This one deals with straight-up cocktails, and could also have been titled “Up Drinks”, but the idea remains the same: these are drinks served as-is, without any ice (though they are shaken or stirred on it). These are the drinks that most people think of when someone says “cocktail” or … ugh … “Martini” (they’re not Martinis. If you love Martinis like I love Martinis, you will stop calling them Martinis).

I provide some history and four delicious drink recipes. Sound interesting? Take a look!

The fine folks at Primer did a killer job with the photos, as they always do. One of the great pleasures of writing for them is the knowledge that I’ll get to see my drinks (and many drinks that I love but can’t take credit for) looking fantastic. Go check it out!

So, it’s happened: you’ve invited a lady friend over for an evening of intellectual, witty conversation augmented by adult beverages, and she’s agreed to your suggestion. Now you need to put together some drinks she can appreciate, but you know nothing about mixology and your current bar contains exactly one bottle of Jack Daniels, and a container of grenadine so old that the cap has fused to the glass. You know that the woman you’re interested in has moved past the likes of Michelob Ultra and bad appletinis, but you’re not sure what would impress her. What to do?

Interested? Check out the whole article over on Primer!

Here, then, is my political compass, as assessed by the good folks at, well, The Political Compass. I recommend taking their test before you go on to look at my answers, since they might bias you in one way or the other. Here’s the chart:

Woo ... just call me "Captain Socialism"

As you can see, I lean pretty heavily toward the economic left (lots of regulation) and in favor of social liberties — meaning that I feel all people are deserving of relatively equal treatment and that it’s the state’s duty to ensure they get it. How did I arrive there? Well, read on, because in this, the longest entry in the history of this blog, I’m going to dissect each question, giving my answer and a brief explanation for why I chose it. I do this to encourage discussion, so feel free to leave your comments (you don’t even need to register anymore!) … as long as they’re kept courteous, I won’t delete them, even if you disagree with me completely and think I’m an idiot.

You have been warned! Here we go …

My Political Views

If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations.

Strongly agree. The overall good of humanity is far more important than corporate accomplishment.

I’d always support my country, whether it was right or wrong.

Strongly Disagree. The most patriotic thing a person can do is question their government. If the country is doing something wrong, it is the citizenry’s duty to question it.

No one chooses his or her country of birth, so it’s foolish to be proud of it.

Agree. Not strongly, because some level of nationalism/culturalism seems to be a biological part of us, but I think overall it’s pretty ridiculous to be “proud” of where you were born. It’s like being proud that your hair is brown, or that you have freckles.

Our race has many superior qualities, compared with other races.

Strongly Disagree. All scientific evidence points to the fact that people of all races, when placed in similar cultural and educational situations, will pretty much perform the same. There is substantially more variation within a given “race” than between racial averages.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Disagree. Sometimes the enemy of your enemy is just another enemy. We fought with the Soviets in WWII, and then against them for the next forty years. Pretty sure that means they were our enemy, even though they had also been the enemy of our enemy. Also, before they were the enemy of our enemy, they were the friend of our enemy. It’s all very complex.

Military action that defies international law is sometimes justified.

Disagree. International Law exists for the specific purpose of determining what type of military action is appropriate amongst “civilized” peoples. Break those laws, and you’re lowering yourself to the same level as all others who do so.

There is now a worrying fusion of information and entertainment.

Agree. When our supposedly unbiased and journalistic news sources are constantly running scare campaigns and competing to see who can get the highest ratings, it does us all a disservice.

People are ultimately divided more by class than by nationality.

Agree. Put ten billionaires together in a room and ask if they really give a shit about each others’ nationality. Spoiler Alert: they don’t.

Controlling inflation is more important than controlling unemployment.

Disagree. Unemployment produces incredible civil unrest. Inflation, while problematic at accelerated rates, is actually not a terribly bad thing at moderate levels, especially during times of economic crisis when people are often overwhelmed by crushing debt, as inflation tends to raise their income while reducing the proportional size of said debt.

Because corporations cannot be trusted to voluntarily protect the environment, they require regulation.

Strongly Agree. It’s been proven time and again that when corporations — especially public corporations who must answer to their shareholders and provide a profit above all else — are left to their own devices, they do terrible things without concern for the environment.

