Well, maybe if you posted an occasional recipe...

Good point. Here's my favorite. It's a thick sugar cookie that I developed (NOT vegan):

1C Butter (yeah, real cow-squeezins!)
1C granulated sugar (or brown sugar if you want softer, darker cookies)
2 eggs (yeah, real chicken squeezins!)
3 egg yolks (save the whites)
3 1/2 C flour (sorry, not GF, either)
1/2 tsp vanilla
1/2 tsp almond
lots of confectioners sugar

Cream the butter and sugar, then add eggs one at a time. Then, add the vanilla last. Then, slowly mix in the flour just to incorporate. Don't knead too much or the cookies will be bricks. Wrap the dough in plastic and chill (the dough, you're not done yet).

Start beating the egg whites to soft peaks (I told you to save 'em). Slowly add in confectioners sugar until you've got something that resembles frosting. Add in the almond extract. You can get fancy with color here, but white is nice. You can also separate the icing and thin some out with water to do a smooth flood technique (I'll reserve that for another lesson).

After 3 or 12 hours, roll the dough to 1/2 inch thick and cut out with your favorite cutter. I like a plain circle or square since the cooking is fairly even and it's a nice surface to decorate. Place on parchment and bake at 375 for 7 minutes. The baking time is crucial. Too long and you get the bricks I mentioned. Fine for dunking, but hard on the teeth. Too short and you have warm cookie dough. Ovens vary, so when the center still looks soft and wet, they're done. As they cool, the center will firm up. They should be nice and soft in the middle.

Decorate with the icing and prepare for a carbo crash.

Um, your frosting sounds a little dangerous. How long are uncooked egg whites good for?

Nothing good in life comes without risks. :)

Actually, because of the minute chance of salmonella, I'll allow you to use meringue powder instead. The FDA recommends not eating any product made with uncooked, partially cooked, or unpasteurized eggs. This includes hollandaise sauces, mayonnaise, eggs over-easy, etc. Because eggs found in most grocery stores are pasteurized, there's not much to worry about, but it's up to you.

Also, this is pretty much a classic royal icing. It's basically the stuff used to construct and decorate gingerbread houses. Once it dries, it can be kept in an airtight container for up to two weeks. I don't know about your situation, but cookies don't last that long in my house.

The article mentioned us more than once. A bit down in the article, it read:

"Other podcasts are less involved, such as Bloodthirsty Vegetarians, which features two vegetarians discussing everything from nutrition to annoying meat eaters."

What does that mean exactly? That we discuss meat eaters that we found to be annoying, or that we annoy meat eaters? The writer needed to choose her words more carefully there.

Well, if he/she listened to more than one show he/she would have found out that we rarely talk about meat eaters. But, our very existence probably annoys them.

About hollandaise, merengue etc - I'm a bit sceptical about the real level of risk here if you're at all sensible. Restaurants often push the boundaries of safety because they hate to throw profits away (ours was ultra careful btw) but at home unless you're an idiot and eat something left over from last month, you know whether it's safe, what was in it, etc.

I like John's approach: nothing good has zero risk!

John, it's a she, BTW. Check the by-line. I sent her any email as a matter of fact.

Martin, I agree. While I don't really eat any animal proteins (but I do bake with the occasional egg), I have a friend who is on a raw foods diet. That includes raw veggies, AND raw meats, and he has never been sick.

The Japanese consume large quantities of raw meats and there's no wide-spread food poisoning over there. It's all in the way it's handled. And unfortunately, in the US, restaurant food-handling practices are abhorrent.

I'm not surprised US food handling practice is bad, I suspect it's like that everywhere. We found a certain level of retraining was necessary to meet our comfort levels... like the time the chef picked up something which had fallen on the floor saying "5 second rule" - I thought he was joking and then it was "noooo!!!! there's the bin..." He said "that's what they do everywhere else."

Is it just me, or does anyone else find it funny that I am considered trustworthy enough to assess the risks of consuming raw egg product, but in need of a government babysitter when it comes to the risks of consuming secondhand smoke in my workplace?

You're free to judge the risk of consuming raw eggs in your home, no matter what the source. You're free to inflict first or second-hand smoke upon yourself in your own home.

But, where is it inconsitent to require regulations on food handling and limitations on smoking (two health hazards arguably at two ends of a continuum) in a public place or business? A restaurant has regulations on how it prepares and handles eggs to protect the clientele. You could go into a restaurant and ask for rotten, fetid ham smothered in curdled milk and inoculated eggs. Because you decide that you want it doesn't mean the restaurant assumes no liability if they serve it. The government's responsibility is to put forth standards in the best interest of public health, period.

