daddy covers. No big deal. I apologize to my friends, collect the cash, and put the credit card in the holder. The waitress comes, and I pass the holder back to her. No card. Big deal!
My friends had seen me put the card in the holder, so its a mystery. We look under the table, around on the floor. I tear my wallet apart. My wife tears my wallet apart. No card. Now ordinarily, this is a problem, but something you work through. But this is also the card that I've used to guarantee the caterer at the reception for my daughter's wedding, a mere eight days (and 198 guests) hence. And I'm computing in my head, is there enough time to cancel the card, and get a new one. To explain to the caterer what the deal is, and to get everything sorted out. My chest is a bit tight at this point, as you can imagine!
About five minutes pass, as we lift the table, and generally make a scene of ourselves, figuring out trajectories, etc. Another waiter stops by, and suggests that sometimes the holders wear out, and the card falls through the pocket, into the holder itself. I check. Hallelujah! It's there. I am amazed, breathless, and thankful. What an evening!
Peace
27 comments:
Often the flaw is not in our behavior but in the very structures that we trust.
Those moments are amazing. I often lose the tollbooth ticket, and find myself turning the car upside down. Especially easy for me to lose it on very long tolls, and then find it the minute I've paid the highest possible toll, and then I have to mail it in. Eight months later I get a check for 3.84, and then misplace the check, and find it two days before it's due, so cash it for cash, and buy a cookie, which crumbles.
stu:
Glad y'r almighty CARD appeared--to guard against such near-disasters, I always carry e'nuff cash (USD or Canadian) to cover mos' any exigency, an' for yrs (mirabile dictu!) I haven't had to fight over own wallet--what's America comin' to, stu?
On beers--jes' two yrs ago me n' Em fell in luv wi' the brooding n' dark Czech "Master" beer (12 pt, or %) while touring Prague again--it's to beer what our beloved "Yukon Jack" (produced in Canada for th' US, but unobtainable in Newfoundland--perhaps they sell it in St Pierre ou Miquelon?) is to liquor.
The Belgian Trappists also run to 12%--or even up to 18%, comme vous voudriez. Now I reckon owr Prez'es proclivity for "Bud Lite" is jes' another of his faux-folksy affectations tha' won't work--sure, I drin' pitchers o' Bud during "happy hour" at my VFW Friday "fish fry,"--so long as I can "get it up on its feet" with a little flask-borne "Jameson's" whiskey--like the Big O's wish to ban all flavoured cigs in th' US--'CEPT MENTHOL, naturallement, 'cause if he DID include menthols as flavoured cigs (which of course they ARE) there'd be riots in our largest 25 cities, right?.
Disclaimer: A ce moment, je bois une biere produite de Michigan--Arcadian Scotch Ale de "Battle Creek"--mmm--Hey, guys, not a PROBLEM--jes' three or four in th' morning t' help me get goin'--OK?--Not a PROBLEM, see? ("plaisanterie!" ou . . .?). For, as the Cartesians are wont to say: "Je bois, donc (takes first swig of 2nd "breakfast" Arcadian ale--Look, hey, gimmee a break!--got to be sober for Em's uncle's cancer fund-raiser tonight (God bless him!), so ease off, OK?) je SUIS . . . mais, quoi!
Spent six hours in hospital wi' me poor mum yesterday before her stent surgery two weeks hence--'course the Big O's "health" plan would sort of, like, I mean, OK: "counsel" me mum, whom Em n' me have spent six effing months revivin' to life n' for love of livin', TO DIE--Well, then, EFF YOU, PREZ!! n' God bless George Bush for respectin' life! Neverth'less, Mum's gettin' in shape for her final adventure--Newfoundland!--one more heart op an' she's OK to go with us in fall to see her last (and, we hope, best) place to live and . . . yes, to die.
