Thursday, July 26, 2012

THE SANDWICH DEBATE- PART I

Hello, fellow sandwich lovers. I call you that, because who doesn't love a sandwich? I mean, really. It's a universal happiness, like watching people fall down or not wearing pants. As such, many of my conversations in life revolve around sandwiches- when I'm planning on eating my next sandwich, what kind of sandwich is the best, cultural variations of the sandwich, how I would get sandwiches if for some reason the government outlawed them {underground sandwich ring, obviously.} But the greatest discussion- NAY- debate that has ever revolved around sandwiches is that of the true definition of a sandwich, and whether or not an open faced sandwich is, in fact, a sandwich. Given the very obviously serious nature of this topic, I have decided to conduct a formal debate, right here on Cheeky Cheeky. Yes, that's right- you're all witnessing history happen right before your very eyes.

I, myself, am on the side of the Lord, and all things that are pure and holy in this world. I'm just here to stick up for what is right- what Jesus would want. And it is my solemn belief, that as a woman of the cross in 2012, it is my God given duty to defend the rights of open faced sandwiches everywhere and tell you all that OPEN FACED SANDWICHES ARE SANDWICHES!!! Now, there are some that would have you believe otherwise. {Friends of the Devil, clearly.} However, any healthy debate must, of course, allow for both sides to state their point. Taking the side of discrimination anti-open faced sandwiches will be my friend Amelita. She is otherwise a lovely person, so I ask that you all to not judge her too harshly for her prejudiced views as shown below and actually read her arguments with an open mind. {And then side with me & the Lord in the path of righteousness and sandwich equality.} I am first going to allow her to voice her opinion, and then later today I will share my thoughts on this very politically charged matter, and then we'll take a vote via comments. President Obama would like to thank you for participating in this debate, as it is a topic that is very near and dear to his heart.

Open-faced sandwiches are not sandwiches. I can't believe I even have to justify this statement, but here we are. In case you're not aware, the etymology of the word sandwich is as follows: it is said that John Montagu, the fourth Earl of Sandwich in the 18th Century, was quite fond of playing cards, and was also fond of eating meat. Unfortunately, it is difficult for one to eat meat and play cards at the same time, as the meatiness would often be transferred from his hands to his cards, thus rendering his cards super gross. So one day, the Earl said "Yo, gimme summa dat bread and slap this here meat between two pieces, and I'ma eat this meat and play cards and stay clean!" (direct quote), and thus, the Sandwich was invented. That, right there, is the first reason that an open-faced sandwich is not an actual sandwich. Had the Earl said "Meh, one slice of bread will do, I'ma eat this fucker open-faced," he still would've had mad meat-juice on his cards, and the whole thing would have been a moot point.

In case this very historically accurate account isn't enough evidence for you as to why open-faced sandwiches are, in fact, not sandwiches at all, I give you exhibit B: the definition of the word "sandwich," which, in general terms, means to squish something between two pieces of something else.Like, when you're sitting at a table with two of your friends, and the one in the middle isn't paying attention, all of a sudden your friend on the other side yells "SANDWICH" and you both lean wicked hard into your friend in the middle, squishing them. If only having one piece of bread is an acceptable form of a sandwich, then you could conceivably yell "SANDWICH" while sitting at a table with just one friend, at which point you would lean into them, but there wouldn't be anyone on the other side, so your friend would fall over and you would be a big jerk. So, by the transitive property, if one piece of bread constitutes a sandwich, then you are a big jerk.

Despite the fact that I'm the "point" part of this argument, I'm going to proactively counter Carmen's counterpoint that I can see coming from a mile away, which is if it has the word "sandwich" in the name, then it is a sandwich. This argument is just plain lazy. LAZY, CARMEN, IT'S LAZY. English is a dumb language, and sometimes we name things incorrectly. Let's discuss. Do you drive in a driveway? No. Do you park on a parkway? I fucking hope not, or else you's about to get towed and/or rear-ended. And how about sleepovers? Most of the sleepovers I've ever had involved a statistically negligible amount of sleeping. So, there you go, three examples as to why Carmen's LAZY reasoning is not only, in case I haven't mentioned it, LAZY, but also very, very incorrect.

Bottom line: open-faced sandwiches are not sandwiches, and if you think otherwise then you are a big, lazy jerk named Carmen (LOVE YOU, BFFL).

Stay tuned for Part II of the Sandwich debate this afternoon.

3 comments:

  1. Open faced sandwiches totally are not sandwiches, they don't fit in the definition of a sandwich!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Completely on sat in the 'open faced sandwiches are not a sandwiches' camp (with a picnic with meat between two slices of bread ie a sandwich!) lol

    Jenni x

    Bowsbanglesandbakes.blogspot.com

    Ps clearly the great earl was super cool with it and totally down with the kids!

    ReplyDelete
  3. YES. WINNING SO FAR. Thanks, Krysten and Jenni! We may be on the side of the devil but at least we have delicious, hold-able sandwiches.

    ReplyDelete

Thank you for taking the time to comment! It's lovely hearing from you :)