Deep-fried Butter Balls
This Stranger's Blog article mentions . . . deep-fried butter balls. Here's how you make them:2 sticks butter
2 ounces cream cheese
Salt and pepper
1 cup all-purpose flour
1 egg, beaten
1 cup seasoned bread crumbs
Peanut oil, for frying
Cream the butter, cream cheese, salt and pepper together with an electric mixer until smooth. Using a very small ice cream scoop, or melon baller, form 1-inch balls of butter mixture and arrange them on a parchment or waxed paper lined sheet pan. Freeze until solid. Coat the frozen balls in flour, egg, and then bread crumbs and freeze again until solid.
When ready to fry, preheat oil in a deep-fryer to 350 degrees F.
Fry balls for 10 to 15 seconds until just light golden. Drain on paper towels before serving.
I take no fucking responsibility for your health if you actually do this, hehe.
Also, I am using icons, now! Mostly cacti or other desert plants, because I am prickly, sharp and like a lot of sun.
6 Comments:
Yuck. Sounds as wretched as a deep fried Twinkie. Thanks for adding my blog to your "other side" blogroll. I'll be making an "other side" blogroll soon. I want to weed through the blogs some more before I choose who's going to represent. Up until now, eveyone is all mixed together in my links. Should I segregate people? Maybe I should just ask my readers that question.
I apologize for not checking back and engaging you in some of the things you posted on my blog--that was when I had an email warning about you and I listened to it--then i just couldn't help myself.
And don't judge me unfairly for taking down my political post. It wasn't specifically your comment that irked me but rather the direction I saw it going in and sone topics of discussion are better discussed over a beer and some pizza instead of the cold, impersonal environment of the blog.
What sayeth thou?
I had a deep-fried Twinkie. It was like a normal Twinkie, but warmer. Uh, it's not something I'd recommend, hehe.
I have no advice how a person should organize their own blog. Yours is more popular than mine, so maybe I should take lessons from you.
I don't really care that you didn't respond to the things I say, hehe. I don't mean that in a mean-spirited way, but simply in the sense that when I post something I rarely care if I get an answer, and I don't expect it.
I don't take you taking the political post down personally, except to the point where in the post in which you replaced it, well, you mentioned me by name. Which, yeah, does make it personal. It's your blog, you can do with it as you please, of course, but when you took down the post you named me specifically.
However, I don't have a political blog, myself, so, yeah, I'd rather talk about politics face to face. (Or, perhaps more exactly, I don't have the energy to have a political blog, because my politics are sufficiently radical that I have in the past gotten a lot of problems because of them. I'm a kind of socialist, and that's a push button issue for a lot of people, and it means that I am not fond a lot of sacred bulls in America . . . like religion and capitalism.)
I don't hold anything against you personally, really. I'm mostly just deeply, deeply suspicious of you. Generally speaking, Christians don't hang out with atheists with no agenda. At the end of the day, you think me and all of my friends are going to hell when we die. In almost all cases when a Christian is nice to an atheist it's because they want to witness to them, to convince them due to their personal niceness that the atheist should reconsider their atheism, which I consider dishonest. (Which isn't to say that you *are* doing this, merely that I strongly *suspect* it.)
And I am hostile towards religion -- meaning that I'm hostile towards your religion. I think that Christianity is one of the prime sources of continuing misery in the world, particularly in it's American forms. Even people who are in other ways "moderate" or "progressive" I feel taint themselves by associating with religion. I think that religion is inherently anti-reason and juvenile, even when it produces people of great moral strength (at which point their religion seems coincidental to their morals in my eyes -- it is almost always this bizarre and tortured re-definition of the "normal" religion that makes me wonder why they don't just ditch the god stuff and use simple reason to justify themselves with greater clarity and sense). Which is not to say that all religious people are rotten. Far from it. But . . . we both know how much religion, including Christianity, is and has been used to justify just terrible, terrible things -- and even when religious people repudiate the deeds they can't completely repudiate the reason, because they're locked into talking about these sacred texts, almost all of which say some really terrible things. So, part of my hostility is that I can't grasp how intelligent and moral people don't see the ludicrousness of their position -- that they can't see what makes them good people is incidental to their religion.
I also think that there are more effective ways to get the benefits of religion without having to associate, through religion, with it's violence and madness.
That's what I said.
I don't really care that you didn't respond to the things I say, hehe. I don't mean that in a mean-spirited way, but simply in the sense that when I post something I rarely care if I get an answer, and I don't expect it.
Okay.
I don't take you taking the political post down personally, except to the point where in the post in which you replaced it, well, you mentioned me by name. Which, yeah, does make it personal. It's your blog, you can do with it as you please, of course, but when you took down the post you named me specifically.
I think it was the bloodthirsty typical Christian theme to your comment that soured my mood towards having any kind of discussion.
... and it means that I am not fond a lot of sacred bulls in America . . . like religion and capitalism.)
Makes sense.
I don't hold anything against you personally, really. I'm mostly just deeply, deeply suspicious of you. Generally speaking, Christians don't hang out with atheists with no agenda. At the end of the day, you think me and all of my friends are going to hell when we die. In almost all cases when a Christian is nice to an atheist it's because they want to witness to them, to convince them due to their personal niceness that the atheist should reconsider their atheism, which I consider dishonest. (Which isn't to say that you *are* doing this, merely that I strongly *suspect* it.)