Sorry, to readers: (starts his third an' las' boh-uhle (yes, that's "bottle" for you Volvo-drivers n ' John Kerry wannabees), me n' Em took/ part in a "philosophical" evenin' in St John's, hosted by th' dept chair (of course, a Brit), Dr Prof Bradley (not, I found, related to T S Eliot's teacher, F A Bradley) and as BYOB nite (I swear that Em n' me will provide what you drink, obviatin' such crude BYOB strictures) in our fall soirees (dates soon to follow when we return from Montreal to visit old friends from Seattle--a Boeing mechanical engineer (and his Swiss TEFL community-college-instructor wife) in the first week of Sept or so. Among the mix, we'll have (as similarly artists, jurists, as Castiglione reports), students, lawyers, MDs, PhDs, whomever. If you could make it, you'll drink free, and we'll make sure you've a place to sleep it off. But more on that later . . .
Actually, Master beer comes in different octanes, I think; 12 point, 14 point, and 18 point.
I think that aside from the Brits who come to Prague for stag nights or just to drink cheap beer and find women, most Czech people treat Master beer like a dessert.
Jimmy James
You back the fark off of Volvos now. They produced the God of All Sedans -- the Volvo 850 Turbo.
165 mph in a WAGON. A WAGON, sir that seats seven people.
Also, Volvo was the last car company to mass produce cars that I can repair (pre-1998 Volvos have no "brain" and all parts are mechanical -- friggin amazing).
Also (in case we ever get to meet IRL), I don't drink beer (well, PBR and old-style Rolling Rock [which no longer exists] sometimes) but I am fond of most varieties of the water of life, 'specially the kinds from Scotland and Tennessee.
Also, Stu,
Let's have more translation posts!
Okay -- gotta go make the church bulletin for tomorrow.
kirby i am rather amazed that you so keenly articulate the element of chaos theory in practical everyday living
how we find ourselves on deadend trails at almost everyminute and what's more nobody should have to see cookies crumble right out of the bag but i know the feeling
money craziness following you around like a free radical and just when you turn to deal with it it turns into something else like a letter from an old girlfriend
a moving escher print in actual three dimensions
c'est la vie
c'est l'surrealism
c'est la pomme de terre
i have a friend who uses the concept of the credit card as the working paradigm for all relationships...if you keep investing in a relationship it is useful and you can use that relationship like a credit card and sometimes you go over the credit limit
now if the card is lost somehow you will panic like a friend just told you to go phg yrslf but then you suddenly find the card adn the friendship is restored
the credit card is your friend htat's what they want you to think you've got this steady friend in your wallett and it helps smooth the way...there's a pricetag on it however and you pay the price for this friend
so is it really a friend
i mean a friend is someone you just expect to be there a card is something you pay for
so my friends' analogy seems a bit flawed
credit
credo
believe in money
it is your friend
but i always say
give it away
fr jss
yo
j
Dear Friends—
I'm sorry to have been a slow correspondent this beautiful weekend. Chaos descended on my house in the form of two children, a fiancé, a dog, a sister-in-law, and a nephew, all staying with us for yesterday's bridesmaids' shower. Throw in the ever-accelerating wedding planning, and it's been a bit overwhelming.
One book that I'd like to recommend is "Pandemonium Tremendum: Chaos and Mystery in the Life of God," by James Hutchingson. It was my privilege to review this for Zygon several years ago, but at this point, I'd rather let the book speak for itself.
JA—
I always carry e'nuff cash (USD or Canadian) to cover mos' any exigency
Yeah, me too. But this once...
an' for yrs (mirabile dictu!) I haven't had to fight over own wallet--what's America comin' to, stu?
Got me. My wife is a force of nature, and I was to the point of not believing my own eyes. It does put a person at a moral disadvantage.