“from each according to his ability, to each according to his need” is a fundamentally good idea.

Agree. Within limits. There should be a certain baseline reasonable standard of living. Those able to live above that standard should be expected to contribute more to maintaining the standard for those who, for one reason or another, cannot. Not will not … but cannot.

It’s a sad reflection on our society that something as basic as drinking water is now a bottled, branded consumer product.

Agree. It’s pretty ridiculous. Not everything needs to be or should be a consumer commodity. That said, I’m a total hypocrite and will often buy bottled water rather than finding available tap water, out of convenience.

Land shouldn’t be a commodity to be bought and sold.

Disagree. I have no major problem with the concept of land ownership. I think it’s a cornerstone of most solid economies.

It is regrettable that many personal fortunes are made by people who simply manipulate money and contribute nothing to their society.

Agree. I think this is both a symptom and a cause of major economic issues. Simply put, it’s illogical and problematic that one can often generate much more wealth by manipulating data — it’s not even “real” money — than by producing a tangible product.

Protectionism is sometimes necessary in trade.

Agree. To a degree. I think it’s easy for an economy to become over-dependent on exploiting other countries for cheap labor and/or products. Some amount of regulation on international trade helps keep things balanced.

The only social responsibility of a company should be to deliver a profit to its shareholders.

Strongly Disagree. This is arguably the single biggest flaw with American capitalism and with the whole concept of public companies. “Shareholders uber alles” is simply not a reasonable or plausible business approach in the modern world. Businesses must be made more accountable for social and environmental transgressions.

The rich are too highly taxed.

Strongly Disagree. Even if you ignore that rich people have MUCH better access to loopholes and other methods for dodging taxes, and put them on equal ground with poorer people, I still strongly disagree. As I make more money, I expect to and WANT to be taxed at a higher percentage rate. Simply put, a person earning $200k and taxed at 40% will still have a much more comfortable lifestyle than someone earning $40k and taxed at 30%. The country is being good to them and allowing them to prosper. It’s their responsibility to be good back to the country.

Those with the ability to pay should have the right to higher standards of medical care.

Disagree. In an optimal system, everyone has the right to completely equal and excellent health care. I admit however that in a realistic system, everyone should have the right to a baseline good level of health care, and wealthy people are going to do a bit better. That’s a necessary evil of allowing some level of freedom in the market.

Governments should penalize businesses that mislead the public.

Strongly Agree. Lying to the public for the benefit of yourself and your shareholders is not an acceptable business practice.

A genuine free market requires restrictions on the ability of predator multinationals to create monopolies.

Agree. Monopolies inevitably encourage the exact type of business practices that tend to hurt a majority of people in order to help a tiny minority.

The freer the market, the freer the people.

Disagree. At extreme levels of market freedom, it becomes extremely likely that a tiny percentage of the population will control a vastly disproportionate amount of the wealth, and consequently be able to control or withhold the freedoms of those less well off.

Abortion, when the woman’s life is not threatened, should always be illegal.

Strongly Disagree. It’s her body and her choice. I’m not pro-death and would prefer that abortion only be used as a means of last resort in the case of rape, incest, danger to the mother, or other similar situations … but I don’t feel that it’s my right to regulate its usage. Anyway, there is no statistical evidence that legalized abortion results in higher rates of abortions. Making it illegal just results in higher rates of both the baby and the mother dying or being permanently injured from complications produced by shoddy, back-alley abortionists.

All authority should be questioned.

Strongly Agree. Power corrupts, and it’s never wise to blindly assume that the state is looking out for you or acting in your best interest. Human nature is to look out for one’s own best interests, and it’s only by establishing strong systems of checks and balances, and via constant scrutiny, that we can avoid a slide into fascism and despotism.

An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.

Disagree. People can and should be encouraged to take the high road. There are also often mitigating circumstances in people’s actions.

Taxpayers should not be expected to prop up any theaters or museums that cannot survive on a commercial basis.

Strongly Disagree. Commercial survival is hardly the sole indicator of value to humanity. Arts and Culture improve the overall quality of living and should be encouraged and supported by the government.

Schools should not make classroom attendance compulsory.