Do you mind if I use this quote in my next book review? It's fits in very nicely with the book's overall message.
And to assuage your suspicions, I don't want to change you guys (atheists). You all appear to be quite functional and happy the way you are. My goal in "hanging out" with you guys has to purposes:
1. I like to be an alternative voice from a Christian. Something that is in opposition to the fundie nut job voice atheists tend to focus on.
2. The debates strengthen my knowledge of the Bible and Christ. I'm using you all--basically.
*laughing*
So, part of my hostility is that I can't grasp how intelligent and moral people don't see the ludicrousness of their position -- that they can't see what makes them good people is incidental to their religion.
Because it's not true. Jesus forces his way on a believer. There are so many things that Jesus said in the Bible at at first glance, was easy to overlook but over time, has actually planted it's self into my conscience. It has made be a better person--because I can't get away from it. Reading the Bible in faith changes your definition morality a tiny bit at a time.
I also think that there are more effective ways to get the benefits of religion without having to associate, through religion, with it's violence and madness.
Yeah, you find a church that isn't "religious".
:)
Those do sound awful & I wouldn't touch them.
I like your blog & your comments. Your responses are insightful & honest. & when someone asks you something, you answer them, with out beating around the bush or coming across as condescending either.
I hope I can only do as well as that.
Oh, I'm reading your story, BTW.
I'll get back to you about it when I'm done.
Do you mind if I use this quote in my next book review? It's fits in very nicely with the book's overall message.
Please, do. Part of the reason I'm writing this blog is self-promotion, hehe. It very much serves my interests for people to quote me. ;)
Just give me a link back, hehe.
And to assuage your suspicions, I don't want to change you guys (atheists). You all appear to be quite functional and happy the way you are. My goal in "hanging out" with you guys has to purposes:
1. I like to be an alternative voice from a Christian. Something that is in opposition to the fundie nut job voice atheists tend to focus on.
Well, that's what I've been saying, yeah. You're trying to witness to us. You couched it in language of being "an alternative voice from a Christian" because you don't want us to think that y'all are fundie nutjobs.
Any atheist with a brain knows that all Christians aren't fundie nutjobs. But I've said, Sam Harris has said it, a lot of other people have said it, and it never sinks in, but I'll say it, again:
Rather than try to convince us godless heathens that all Christians aren't fundie nutjobs, why aren't you trying to convince them not to be fundie nutjobs?!
Most American atheists are pretty heavy into evidence. The reason we focus on the fundies is because they're, really, mainstream religion in America, and they are doing crazy things. They are warmongers, they are trying to destroy science, they are racists and homophobes. Some of them are out and out dominionists, some of them want the Bible to be the law of the land, and for America to be a literal theocracy.
So, I fairly strongly feel that maybe you should be talking to them, not us, and be trying to transform your religion into something that an atheist wouldn't care about. Turn it into a personal organizing principle, or a cultural artifact, or whatever.
Instead, you choose to try to show us atheists that not all Christians are nutjobs. Which serves to defend, I think, those Christians that are fundie nutjobs.
Because it's not true. Jesus forces his way on a believer. There are so many things that Jesus said in the Bible at at first glance, was easy to overlook but over time, has actually planted it's self into my conscience. It has made be a better person--because I can't get away from it. Reading the Bible in faith changes your definition morality a tiny bit at a time.
I can't get away from it, either. It's forced down my throat at every turn.
However, your religion isn't just what Jesus said. Christianity would be a lot easier for me to swallow if it was just the Gospels (or, even better, one Gospel). It's also the Old Testament, for instance. It's also that brutal string of genocides found in the Old Testament. It's also Revelations and the horrors, there.
Much of what Jesus said is OK. Not really original -- do you know who Hillel the Elder is? -- but it's mostly OK stuff. I wouldn't mind the psycho bit about divorce being cut away, but when I was writing Simon Peter and I was going through the Sermon on the Mount I told my writing group that, in whole, it's pretty good. But it's not original.
Also, I am disturbed by two other things that Jesus said that have been used as justifications for violence. The whole bit with "I bring a sword" and "get a sword, and if you don't have one, sell your cloak to get one". Like with the bit about divorce, this makes no sense, and worse, it perpetrates violence. I am also uncomfortable with the patriarchy implied in what Jesus says.
But, none of it is original.
Yeah, you find a church that isn't "religious".
:)
*rolls eyes* Really, what I believe as a scientific materialist is much, much different than religion. I know this is a lynchpin of religious thought -- that use scientific materialists are "just another kind of religion" but that's pretty far from the truth.
I was actually thinking philosophy, psychology and psychiatry, by the way.
l>t,
The deep fried butter balls do sound awful, which is why I put them up! Something that evil needs to be spread around a bit. ;)
I like your blog & your comments. Your responses are insightful & honest. & when someone asks you something, you answer them, with out beating around the bush or coming across as condescending either.
Thank you. That's pretty much exactly what I'm aiming for. I have an almost cultic love of honesty. ;)
But with Ruthless, I hope you like it, tho' I understand that the material is such most people won't, hehe. I want to emphasize that the story is a *nightmare* of mine, not a dream or fantasy. I'm pretty much against everything that happens in that story. ;)
Post a Comment
<< Home