Now I reckon owr Prez'es proclivity for "Bud Lite" is jes' another of his faux-folksy affectations tha' won't work--sure, I drin' pitchers o' Bud during "happy hour" at my VFW Friday "fish fry,"
I'm almost inclined to agree. The fact that Mr. Obama had a lite, and Mr. Biden an NA, suggests to me though that there are limits on the consumption of alcohol by the NCA. I can't imagine having to face a job like the Presidency without a beer (or three) at the end of the evening. I suppose Mr. Obama unwinds by shooting baskets, but it's just not the same thing.
Once you're restricted to a lite, your choices range from mediocre on down.
As for pitchers of cheap beer at public events like fish fries—that's something altogether different. A pitcher of gullet wash to clear the pipes between grease bites is only right.
And I still think you're off the deep end regarding Mr. Obama's health care plan. As far as I know, there's no euthanasia counseling provision in any proposal currently on the table. I'm actually more worried about what might happen to it when the R's come back into power, as they will eventually.
Biden had an NA? That's interesting as he seems quite the alcoholic along the lines of my father.
Biden had an NA? That's interesting as he seems quite the alcoholic along the lines of my father.
A Buckler (0.5% ABV), and according to published reports, Mr. Biden is a teetotaler. Evidently there's a family history here, and a belief on Mr. Biden's part that truck driver who killed his first wife had been drinking.
Admittedly, this blows my hypothesis as to why Mr. Obama had a Bud Lite out of the water.
The driver who killed Biden's first wife was not even cited, nor is there evidence according to the deceased driver's family that he had been drinking.
What evidence do you have on this matter, stu? What evidence also do you have for Biden not drinking at all--or taking medicines that might cause intoxicated behaviour?
Biden, along with a host of other pro-choice "Catholic" libs (Kerry, Pelosi, Kennedy, et alii) have been warned by scores of bishops not to seek to take comminion in their dioceses.
jh—
The driver who killed Biden's first wife was not even cited, nor is there evidence according to the deceased driver's family that he had been drinking.
What evidence do you have on this matter, stu? What evidence also do you have for Biden not drinking at all--or taking medicines that might cause intoxicated behaviour?
Two remarks.
1. I don't mean to be dismissive, but learn how to use Google. In this case, type "joe biden alcohol" into Google, and you'll find plenty of cites. This is not a case where finding supporting evidence presents a challenge.
2. I was very careful in what I said. In particular, I did not claim that the truck driver had been drinking, only that Mr. Biden believed that he had. As an explanation for Mr. Biden's behavior, his beliefs are more important than the objective facts.
Biden, along with a host of other pro-choice "Catholic" libs (Kerry, Pelosi, Kennedy, et alii) have been warned by scores of bishops not to seek to take comminion in their dioceses.
Indeed. And yet these same bishops have not extended their condemnation to conservative legislators who support and even advocate extension of the death penalty, even though both abortion and capital punishment are proscribed under the "whole cloth" theology of the Catholic Church.
You consider them to be heroes, I consider them to by hypocrites who have chosen to teach a sliver of the gospel as though it were the whole. The Catholic Church would be better served by bishops other than these. Give me bishops who will condemn both left and right in their zeal for the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, and then I'll consider them worth listening too.
stu:
I DO read carefully and suggest that you apply your incisive words to yourself above all.
I didn't say you said that the driver was at fault. Where then?
Isn't there a difference between saying "Biden believes" and saying "Biden said he believes?" I'll learn to use google better if you review the handouts for Philosophy 101.
Your screed against Catholic bishops denying communion to those politicians promoting abortion or opposing those politicians who promote infanticide (as has Obama) shows again that you haven't read carefully enough:
". . . both abortion and capital punishment are proscribed under the "whole cloth" theology of the Catholic Church. [not true; abortion is unconditionally condemned or proscribed by the Church as a grave sin, while capital punishment is discouraged, especially by Pope John Paul II and many American bishops}
You consider them to be heroes, I consider them to by [sic]hypocrites who have chosen to teach a sliver of the gospel as though it were the whole. The Catholic Church would be better served by bishops other than these." [this is pure screed, and unworthy of reply]
JAD (not jh)
James—
This is getting a bit nit-picky, and to no good end.