Strongly Disagree. Education breeds tolerance, understanding, and respect, not to mention its role in improving personal economic success. Everyone should be able to go to school, and everyone should be required to do so. Children especially are not equipped to make decisions about what is best for them.

All people have their rights, but it is better for all of us that different sorts of people should keep to their own kind.

Strongly Disagree. Let’s not be ridiculous. Inter-cultural and inter-racial mingling has been conclusively proven to increase tolerance, respect, and appreciation for other people.

Good parents sometimes have to spank their children.

Agree. Note: there’s a big difference between “spanking” and “beating” and I don’t condone the latter. Some level of discipline is, however, necessary when raising children, and there are occasions when a visit to the “timeout chair” isn’t an option or isn’t going to get the job done.

It’s natural for children to keep some secrets from their parents.

Agree. A parent doesn’t need to know, or have the automatic right to know, everything about their children’s lives. Those children are their own people, and have the right to some level of privacy.

Possessing marijuana for personal use should not be a criminal offense.

Strongly Agree. I don’t smoke marijuana, but it’s clearly a less dangerous drug than cigarettes (which I used to smoke) or alcohol (which I love), and both of those are legal … the latter is celebrated! There’s absolutely no logical reason why cannabis should be illegal. It’s a recreational substance with an extremely low potential for dependency issues. When used in moderation, it’s no worse than having a couple of beers while watching a football game, or enjoying a cocktail at a dinner party.

The prime function of schooling should be to equip the future generation to find jobs.

Disagree. The prime function of schooling should be to educate people – providing them with as much access to factual information as possible, in addition to developing social skills and a sense of cultural understanding that will be helpful both in and out of the workplace.

People with serious inheritable disabilities should not be allowed to reproduce.

Strongly Disagree. No matter how many times I’ve exclaimed “Jesus, people should have to get a license to breed,” I don’t actually think that the choice to reproduce is something that can or should be regulated.

The most important thing for children to learn is to accept discipline.

Disagree. It’s important, but not the most important. I’d argue that learning to read and speak is more important, and probably so is learning at least basic mathematics and sciences.

There are no savage and civilized peoples; there are only different cultures.

Disagree. I know this in some ways seems to go against the pseudo-hippie beliefs I’ve expressed elsewhere, but here’s the deal: I believe it is both wrong and unfair to not try to raise people to a baseline standard of living. I don’t think it’s fair that a child born to an aboriginal tribe in the rain forests of Papua, New Guinea is likely to live less than half as long as I am, simply due to the luck of her birthplace and culture. There is a fine line between giving people access to culture and forcing it upon them, but I don’t think “well that’s just who they are and we should leave them alone” is always a reasonable approach.

Those who are able to work, and refuse the opportunity, should not expect society’s support.

Agree. I do believe in personal responsibility to a degree, and this is an area where it comes in. If you can contribute to society, you should do so, or you shouldn’t expect to reap the benefits of that society.

When you are troubled, it’s better not to think about it, but to keep busy with more cheerful things.

Disagree. Thinking about your troubles allows for planning and directing one’s efforts to improve one’s situation. Ignoring them won’t make them go away.

First-generation immigrants can never be fully integrated within their new country.

Disagree. It depends on your definition of “fully integrated” but I’ve known many first-gen immigrants who function just fine as a part of American society.

What’s good for the most successful corporations is always, ultimately, good for all of us.

Strongly Disagree. Oh, no. In fact what’s good for most successful corporations is almost always, ultimately, bad for all of us. Again, you’re talking about the benefit of the few at the expense of the many.

No broadcasting institution, however independent its content, should receive public funding.

Strongly Disagree. Much like museums and theaters, independent broadcasting institutions contribute to the overall cultural good and are worthy of public support and funding.

Our civil liberties are being excessively curbed in the name of counter-terrorism.

Strongly Agree. The degree of surveillance and loss of individual liberty currently being heaped upon our society in the name of “safety” (most of which is largely an illusion) is appalling.

A significant advantage of a one-party state is that it avoids all the arguments that delay progress in a democratic political system.

Disagree. Obviously this does happen, but I don’t consider it an advantage. Some delay is acceptable in exchange for the freedom to express one’s beliefs and come to democratic compromise.

Although the electronic age makes official surveillance easier, only wrongdoers need to be worried.