You're free to judge the risk of consuming raw eggs in your home, no matter what the source. You're free to inflict first or second-hand smoke upon yourself in your own home.

But, where is it inconsitent to require regulations on food handling and limitations on smoking (two health hazards arguably at two ends of a continuum) in a public place or business?

Both a home and a privately-owned business are private property bought and paid for by the owner(s), whereas someplace like a courthouse or police station is public property in that it is paid for by the public (through taxes, etc...). The inconsistency is that you are arbitrarily redefining some private property as "public" and then imposing your personal whims on the private property owner by threat of force and violence- and without even bearing any of the costs (and I am not just talking monetary costs here).

The government's responsibility is to put forth standards in the best interest of public health, period.

That's highly debatable, and I will probably debate it a little later. But for now, I'll just ask for clarification. Are you talking about governments in general, or a particular government? If so, which one(s)?

All this just because we got mentioned on some newspaper web sites, and because you posted a recipe.

There's nothing arbitrary about it at all. What puzzles me is that you seem to be saying that once a person enters the property of another, his/her personal rights are forfeit. Yes, a home and a business are personal property. The owner may buy, sell, decorate, etc. at their whim. I argue that they do not have the right, through action or inaction, to endanger those who enter. Business owners have an additional burden of safety beyond a homeowner because it is assumed that the general public and employees will be coming and going at will.

To answer your last question, I believe it is the burden of a RESPONSIBLE government to enact measures to protect its citizens. What is your view of the government's role in society if not to provide infrastructure and protective measures?

Kirsten,

Businesses are quasi-public places in that there is (often) a much greater traffic of people through their premises than through the average home. As with all things, how public a business place is lies on a continuum. At one end you would have large arenas and airports that might hold several thousands of people at once and at the other end you would have the guy who works out of his garage, employs nobody and does not have any customers visit his workplace. In between you can find all sorts of variations, but we find a legitimate public health benefit in making sure that our public places are safe and do not needlessly raise our chances of contracting disease. So, while businesses might be privately owned they are almost all (to one degree or another) places that engage the public. Thus I see no inconsistency in requiring businesses to follow certain guidelines related to health and safety even though they are privately owned.

John, that doesn't answer my question- that is WHICH government(s) is/are you talking about? Most governments have a document that spells out in some detail exactly what it is supposed to do and what it is allowed to do. At the very least, I would hope that nobody would find it acceptable for a government to ignore its own laws just because the outcome happened to suit his or her personal preferences. Now I'm not saying that I think such document gives any government legitimacy, but AT LEAST we should be able to agree that a government must obey its own laws. So if you specify which government(s) you are talking about, we can compare what you want them to do with their own governing documents and see if they meet that criteria.

At the very most, I believe a government's role is certainly limited to NO MORE THAN what is allowed in its highest governing document (e.g. a constitution or charter or such). I think on a moral basis it is limited much further, but that is a much bigger discussion so I think I'll leave it at that for now.

I most certainly am NOT saying that a person forfeits his rights upon entering another person's property. I am saying that a person does not have the right in the first place to dictate the terms of another person's use of his property so long as he's not using that property to violate anyone's rights. Neither you nor I has the right to use another person's bar or restaurant for our own personal smoke-free entertainment no matter how appealing that might be for each of us. That's what private property is all about.

What you seem to be saying is that a property owners' rights are forfeit except what you allow him to continue to exercise the minute he becomes too generous with the use of his property (and what that threshold is, I still am not clear).

Now let's take a look at your suggestion that private property owners "do not have the right, through action or inaction, to endanger those who enter". Consider the consequences of this. For one thing, firemen would not exist. After all, their employer deliberately and knowingly pays them to put themselves in grave, life-threatening danger on a regular basis. Should the burning building somehow be made safe enough for the firemen to enter before they rush in to rescue anyone? That kind of kills the whole job.

Also, say good-bye to SpaceShipOne and the entire suborbital and orbital space transportation industry. You can't prove safety without operating at risk for some period of time, but you are asserting that neither may the employer put the employee at risk nor may the employee assess and accept the risk for himself. Of course, we wouldn't even have an airline industry if this were the standard way back when. The list could go on and on, but I think the point is made.

I suggest that the appropriate standard is merely that the property owner not conceal, lie about, etc. the fact that there are risks involved. By that standard, McDonald's would be culpable for misinforming someone about the contents of their food product, but (assuming that a bar owner isn't pretending that his bar is smoke-free) a bar owner isn't liable for a consumer's or an employee's choice to enter a smoking environment.

