« November 2005 | Main | January 2006 »
I'm glad so many of you enjoyed my recipe for the pomegrante martini. I'm amazed so many of you tried making these at home and then e-mailed me to tell me how you liked it. Anyway, in the spirit of the holidays, I thought I'd give you two more awesome drink recipes that I found recently. Just because it's the holidays, there's no reason you should be forced to sustain yourselves on egg nogg. It's just that every time I drink egg nog, I feel like I'm two sips away from a heart attack. Those things will kill ya.
Anyway, here are two great holiday cocktails that I think you'll enjoy. Give them a try and let me know what you think!
The Big Apple Cobbler (photo above)
Ingredients
1 1/2 oz. Maker's Mark Bourbon
1/2 oz. apple schnapps
apple cider
ginger ale
fresh apple
Directions
Mix the bourbon and apple schnapps into a tall glass full of ice, then fill with apple cider. Top with a splash of ginger ale and garnish with apple slices. Simple but delicious.
The MetroDad Pumpkin Pie Cocktail
Ingredients
2 parts Absolut Vanila vodka
1 part pumpkin schnapps
Splash of cream (or substitute a splash of orange juice)
Nutmeg
Directions
Shake all the ingredients in a cocktail shaker with ice and strain into a martini glass. Garnish with nutmeg and cherry.
Cheers!
Allow me, in advance, to apologize for the length of this post - I tend to get wordy when I get all fired up.
I despise censorship in any fuckin' form. Any. I think protestations on behalf of uptight parents, politicians, school board members, city councilors, et. al. that "We must protect the children" are weak and are served up only to deflect attention from the poles (or polls) that are firmly lodged up their asses.
Now, of course, I may be overreacting to two stories I recently came across. If I am, allow me to apologize here and now for getting into a lather; for getting my knickers in a knot; a bee in my bonnet; or any other witty cliche that describes my agitation. I don't think I am though.
The first came to my attention the other day on MSNBC.com. The story details some controversy in Maryland regarding a book entitled The Earth, My Butt, and Other Big Round Things by Carolyn Mackler. The young adult novel has been widely praised and has received several honors including the Michael L. Printz Honor Book silver medal from the Young Adult Library Services Association. It's a frank depiction of a young (15 years old) girl's "struggle over whether and when to lose her virginity and the disgust she feels with her own overweight body." It's not a very rosy picture - it's far from Leave it to Beaver or Father Knows Best. Today, there's a follow-up story on MSNBC.com about the Carroll County superintendent, Charles I. Ecker, reconsidering the ban he imposed a couple of months ago. In the article he praises the book very highly and even goes on to say that "If I had the authority, I’d make every parent read it because it’s about family relations, about how parents treat a child that may not be the way they think they should be.” Well, holy fuckin' shit, Batman! So, what caused him to ban it you ask? It has some foul language (oops, maybe I'll get banned) and "some sexual things in it that (he) thought was unfortunate." Really? Where's my sarcasm tag when I need it. But, let's get to the heart of it - he overturned a committee that voted to accept the book because a parent...ONE...challenged the book's language and sexual themes. I will place money right now that that parent's child(ren) will end up on a therapist's couch. Now, there is a kicker and it comes from Mr. Ecker. He says, "he was in a quandary. He believes in the First Amendment, he said, and “it’s a wonderful message,” but it is also a difficult one that some pupils may not be ready for." Is it just me, or is he making himself the parent of the entire district? And, can you really say, in all honesty you believe in the First Amendment and then ban a book? Also on MSNBC.com is a poll (unscientific, of course) that shows (unfortunately) that of 282 respondents (at time of writing) only 45%, less than half, believe that books of this nature should be allowed in public schools. 55% believe either the books should be available elsewhere or it all depends on the book. Reason #2,458,965 for the fall of Western Civilization.
Ok, parents, here's the deal. You, my friends, are the parent. It is your responsibility, and yours alone, to bring up your children and only your children. If you find something objectionable, fine, keep it away from your child. But do not...DO NOT...believe that that gives you the right to impose your values on me and keep it from mine. That's not how this all works.
Ok - second story that really pissed me off. Last Friday (December 16) three senators (Joe Lieberman (D, CT), Hillary Rodham Clinton (D, NY) and Evan Bayh (D, IL)) introduced legislation "that will codify the (videogame) industry's voluntary ratings system." Games will be assigned letters ("EC" - appropriate for early childhood to "AO" - adults only) and any retailer that sells games rated mature or adults only to children under 17 could face fines of up to $5,000. Good to see that everything in the country is running smoothly that these aspiring presidential candidates have the time to introduce this ridiculous legislation. First Amendment anyone? Bueller? Bueller? I must say, however, that there are some voices of reason out there in the wilderness. In 2001, "in overturning an Indianapolis statute, Judge Richard A. Posner said the graphic content in videogames, while coarse to many, deserves the same protection as gruesome passages in such literary classics as "The Odyssey," "The Divine Comedy" and "War and Peace." (Emphasis mine) He continues:
"Violence has always been and remains a central interest of humankind and a recurrent, even obsessive theme of culture," Judge Posner wrote. "To shield children right up until the age of 18 from exposure to violent descriptions and images would not only be quixotic, but deforming; it would leave them unequipped to deal with the world as we know it."