I didn't say you said that the driver was at fault.
Where did I say that you did? I only said that Mr. Biden believed that the truck driver had been drinking.
You now want to quibble about the difference between "Mr. Biden believes" and "Mr. Biden said that he believes." I think it is reasonable to assume that people mean what they say, and that if you want to argue otherwise, the burden of proof lies with you that Mr. Biden says that he believes things that he does not believe.
As for my brief (if typographically imperfect) discussion of the Catholic bishops, I dispute that this was a screed. You brought them up as a rhetorical aside, totally immaterial to the question at hand.
My point, which I will now make even more explicit, is that the Catholic bishops are not my bishops. I am under no obligation to accept their opinions or judgments. To the extent that I believe they are acting faithfully in accordance with their holy office, I will offer them respect, out of choice but not out of obligation, and consider their opinions in addition to their arguments.
You, who are under obligation to the bishops, are bound by conscience to see it their way. But raising their opinions in rhetorical aside in an argument with me is unproductive.
JAD (not jh)
A mental error on my part, and my apologies to both of you.
James—
One further remark. If you Catholics don't want your assemblies to be sullied by people like Mr. Kerry, Mrs. Pelosi, Mr. Kennedy, etc., guilty in your bishop's opinion of the persistent sin of advocating freedom of choice as a matter of law, then let me say that I would be pleased to have them in my congregation.
Peace
stu:
Of course I know you're not a Roman Catholic--that was evident from your very first posts I read several weeks ago.
Your animus against the Catholic bishops as you take up the cudgels in defense of some very unsavoury politicians and persons (Kerry, Kennedy, Pelosi, Dodd, Biden [a tedious, vaunting blowhard if there ever was one!], et alii--what a rogues gallery of personal and political hypocrites!) ignores the fact that many of the bishops rightly refusing communion to these seedy and lying politicos also preach against capital punishment, though it is not within their office generally to refuse communion to those who think capital punishment is just for some crimes. As I corrected your error before, the Church has not placed abortion and capital punishment on the same level of proscription.
Again, the words of the sublime Catholic monarchist philosopher Joseph de Maistre (1753-1821) come to mind:
"The executioner is the horror and the bond of human society; remove him, and thrones topple, governments dissolve, and chaos ensues . . ."
Still, Peace
JA
stu:
A few critical addenda on your curious comments:
"This is getting a bit nit-picky, and to no good end." [AKA fine or more precise distinctions? As in "[y]ou should have distinguished," says Austen's Anne Elliot to Cpt Wentworth; agreed that it is not good for your contentions]
You now want to quibble about the difference between "Mr. Biden believes" and "Mr. Biden said that he believes." I think it is reasonable to assume that people mean what they say . . ." [Mr Biden has been caught numerous times lying about, e.g., his law class performance and class standing, so grant us a bit of scepticism about his public statements . . .]
"My point, which I will now make even more explicit, is that the Catholic bishops are not my bishops . . ." [any contrast or contradiction in this rhetorical flourish: "Give me bishops who will condemn both left and right in their zeal for the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, and then I'll consider them worth listening too"? Perhaps just une facon curieuse de parler--"an odd way of speaking"]
"You, who are under obligation to the bishops, are bound by conscience to see it their way." [Yes, like Church teaching on abortion, but, as I pointed out, not necessarily on capital punishment and a myriad of political issues, thank you]
Peace,
JA
Small corrections:
Begin paragraph w/" marks.
. . . and then consider them worth listening too [sic]"? Perhaps just une facon curieuse de parler--"an odd way of speaking"?]
JA—
"You now want to quibble about the difference between "Mr. Biden believes" and "Mr. Biden said that he believes." I think it is reasonable to assume that people mean what they say . . ." [Mr Biden has been caught numerous times lying about, e.g., his law class performance and class standing, so grant us a bit of scepticism about his public statements . . .]
