Cookie Offenses, and other Faux Pas

Ian and I often quarrel about cookies - particularly the "fancy" ones. I'm not a big believer in desserts; Ian thinks that every meal should have one. Moreover, he feels that the gluten-free cookies strewn around our house are the ideal snack, and he spends a great deal of time lobbying or litigating to get them in the middle of the day. They're also "de rigeur" at bedtime.

Apparently, I might have once told Ian that he couldn't have the fancy cookies at home, because they were meant for when we were on the road. I say apparently, because the other day, we actually *were* on the road, and such fancy cookies were in the car, and Ian wanted them. [There are, in fact, snacks that I believe to be intended for the road - especially ones that are already in Mommy's car, but it all gets pretty complicated...] At that point I said - completely believing in such a statement at the time that it was made - that such cookies are better for dessert after dinner (better than just a random snack on the road, in any case).

At that point, Attorney McLellan caught the inconsistency of my past and present (alleged) statements, and told me that I had previously asserted that such cookies were intended precisely for when we're on the road. He decided to link this offense with the long-standing one where I sometimes call Ian Daniel and Daniel, Ian. [I hate to say it, but when Ian does something really outrageous, I sometimes bellow "Daniel!" at him, followed by an observation or a piece of urgent advice.] So he judged both counts of misdemeanor with a single, caustic summary:

Ian: Daddy, how come grownups are crazy about things?

Me: like what?

Ian: They call people their brothers' names, they stay the opposite thing of what they said before... They're crazy."

(February 17, 2010)