A few facts about sandwiches, inspired by the woman who submitted to making 300 sandwiches for her boyfriend in exchange for a marriage proposal:
Sandwiches were invented by an 18th century English statesman.John Montagu served as First Lord of Admirality, Secretary of State for the Northern Department, and Postmaster General. He was principal in devising the Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle that led to peace between England and the Netherlands. If he had the time to not only make but invent the sandwich, so do you.
"Sandwich" is the only word that is the same in every language.A universal concept that everyone can understand. That means just about everyone can comprehend, and as such handle, the task of making one. You fall into that category.
The definition of the word "sandwich" is, unsurprisingly, pretty broad.Mirriam Webster defines a sandwich as "two pieces of bread with something (such as meat, peanut butter, etc.) between them." That "etc." allows you a lot of leeway. You can cram pretty much any edible item between two slices of bread and you've got a sandwich. If you so desperately want a sandwich, your resources, I can imagine, will accomodate this.
Sandwiches became popular in America during the Great Depression.The Great Depression. The bleakest, most wanton decade in modern history. If those people could muster up the energy and time away from working in the Charlie Chaplin machines to make their own sandwiches, you also have time.
You don't even need arms to make sandwiches.I say that with all sincerity and reverence. Here, find double amputee "Tisha UnArmed" demonstrating how to make a sandwich without the use of one's arms:
Without at the very least this degree of physical limitation, you have very little excuse for not making your own sandwich. (Video provided by @misterpatches, a bottomless well of interesting material.)
Americans eat over 300 million sandwiches a day.I'm not really sure how this fits into my argument, it's just interesting.
Sandwiches always taste better when you make them yourself.Indisputable. In my life, I have eaten more sandwiches than I have eaten things that are not sandwiches. I am no esteemed culinary genius, so it is not my talent in the kitchen that supply me with a gift for the endeavor. It is simply that nobody knows your own palette — the specifics of it and what ratios it most favors — better than you do. Admit it. In opting out of making your own sandwich, you aren't vying for something better. You're just being lazy.
Sandwiches aren't very good for you.This is a generalization, but the vast majority of entries in the category denoted as "sandwich" are high in fat, cholesterol, and sodium. The least you can do, if you insist on eating one of these every day, is burn off some energy by trekking into the kitchen to make it yourself.
If you really need someone else to make you a sandwich, you can pay any number of professional sandwich makers in close proximity a very reasonable price to do so.Just about every single restaurant, super market, deli, fast food chain, or bodega features the option of sandwiches. Most of the time, they run fairly cheap, and are constructed by professional sandwich makers — people who voluntarily submit to making sandwiches, and benefit financially from doing so (all while our economy spikes!) — at your disposal throughout the day.
It is not your responsibility to supply sandwiches for some jackass who bargains that he'll marry you if you make enough of them.In fact, you are painting a pretty poor picture of your relationship if you feel obligated to transform into a proverbial conveyer belt of sandwich meals, fueled by him dangling an engagement ring in front of your nose like a carrot*. You owe sandwiches to nobody, especially somebody who uses them as a manipulation tactic to quantify the value of his love for you. You deserve better that that. So do the sandwiches.
*Carrots are a healthy alternative to sandwiches.
More:Where Will Miley Cyrus' Career Go from Here?Lorde Is Everything Lana Del Ray Wants to BeHorse_ebooks Is a Human!
Follow @Michael Arbeiter
| Follow @Hollywood_com
From Our Partners:40 Most Revealing See-Through Red Carpet Looks (Vh1)15 Stars Share Secrets of their Sex Lives (Celebuzz)
WHAT IT’S ABOUT?
Set against the background of 1920s Spain where repression and political upheaval enveloped a nation on the verge of civil war Little Ashes focuses on the emergence of three young artists Salvador Dali Luis Bunuel and Federico Garcia Lorca. When Dali arrives fresh-faced at the University at the age of 18 Bunuel and Lorca welcome him into their decadent group and the trio become fast friends. Their budding friendship is soon threatened however when Dali and Lorca develop a special bond in which their sexual and artistic explorations collide with personal ambition love of country and their own passion for each other.
WHO’S IN IT?
In a performance shot before Twilight made him an international star that women swoon over Robert Pattinson may surprise fans with his spot-on portrayal of the sexually confused over-the-top artist Salvador Dali. With his signature handlebar mustache and a serviceable Spanish accent Pattinson captures the essence of the young Dali convincing in his depiction of the artistic tirades bisexual encounters and egotistical conceit that informed the great painter’s early years. As the object of Dali’s early affections newcomer Javier Beltran is intriguing as the fatalistic and seductive playwright and poet Federico Garcia Lorca while Matthew McNulty is quite fine as Bunuel who himself would go on to become one of Spain’s - and the world’s - most important film directors. As Magdalena and Gala the women who try to tame these artists Marina Gatell and Arly Jover are beautiful and effective even though their roles are really sideshows to the film’s true focus and intentions.
Despite the low budget Madrid in the '20s is nicely suggested and meticulously recreated. Director Paul Morrison has a nice feel for the period and a good eye for casting these tricky roles.
The film tries to bite off more than it can chew covering too much of the era and coming off as a mere overview of these times and key relationships. The idea of seeing the artists as young men is good but not enough time is taken to really show what they are made of. The artistic fire and sexual freedom that must have been prevalent then is glossed over and not totally convincing. This probably would have worked better as a TV mini-series.
BUT SHOULD TWILIGHT FANS LINE UP?
As his first film post-Twilight it won’t matter. Robert Pattinson may be de-fanged here but this independent art-house item won’t be around long enough to become a blip on his new fandom’s radar.
NETFLIX OR MULTIPLEX?
This small flick probably won’t find its way to the local mall. Considering the hard “R” nature of the material Pattinson’s adoring young flock will probably have to wait to see it on DVD anyway.