I think it is fair to say that the left and right both do an excellent job of seeing the mote in the other side's eye.
I suspect the "lies" you refer to are perhaps more accurately classified as "cleaned up memories." We all tend to remember ourselves as the hero of our own narrative, and politicians in particular seem guilty of this failing. So, the question arises as to whether or not these "lies" were known falsehoods to the teller (i.e., proper lies), or did he himself believe that he was telling the truth? Did he simply "misremember"? It seems to me that a tendency to make errors in recollection (even consistently in one's own favor) is quite different from misrepresentation of present belief. This is the distinction between recollection and confession.
There is a very specific problem in dealing with statements of belief, in that our windows into the internal state of other people is so limited. Indeed, this side of fMRI (which is out of the question in a case like this), all we have are a person's statements and their actions. In this case, there is a coherence between action (drinking a non-alcoholic beer) and statements (he's a teetotaler, and believes [possibly in error] that the other party in the accident that killed his first wife had been drinking).
stu:
You mean after all these years Biden still insists, without proof and against all police reports exonerating the driver (as Biden's wife's car seemed to have run a stop light and was broad-sided by the truck?), that the driver of the truck was drunk (at least he did in 2001, two yrs after the death of the driver)? Strategic political lie? Derangement? Denial? What? Where is Biden's PROOF, since you like to shift such burdens about as it suits you (and even then you'll only go as far as: "[Biden]'s a teetotaler, and believes [possibly in error] that the other party in the accident that killed his first wife had been drinking"). This is getting perverse. . . . We're to accept Biden's word, yet he may very well be misremembering
or confabulating or embellishing in self-aggrandizing tales because he "believes" them true, though they're not?
To deny that there is a substantive difference between "he said he believes" and "he believes" and then to proceed on to such as specious, tortuous, and unconvincing pseudo-psychological defense as Biden's ingenuously "misremembering" stretches creduity, as well as OTHER politicians' reliability--and especially since you've been so fastidious about keeping to the specific topic at hand (i.e., Biden's reliability in public statements). For my part, I think political rhetoric can more freely range round, but I refer to your views as earlier stated.
I'll cede the last word on this thread to you, stu, for I'm satisfied to have made my points and to have answered most of yours.
I'll cede the last word on this thread to you, stu, for I'm satisfied to have made my points and to have answered most of yours.
As you wish.
You mean after all these years Biden still insists, without proof and against all police reports exonerating the driver (as Biden's wife's car seemed to have run a stop light and was broad-sided by the truck?), that the driver of the truck was drunk (at least he did in 2001, two yrs after the death of the driver)?
So it seems. And this gets cited in his decision not to drink. Whether or not this is a reasonable belief is immaterial as regards its role in his decision not to drink, and is a question that I have nothing to contribute to.
Where is Biden's PROOF, since you like to shift such burdens about as it suits you
Proof is not required to form belief. Mr. Biden may not be entirely rational on this subject. I probably wouldn't be in his shoes. Would you?
As for where the burden of proof lies, I've picked it up when I've felt it is mine, but I see no reason to accept burdens to prove claims that I've not made. It is a part of your argumentative technique to demand such proofs; it is part of mine to note when the burden properly lies elsewhere.
stu:
> . . . . . . . . . . . . ., . . . . . . . .?
> . . . . . . . . . . . . !
> . . . . . . . . . . . ) . . . . . . .) . . . . . . . .!?
> . . . . . . .-- . . . . . . .!!
> . . . . . . . . . . . .,
> Peace,
JA
JA,
:-)
Peace
FWIW,
I think all you crazy folks who believe abortion, war, murder, euthanasia, the death penalty, etc. square up with following Jesus are blind, insane, deluded, or liars.
Still love you, though.
Post a Comment