Strongly Disagree. This has been repeatedly proven false throughout history. Inevitably strong surveillance leads to the fabrication of crimes even when crimes aren’t there, as any number of deceased residents of the Soviet Union would happily testify. Beyond that, individual privacy is one of the great liberties afforded to the people of the United States and other like-minded countries. Allowing it to be stripped away just so that society on the whole can feel a bit more comfortable is a travesty.

The death penalty should be an option for the most serious crimes.

Strongly Disagree. Way, way, way too much evidence exists of wrongful executions, even in cases that appeared ironclad at the time. There is always the possibility that a person has been wrongfully convicted. Even ignoring that, there’s simply no excuse for a civilized society to impose death as a punishment.

In a civilized society, one must always have people above to be obeyed and people below to be commanded.

Disagree. The job of modern “commanders” such as the President, Senators, and the like is not in fact to command, but rather to obey the will of those who elected them. There is no need for individuals to impose their will on others when the ability to collect opinions and reach consensus is so readily available. Some hierarchy is still necessary in things like business, but even that is rapidly falling away. The era of the “old man in the big office” that everyone kowtows to is coming to an end.

Abstract art that doesn’t represent anything shouldn’t be considered art at all.

Strongly Disagree. You’re not required to appreciate it (hell, I don’t appreciate much of it), but dismissing it as “not art” is ignorant and foolish.

In criminal justice, punishment should be more important than rehabilitation.

Strongly Disagree. Punishment is the least valuable aspect of criminal justice. It doesn’t accomplish anything. Rehabilitation should be the primary goal. This is why our current prison system is almost completely worthless.

It is a waste of time to try to rehabilitate some criminals.

Strongly Disagree. It may well be impossible to rehabilitate certain criminals, particularly sex offenders and serial killers (both of whom are likely dealing with brain-chemistry issues in addition to sociological issues). That doesn’t mean it isn’t society’s duty to try.

The businessperson and the manufacturer are more important than the writer and the artist.

Strongly Disagree. I’m a writer and an artist. The businessperson and manufacturer may make more money than writers and artists while they’re alive, but the latter have a better shot at making a lasting contribution to society.

Mothers may have careers, but their first duty is to be homemakers.

Disagree. If you change it from “Mothers” to “Women” then it goes up to strongly disagree, but I guess if you choose to be a mother you should probably be dedicated to it? But still, your husband/partner should share in the duties, if you have one. And if you don’t have one, then you definitely need a career. Hmm. Maybe I should’ve “strongly disagreed” this one anyway.

Multinational companies are unethically exploiting the plant genetic resources of developing countries.

Agree. I don’t know what “plant genetic resources” are, but multinational companies are pretty much exploiting everything possible from developing countries, so this one wasn’t hard.

Making peace with the establishment is an important aspect of maturity.

Disagree. But just barely. Maturity is figuring out that abject raging against the machine without discipline is a waste of time. That doesn’t mean by any sense that one should simply decide that the establishment is right and it’s not worth fighting against it.

Astrology accurately explains many things.

Strongly Disagree. Let’s not be ridiculous. Astrology is specifically built to be as vague and multi-applicable as possible. It can apply to anything you want it to, but it doesn’t explain a single thing.

You cannot be moral without being religious.

Strongly Disagree. I’m not religious, but I still have extremely strong moral beliefs in many areas. I don’t believe a 3 week old fetus has a “soul” and needs saving, but I also don’t believe that even the most unrepentant of murderers should be put to death. Religion, especially organized religion, has almost nothing to do with morality. It’s almost entirely a combination of two things: a ponzi scheme, and our species’ instinctive need to calm their fear of the dark (aka: death). The morality crap is just an excuse for people to feel superior over other people.

Charity is better than social security as a means of helping the genuinely disadvantaged.

Disagree. Charity is a wonderful thing. My wife and I give quite a bit to charities every year. Child’s Play, Planned Parenthood, PEN, Smile Train, etc … but charity cannot possibly replace the reach and strength of a tax-supported government program available to all citizens. France has shown that a country that relies far more on government programs and far less on charity can actually provide a better baseline standard of living than the US — a country scared to death of taxes and supposedly high on charity — can provide.

Some people are naturally unlucky.