Treating one piece of private property differently than another simply because you assume that people are welcome to come and go as they please in one place and not the other is the very essence of arbitrariness. Usage of private property is at the consent of the owner whether that owner chooses to allow zero, one, or a bazillion people to use it none, some, or all of the time. There is no reason that the owners' rights suddenly disappear except that you or someone else decides you don't like how the owner is using property you don't own.

tng, that last part I think applies to your comments as well. Beyond that you claim that "we find a legitimate public health benefit in making sure that our public places are safe and do not needlessly raise our chances of contracting disease". Speak for yourself- not for me, please. For one thing, the "our public places" of which you speak are for the most part neither mine, nor yours. I own a home, and that's it. I don't know what you own, but I don't think it's too big of a leap to guess that you probably do not own most of the private places you are claiming are public. Merely inviting a guest into my home does not make my home that guest's property, nor does inviting a customer into a place of business make that business any less the owner's property. If you and John are going to claim that one set of rules applies to businesses that does not apply to homes, I would like to know how the non-owners suddenly gain rights over property into which they have nothing invested whatsoever in terms of money, effort, etc... And beyond that, if you are going to claim that using someone else's property transfers the owner's rights onto someone else, I'd like to know how itis that those rights are reassigned to EVERYONE of a certain age in an arbitrary geographical area who fills out a piece of paper with some personal data regardless of whether they have or will ever use that property. For example, I have never and will never be found in a cigar lounge. So how does filling out a piece of paper magically give me the right to demand that NOBODY ELSE be allowed to smoke there even though it has absolutely nothing to do with and no effect on me?

Democracy- it's just four wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner.

And I would like to add to that last comment that I do not think anyone who is okay with a government violating its own laws when it's convenient for them has a leg to stand on as far as complaining about a government violating laws when it does not suit them.

I'm not sure what answer you're looking for, then. I'm not going to name any specific government like the US, Canada, Hazard County, East Timor, because I'm arguing in terms of what I believe the proper moral, responsibility ALL governments have. Whether they choose to exercise it, document it, or ignore it is a different discussion. If you're asking about which forms of government such as democracies, socialist republics, monarchies, etc., I'll repeat myself here - a responsible government. I don't care which form it takes. If the form itself is irresponsible, then it doesn't qualify. :)

I'm still a bit puzzled by your oversimplistic view of ownership. To paraphrase your analogy of the sheep, ownership is an illusion. The government and the public agree to grant each other rights. And, as much as you don't want to hear it, there is a difference between homeownership and business ownership and what the owner is allowed to do with the property. That difference is spelled out in laws (some good, some bad). I'm not sure when you visited a law library last, but those things are jam packed with books. There are thousands of laws dictating very specific terms and conditions of property ownership under specific circumstanses. Ostensibly, these are intended to make sure no one has their rights infringed upon. When a dispute about interpretation comes up, the courts step in. It's all one giant gray area. It isn't black and white, and I'm afraid you desire a simple black and white answer that isn't out there. However, some basic principles can still cover all cases. Are you advocating the repeal of all laws on the books and reverting to a simple law such as 'property owners can do ANYTHING with the property as long as it doesn't interfere with the rights of others'? Are you asking us to simply refer to a constitution or charter for all answers? Isn't that how the whole ball of wax got started?

As for the tack on dangerous jobs, in general terms the employer is absolutely responsible for securing the safety and well-being of the employee - inasmuch as it is within the employer's power. If a fireman is not provided with safety equipment and asked to run into a burning building naked when equipment is available, then the employer is partly at fault if injury occurs. If the designer of SpaceShipOne knowingly removes safety equipment (you know, something silly like wings or a canopy) and tells the pilot to launch, then the employer is partly responsible for the crash. Because a job has inherent risk, does not remove the employers' responsibiity to exercise caution. That means that in some cases the employer has to decide when the fireman is not allowed to enter a building or launch the rocket at all.

John said,That means that in some cases the employer has to decide when the fireman is not allowed to enter a building or launch the rocket at all.

This is how it's done. Fire chiefs decide all the time to pull their personnel from burning buildings or not allow them to enter in the first place all the time. Similarly, NASA makes decisions that particular missions or specific mission objectives are too dangerous all the time.

But you're right Kirsten. The way we draw the line between between what property owners are allowed or not allowed to do can be arbitrary at times, in that there is not always a proscribed methodology to follow. However, for anyone who has ever participated in or witnessed their government at work on making such a decision, it is certainly not a capricious one. That's because there are almost as many conceptions of property rights as there are property owners.

