Blessed with a Family of Wonderful Mothers

Grandma

Mom

Jennifer

Kristi



Nita

Death and Taxes

 

These flowers were supposed to be out three weeks ago. I mean, it doesn't matter to me that they were late; I just feel bad for people who actually planned their lives around a failed prediction. This last week was a glaring lesson for many about unpredictability. I was going to write about Kobe Bryant's injury, and then bombs started going off in Boston. Meanwhile there is uncertainty in North Korea, as their young dictator seems to be "predictably" following the family's twisted game plan, but who knows what may transpire? Also, a so-close-I-could-smell-the-empanadas defeat for change in Venezuelan politics was not anticipated, yet cruelly taunting... and I was planning on relaxing at Cantina Marina to enjoy the beautiful spring weather on my day off, but that sun in the photo here was the only five minutes of sun all day!

I know, I know - a whole scope of unfortunate circumstances, and the least disappointing of which was my detour to the Cherry Blossom Festival.  What we do know is that with as much as we calculate and leave ourselves open for flexibility, the waves of this ocean are going to take us on unexpected journeys through good and bad waters. However, the point is not that we are powerless; on the contrary - we should be resilient. Yes, the hits will come, but instead of questioning a divine presence or asking "why" when there will be no satisfactory answer, we should look ahead and see the beauty inherent in this life that otherwise knows no rules except death and taxes. Forgive the conclusion and my sympathies to those - in every part of the world every day - who grieve, but for those five minutes of sun, I will give thanks... and I won't ask why.

First Class

"It's supposed to be hard. If it wasn't hard, everyone would do it. It's the hard that makes it great."
- Tom Hanks, in A League of Their Own

I have never flown first class, but I imagine it is quite special. I try to get bumped up when I fly on my birthday, however I have yet to be successful in my plight, and I assume the airline agents laugh at me after I leave the counter. This year marks twenty years in the service and hospitality industry for me. Most who have worked with me will attest that I take pride in my work and (in the words of Sean Honan) "do more than is asked of me," but my newest endeavor at the luxurious Capella Hotel in Georgetown has forced me to think of a different level of necessary mastery - "first-class service."

Remember that I wrote a whole blog entry a while back about the madness of opening and operating restaurants? Yeah, so I chose to do it all over again. Most of my friends say that it is better to go to an already established place so that you know what to expect. I, of course... don't. Come to think of it, out of the nine restaurants I have opened, five of them have been sight unseen - not a darn clue what the places would look like or be about (fully). Blind trust? Faith? Naivete? Thrill of the gamble? Upon some reflection, I like to think of it as the opportunity to put my mark (yes) on something. There is something quite exhilarating in the madness that is starting from scratch. Fortunately, the vision we were imparted in our training was to aspire to be the best. The tools and the road map we were given were meant to produce a successful business. Exceptionalism is optional and will require some extra dedication and creativity. Perhaps I have found the right place.

The Grill Room at Capella Hotel in Washington DC

Destination: Georgetown

 

Dear Cardinals

It has come to my attention that there is a job opening in Vatican City with the Catholic Church.

While I understand that it is traditionally frowned upon to actively campaign for the office of Supreme Pontiff, I would be remiss if I neglected to inform you all that I hereby throw my hat (albeit not red) into the ring. According to the laws of the church, as a baptized Catholic male person, I somehow have met the minimum qualifications for the job posting in question. However, seeing as how the job is Pope, I am prepared to offer a compelling argument for the viability of my candidacy.

First, I would like to confront the glaring obstacle that you all must be considering - I'm too young. Gentlemen, the last thing our church needs is another elderly fixture in, arguably, one of the world's most demanding positions. At 37 years old, I have the stamina and the optimism to take on the challenges that this kind of work demands. Pope Benedict could only give you eight years; we need a leader who can give us decades.

Second, while my candidacy may appear to be the dark horse in this race because I am not a cardinal... nor an ordained minister of any kind, I assure you that I already have decades of preparation leading me to this profession. Following eight years of formal study in the church - including several as an altar server - I have taught in Catholic schools and have also been devoted to a life of service for nearly twenty years to people from around the globe.

"Whoever wants to become great among you must serve the rest of you like a servant. Whoever wants to become first among you must serve the rest of you like a slave. In the same way, the Son of Man did not come to be served. He came to serve others and to give his life as a ransom for many people."
- Matthew 20: 26-28
 

Third, I love to travel. One of the best ways we get out our message is by getting out there. I intend to take this show on the road.

Fourth, any priest or other church personnel found to have been involved in any illegal activity will be reported to the local legal authorities. That will be step one of their penance.

Fifth, never again will a homily be supplanted by a request for money.

While I recognize there are others among you who would seem to be the safer choice for this position, I urge you to find someone whose stated goal is one of international tranquility and can reach millions with his message of love and hope. Good luck to all the cardinals as they prayerfully arrive at their selection.

Peace be with you.

 

 

Why I Love Liberals

This is not a back-handed compliment. After all, I am a Compassionate Environmentally-Friendly Conservative. There can be a lot of heated debate over politics, so I felt it was a good time to relax and give some props. Ya know?

As a Conservative, especially here in DC, and especially in the restaurant business, I'm pretty much used to being thought of as having been seduced by the devil. But, for some reason I still have friends. Maybe they are hoping some day I will see the light... which coincides nicely with the topic of this entry, why I love Liberals:

Above all, Liberals care about people! They see this land as an opportunity for no one to go hungry nor have any basic human needs go unsatisfied. They see a land where everyone is entitled to a first-rate education and everyone has access to proper health care. They despise unfair discrimination, in public and in private, based on gender, sexual orientation, age, skin color, ethnic background, religion, or economic status. They want an effective government that works for everyone, and wish corruption did not exist. They don't want government intruding on personal medical decisions. They want a country that welcomes immigrants with open arms and treats migrant foreign nationals as friends.