I just find it disgusting and insulting that individuals, elected or not, have it in their heads that they are the arbiters of what you and I can read, play, listen to (PMRC anyone?) or watch. Like Chag said a couple of weeks ago, "I Don't Need The Government To Babysit My Children."
Following on from Metrodad’s fantastic list of ten things you don’t know about men, I have decided to make my own list. So here goes.
1. You have a much higher pain threshold than us. Quite frankly you can have that one. When I’ve had my leg cut off in a chainsaw accident I want to be passed out, not lying in agony screaming “I’m in soooo much pain but at least I can take it better than a man!”
2. You can fart longer, harder and louder than we can ever even dream of getting close to.
3. If you make your lady feel good about herself she will make you feel good too. It took me a while to realize this one. If my lady aint happy. I aint happy.
4. You like sex just as much as we do. What’s all this blarney about feeling close and having an ‘emotional connection’? Admit it, when it comes to it, sometimes you want to get down and dirty like the rest of us.
5. Sometimes you wish you could pee standing up. I haven’t met a woman yet who wishes she couldn’t twinkle behind a bush after too many flaming Lamborghinis and a long walk home. Have you seen the line for the ladies at an outdoor concert people????
6. Certain things call for instant trips to the supermarket, hairdresser or chemist. Things like the identification of a gray hair, sore breasts and vomiting in the mornings, any piece of clothing that is on sale and pregnant cravings for ice-cream
7. The women you see in magazines and TV shows represent products. They do not act like real women, look like real women and real women shouldn’t have to look, act or feel like they have to be this way. I love my wife for who she is, not what she is or should be.
8. You always win fights. Period. Fellas, the quicker we learn this, the easier our life would be. It’s just the way it goes, so you can get up off your lazy arse and put out the garbage, or you can have your wife nag you for the next 3 hours and still be shitty at you three days later. Did I mention the issue about you being lazy? That will get thrown in at the next possible opportunity.
9. For some reason you possess this amazing fart generation ability but don’t find ripping one out and lighting it up the slightest bit funny. What the fucks with that???
10. You all love Metrodad. I don’t know why, it’s one of those things…..like the tides and bird migration patterns.
So that’s it people, hopefully I haven’t chased too many of our female readers away. And hopefully you’re not sitting shaking your head thinking “Who is this dickhead?”
If I’m too far off the mark, I’m sure my wife will have a fart, the rubbish and a supermarket trip waiting for me when I get home.
Posted by Peter
"Breathtaking inanity." These were the words U.S district judge John Jones used to describe the Dover, PA school board's decision to mandate the teaching of Intelligent Design in the classroom. Jones' ruling ended the teaching of ID in Pennsylvania, establishing a precedent which will most certainly come into play in other related cases. In other words, Kansas, your time is gonna come.
What's interesting about this case: Jones was appointed by George W. Bush, who is a staunch believer in teaching Intelligent Design in class and who "achieved" a 2.75 GPA while at Yale ( He might've done better had he not gotten a D in Astronomy. Apparently "God and stuff" was not the answer the prof was looking for on Question 3 - "How was the Earth formed?" - of his Final).
So, Science 1, Mythology 0. What do you think of this? (Personally, I'm all for teaching about religion in class, provided that a. all of the world's religions are covered, because believe it or not, most people on Earth aren't Christian and b. it's taught as philosophy and not science.) Regardless, one thing's for sure: the Flying Spaghetti Monster's gonna be pissed.
This week, my wife and I are going to night-wean our daughter. Actually, I'm going to night-wean her. My wife will just wear some earplugs, close the door and take a peaceful trip to Sleepville. I, on the other hand, will have my work cut out for me. Although not full-on crunchy like the granola types out there, we did raise our daughter in kind of a non-traditional way. We didn't use a crib, we didn't use formula, we didn't use binkies, and we don't mind nursing our daughter till a time when most folks would be sending her off to college. It's an attachment mechanism and we think it creates a great bond with Mommy. My stepdaughter is proof positive of this.
What we would like to end, though, is her dependency on night feedings. We've yet to experience 6 hours of uninterrupted sleep in the 22 months we've had her. We can get a good 5 hours sometimes, but, those nights are few and far between. And even at 5 hours, we're talking a 1:00am wake up. Sleep is sporadic from that point on till morning. No, we usually get 2 to 3 hours and then she's crying for Mom's fabulous breasts. So, we now feel it's time to cut her off during the night. We want some real sleep. No boobs for you after lights out, oh child of mine.
What does this entail? The strategy is easy but the collateral effects are troublesome. After she goes to bed, I'm the one that responds to her cries. Mom can't do it anymore because our daughter will expect some nipple action. It would be too difficult, so, it's on me. That's going to be my job for the next [insert number] of days. And it's going to be tough. Our baby is "spirited" to say the least. She loves her some boobies and she's not afraid to vocalize her desires. She's not going to be happy being presented with the new alternative - Daddy. So, it's going to be tough. However, what isn't, right? No one said having kids is easy. Or, if they did, send them my way and let me punch them in the face.
Recent Comments