Strongly Disagree. Some people are at less of a position to take advantage of good luck when it comes along, and to be devastated by the inevitable downward swings.

It is important that my child’s school instills religious values.

Strongly Disagree. I don’t have a child. I will never have a child. Doesn’t matter; religion has no place in our schools. The purpose of educational institutions is to teach a) facts and b) the best theories available for things which can’t be proven by fact. Religion fulfills exactly zero of either of these two purposes.

Sex outside marriage is usually immoral.

Strongly Disagree. Sex between two consenting adults is a biological function that has nothing to do with morality.

A same sex couple in a stable, loving relationship, should not be excluded from the possibility of child adoption.

Strongly Agree. The “sanctity” of heterosexual marriage is a joke, with divorce rampant and unhappy marriages prevalent in many cases where divorce hasn’t been pursued. Denying a child, particularly one without an existing family, the chance to grow up in a loving, stable home is patently absurd.

Pornography, depicting consenting adults, should be legal for the adult population.

Agree … but just barely. Pornography is incredibly exploitative and preys upon a lot of psychological issues among women in particular. On the other hand, I believe in freedom of choice and the freedom to run one’s own life. If a person wants to expose him or herself for money, it’s not my right to tell them not to do it.

What goes on in a private bedroom between consenting adults is no business of the state.

Strongly Agree. In all honesty, I don’t really even care. I don’t view sex and sexuality as immoral (again, assuming everything’s consenting), so this is a non-issue for me.

No one can feel naturally homosexual.

Strongly Disagree. Homosexuality is pretty clearly a biological thing. Anyone disagreeing with that at this point is starting to look rather foolish. To paraphrase David Cross: why would anyone who is already feeling awkward and uncomfortable amongst their peers (aka: most high school students) voluntarily choose to make their life more difficult. Answer: they wouldn’t. It’s just who they are, and we should be encouraging them to embrace that, not trying to convince them that if they just love Jesus harder, the feelings will go away.

These days openness about sex has gone too far.

Disagree. Sex is biology. It’s just biology. You can’t be too open about biology, because it’s just biology. All that said, I believe that any culture or populace has the right to regulate what they consider “too much” for public display. But the hand-wringing, “too much info!” and “think of the children!” crap is not my thing.

Much ado has been made over the current “vampire trend” and its potential longevity. People are curious: why and how have vampires become so popular? What has caused them to capture the fancy of the mainstream public after years of being appreciated mainly by fans of the horror genre? The answer to that question lies in the slow move from terror to sympathy that people have made over the past few decades, due in large part to the efforts of many authors, screenwriters, directors, and other artists.

Once upon a time, not so very long ago, vampires were the bad guys. Remember those days? Dracula bending menacingly over a delirious Lucy Westenra; Kurt Barlow and his servant Mr. Straker slowly bringing the town of Salem’s Lot to ruin; Keifer Sutherland and his cronies menacing Corey Haim’s family … vampires were nearly always portrayed as voracious, evil killers …

If you’re interested in reading the rest, you can find it at Reading with a Bite. I think it’s a pretty solid essay, and of course I get to plug my book, The Blood That Bonds, as well! Thanks very much to Lindsay for the opportunity.

Oh, and the control to turn off the music that starts when the site loads is over on the right, a little bit down the page. ;)

My review

rating: 5 of 5 stars

Ray Kurzweil has been accused by some as being incredibly optimistic in his vision for the future of humanity and the computer’s that we’ve created. His predictions, however, have an uncanny way of coming to pass, at least in large part. Spiritual Machines was written in 1999 and speaks of the advances that computers will make in the twenty-first century.

Now, a decade later, it is possible to look at the first of Kurzweil’s predictions, helpfully listed out in a chapter labeled “2009″ and evaluate them. He missed the mark, badly, on a few things — we’ve not yet reached a point where most books are consumed electronically, nor do we interface with out computers mostly through voice — but he is more often right than wrong, and even when the predictions fall short, it’s usually in a way that leaves the reader saying “well, not YET” … these things will come, they’ve just been a little slower in getting here than predicted.