Liberals love peace! They wish that gun violence did not exist and criminals could learn from their mistakes to become productive members of society. They abhor war and wish we could live with our fellow nations in harmony. They wish there were no need for bombs or grenades or drones, and that we would never have to take a human life in the name of national interest. They value diplomacy as the best way to solve international differences. They want a world where everyone gets a fair wage for their labors and that greed be tempered by employers' will to honor and elevate their employees.They value love as a general rule for how to live.

Liberals love the environment! They love animals and see them as precious creatures. They yearn for clean air, drinking water, and oceans. They are concerned about food safety and nutrition. They want us to maintain parks, trees, mountains, and rivers so that we do not destroy such precious gifts. They fear the actions of many may cause damage to our planet, and stand up to say so. They want no animal to go extinct due to human influence, and they are quick to confront animal cruelty.

I know I have only scratched the surface about the great things about Liberals, and I praise them for being an active part of the fabric of America. You know, it's funny, after writing this, all of these things are important, if not sacred to Conservatives as well. We just have different ideas about how to get things done... that, and we let a lot of hot air get in the way in the middle of the aisle. May the best man win tomorrow. God Bless America.



*This message has been approved by and paid for by the Campaign of J. Mark Porter for President - 2012

The Gay Marriage Question and Dispensable Mothers

Since most reasonable Americans on the other side of the gay marriage debate are cautiously silent, at the risk of being branded all sorts of undesirable things, I feel the need to chime in. I have done a great deal of thinking on this issue and listened to a lot of people - friends, people in the media, priests - and you get the idea that it is a simple religion versus rights issue. I don't see it that way, and I hope you will have the open mind to follow me on this one.

First of all, there is more than one way to examine this, and all things should be considered. If you look at this from a religious perspective, it is certainly acceptable to have a belief structure of what partnership is and live your life accordingly. Hopefully, you will find someone with matching beliefs, and you can achieve a desirable way to celebrate your relationship. Perhaps you eschew religion altogether, in which case a religious argument for the design of family holds no weight at all, and that is fine too. We, as a country, have many beliefs about appropriate behavior and right and wrong, and our founding principles are such that these different beliefs are protected. While these beliefs inform and help us draw important conclusions, we need to move beyond religion, or the lack thereof, in deciding what is right and just in this case. It is a temptation to take the to-each-his-own approach, but I intend to show that this is an issue that affects more than the people seeking the marriage certificate.

From the rights perspective, we should consider that all Americans should be able to lawfully carry out their personal relationships with whom they please, and it should be none of the government's business whom they love and with whom they choose to spend their lives. Most Americans would agree to this point, and most, regardless of their comfort or morality level about homosexuality, do not care to legislate against sexual acts in the bedroom nor the lifetime partners one keeps. Now government does play a part in recognizing familial relationships, such as spouse, guardian, next of kin, etcetera, all for arguably legitimate reasons, so the premise that it's none of the government's business whom I marry is out the window. There was the proposal of civil unions that had some legs, but was leap-frogged by the all-out campaign by the gay marriage crowd. So, now we have states making up their own minds, but a country divided and no one really bringing anything new to the debate.

What's at stake here is the institution of marriage - which is quite important - and seemingly only simple arguments are being made to (not) solve a complex situation. The only way we solve this is to define marriage and find a way to agree to it, or else the institution is meaningless. What's interesting is that there has been a fundamental shift in thinking; marriage was once a cultural duty and sacramental gift, and now it seems to be viewed more as a right. The ultimate problem I have with this shift is that marriage used to be about family, community, and culture - a sphere of responsibility that extends beyond the individual - and now the issue is that of what two people want for themselves. What we need is a definition, but if the issue is the freedom to marry as you choose, why then should it not be legal to marry your sister or your five closest friends? Should marriage simply be treated as a private legal agreement that can be modified or nullified once a week? This all sounds ridiculous, but if you are going to change the definition of marriage, you're going to have to tell me what the new definition is, and you're going to have to get society to agree somehow. The bottom line is that marriage is not just what you want it to be, it's what it is culturally accepted to be.

Finally, and most importantly as it advises the decision on my view, is the issue of parenthood. If we are going to talk about individual rights in respect to a private family, how about a child's right to a father and a mother? Extreme cases such as abuse and neglect aside, the government may not deny a child his or her mother or father as a matter of legal status. We can then assume government has no general right to interrupt that natural bond. Why would we as a people choose to legally promote through gay marriage the denial of a child's right to either a mother or a father? Furthermore, by legally promoting a primary familiar unit of husband and husband, we are essentially saying, quite crassly, that MOTHERS ARE DISPENSABLE (and vise-versa with lesbian couples). Certainly a single parent can raise a child; so too, no doubt, can a same-sex couple - that is not the question. If the government is going to promote the general welfare of the people through family relationship legal recognition, it cannot destroy a child's right to at least an opportunity to have a mother and a father. This is why we recognize a legitimate marriage as a union between a man and a woman, not to deny civil rights because gayness makes us squeamish, but to keep intact a part of our culture that says men and women are not simply interchangeable with respect to family, and kids ideally benefit from having both a female mom and a male dad.

Some may criticize this decision as hateful, but it is quite contrarily out of love for children, and indeed, my country, that I say, let us not promote this insulting theory of dispensability. We must think outside of ourselves on this very important issue, as it will surely harm our national soul should we fail.