I don't see how we can get away from that. Remember, the the root of the word arbitrary is the same as that of arbitration and that is one function of our government, which like it or not, does ultimately derive from the people. We rely upon our government, governments really, to arbitrate between the rights of property owners and the rights of the public.

My neighbor putting a pink plastic flamingo on their lawn does little to harm me and, though I might think it tacky, in my neighborhood the owner retains full rights to be tacky (including displaying several junked out cars on their property apparently). Yet in some neighborhoods that same plastic bird would get the owner a hefty fine. Arbitrary? Hell yeah! But an arbitration endorsed by the people.

And when it comes to my health, or the health of my neighbors, then I want the government to be as equally arbitrary in deciding what rights a business owner is allowed to exercise.

Just out of curiosity, how far would you allow your analogy of informed choice to extend? What if a business severely diminishes the air quality for blocks around their business? Would that be acceptable because the neighbors have the choice to leave? No? How about if the business just severely contaminates the soil on their property? Is that acceptable because the soil doesn't leave the property and the employees have the choice to work there or not? If so, what about run-off when it rains?

This is the primary problem I have with strictly Libertarian (and I am distinguishing from libertarianism which is often much different). None of us lives in a vacuum. Everything we do, intentionally or not, affects someone else. Somehow we have to decide which of those effects are socially acceptable and in what degree. Libertarianism would say that business owners would keep their businesses safe and non-polluting because it is in their own selfish best interests. That assumes a rational actor though and humans are not rational.

It's all too easy to decide to take shortcuts or rationalize away dangers, not because a person is evil, but because they are human. And people who are in dire need of money, who are hungry or about to be evicted, will too easily make the decision to place themselves in an unacceptably dangerous work environment. Did they have a choice? Maybe. Maybe not. What if that was the only job available to them?

Choice or free-will is a nebulous concept at best. I know you'll disagree, but while I understand the attractiveness of your position, it's one I'll never come around to so we'll just have to agree to disagree.

TNG, well said. This is my fundamental disagreement with (L)(l)ibertarian thought - that individuals can live within their own bubble and have little or no effect on other individuals living in their bubbles. If we all stuck to the program it would be fine.

I prefer to believe that as human beings we not only have the responsibility to avoid conflict or encroachment on others, we have to moral responsibility to to IMPROVE relations with each other. Maybe it's my religious background, maybe not. For me, this resposibility extends to our government(s) because they are a somewhat centralized collective that we grant the power to arbitrate (as tng said) when many individual opinions interfere with the advancement of the society. In a nutshell, I don't trust that individuals will self-organize and create positive change for the whole. It takes a few individuals to put forth a plan and the rest of society to go along with it. That's human nature.

OK, this thread is oficially gi-normous! I'm going to put together a Bloodthirsty Message Board for these discussions. The blog engine isn't cutting it.

Oy! I have a drum lesson in a few minutes, but I can't leave this one until later.

John said, "This is my fundamental disagreement with (L)(l)ibertarian thought - that individuals can live within their own bubble and have little or no effect on other individuals living in their bubbles."

Well, then you don't have much disagreement with libertarian thought because this is not a principle of libertarian thought/philosophy. Some libertarians as well as some non-libertarians may think this, but it is just as non-germaine to libertarianism as how many libertarians like or dislike ice cream.

With respect to my above comment, I expanded on it here.

With respect to the recipe, do I correctly assume that "add eggs one at a time" means the 2 whole eggs plus the 3 egg yolks?

I guess my last statement is a bit general or vague. So, using the Britannica of our day (Wikipedia) I'll refer to the following definition:

"*Libertarianism* is a political philosophy advocating that individuals should be free to do whatever they wish with their person or property, as long as they do not infringe on the same liberty of others. Libertarians hold as a fundamental maxim that all human interaction should be voluntary and consensual."

My contention is that this central tenet of libertarianism is flawed and impossible in practice. "Property" and "ownership" are illusions perpetuated by societal cooperation and to think that *anything* can be done without some form of involuntary human interaction or encroachment is nonsensical. Everything we do has an effect on someone, even if it is after our death or several miles away, and to believe that all interaction should be voluntary is ignoring reality. While not outwardly calling for anarchy, strict adherence to these libertarian ideals is (IMNSHO) inhumane and ultimately immoral. It is the equivalent of isolationism on the global scale and just as silly, to me.

Now, on to more important things. The eggs. Yes, that's a total of 5 eggs, minus a few whites. The key is to make sure each egg or yolk is fully incorporated into the butter-sugar mixture before adding the next. If you make the cookies, let me know how they turn out. Better yet, take a picture and send it!

I officially declare this thread CLOSED. You need a BUICK to get from one end of this thing to the other.