Kurzweil is an unapologetic transhumanist – a person who believes that mankind can and should continue the evolutionary process through voluntarily seeking to “upgrade” his own body via technology. Whether this is done by re-engineering cells, creating remedies to sickness at the DNA level, inventing nanobots, or digitizing the human conscience and moving it to a machine reality seems to matter less to Kurzweil than that we continue to pursue all evolutionary options. Indeed, he would likely argue that we not only must force this self-evolution, but that we are incapable of NOT doing it. Even should our machines rise up, Terminator-like, and destroy us all, Kurzweil would still view this only as another evolutionary process. After all, was it not Homo Sapiens’ superior intelligence and technology which allowed us to beat out the other human variants, such as the neanderthal?

The Age of Spiritual Machines is an absolutely fascinating book even if you think Kurzweil’s a crackpot. I don’t. I share the belief that he’s an optimist, and that some of the predictions he makes won’t come fully to pass, or happen as quickly. Still, I feel that he is able to look at the future with an unflinching eye and, drawing from a wide variety of reputable sources (the footnotes in the book are so voluminous that they take up an entire chapter unto themselves), make many compelling statements about what humankind’s ever-advancing technological capabilities may bring.

This was by a wide margin the best book I’ve read so far this year, and one of the best of the last several years.

View all my reviews.

My review

rating: 3 of 5 stars
I’ve seen Eugene do stand-up several times, and he’s pretty funny, though not my favorite comic of all time. His style of humor is relaxed, sometimes self-deprecating, often ironic and … confused? It’s not uncommon for him to say something and then immediately ask “wait, what?” — the book pretty much follows the same template, combining amusing observations with off-the-wall statements that may not even make sense to the author, let alone the reader. It suffers slightly from the inability to display video, which is a big part of Mirman’s live act, but some of the illustrations and timelines are pretty great.

It’s an up-and-down book. There are sections that I thought were kind of lacking, but also multiple points during each chapter that made me laugh out loud. While I never had any trouble putting the book down, I never had any trouble picking it back up, either. It’s fun and funny, easily accessible, and a very quick read that will probably make you laugh a few times per chapter. It won’t go down as history’s greatest comedic work, but if you’re into comedy books or in particular if you’re a fan of Mirman’s work, it’s worth picking up.

View all my reviews.

My review

rating: 4 of 5 stars
If you live in New York City, which I do, the subway is probably a substantial part of your life. Even if you don’t, it’s a pretty fascinating place to visit, in person or in print. Randy Kennedy’s collection of articles, Subwayland, covers a variety of topics within the tiny world running underneath the city.

Interesting and easy to read, the book touches on a range of subjects. Some are sentimental, others amusing, others mildly baffling (such as the guy who insists he’s not that much of a subway buff, and yet has built a complete replica of a conductor’s station … in his one-bedroom apartment). The end of the book does choose to group several September 11th pieces together, and I found this a bit questionable, as it seems overly maudlin and like an overt attempt at manipulating the reader’s emotions. Still, it didn’t dissuade me from finishing the book quickly.

Perhaps what I enjoyed most about Subwayland is that it is nearly the perfect book to read while riding the subway. The articles are short and easy to read, meaning you can get through two or three of them during the duration of a typical subway ride (or more, depending on your commute).

All in all, an enjoyable glimpse into a world beneath a world.

View all my reviews.

Ah, yes … E3. The gigantic hype machine has been toned down compared to its heyday, to be sure, but it’s still a major industry event designed to get gamers salivating over the latest and greatest offerings from developers, publishers and hardware-makers alike. Or, in the case of Nintendo, it’s a chance to leave gamers confused and mildly frightened. Either way, there’s been so much gaming news coming out of LA this past week that, unless you’re dead or stuck on a desert island, you’ve probably been caught up in the hype.

Hype sucks.

Look, there were interesting-looking games at E3, for sure. Resident Evil 5, Fallout 3, Gears of War 2 — these titles and others are looking exciting and fun. Some of them even look like they might change or advance the face of gaming in some minor way. I’m particularly intrigued by Prince of Persia‘s “no punishment for sucking” philosophy, and Star Wars: The Force Unleashed is really starting to sound great.

But for all of the intrigue and excitement, a bunch of games on the slate that got some major press at this event just don’t do it for me. So here, in reverse order, are my least compelling games of E3.

Read More at Crispy Gamer