For a brief, shining moment in '06, it looked like the nation might finally be rid of this sniveling sitzpinkler, but Joe Lieberman just keeps coming back, like herpes.
Sitzpinkler! Awesome.
Quite a list. Let's start with # 48 Gerald Ford -- the man being DEAD doesn't at least disqualify him? I would think both Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan "deserve" to be on the List then more than Ford.
Matt:
Just think what high # Lieberman would have been if he gave control of the Senate to the GOP?!
He was alive for the vast majority of 2006, of course.
#41 Ralph Reed -- I disagree that he is "most obvious charlatan that ever walked the earth" and if we are going to start criticizing plagiarizing from 30 years ago, why isn't Biden on the list?
That's true, Liz, and I'm sure all of his golfing escapades last year is really why Ford's included on the List.
You should totally make your own list, Charlie. That'd show 'em!
I am not sure why, but I feel a little protective of Michael Musto. I see him around the East Village a lot, and he always seems kinda depressed. Plus, most of their hatred of him seems to be about the fact that, like most journalists, he's not good-looking, well-spoken, or well-dressed.
It'd be great! I'm sure you have undreamed of negative opinions of lots of people, many of them surprising. Like, I would never have guessed you weren't a Reagan fan.
I agree with #6. Kenneth Blackwell and Kevin Trudeau are much more obvious charlatans, making Reed 3rd overall.
At length, in alphabetical order by middle name? Pretty please?
Thanks Cryptic Ned.
Liz: I would disagree about including Reagan on their List as well.
Middle name? As in Barack HUSSEIN Obama?
Charlie, you're not going to be one of the funny trolls, are you?
Right. That'd be under H. Is he on their list? I haven't read the whole thing yet.
16: Oh, give him time. He brought English muffins in the other thread. I think he's got potential for being entertaining. And we haven't had a good troll for ages.
What's the deal with Charlie? I haven't been in the comments much-- do we have a new irritant?
You know, TNH's disemvowelling ap was created for a purpose.
#39 -- Lee Raymond indeed accepted a $400 million retirement package in '06, the largest in history and (God forbid) currently serves as vice chair of the American Enterprise Institute's board of trustees. It's not like ExxonMobil's profits were the LARGEST IN HISTORY too -- I mean, at least use that guy from Home Depot as your class warfare poster child!
ogged:
I have a very dry sense of humor. Why do you ask?
Wow, I'm amazed that they thought to include Steven Milloy. That shows some actual knowledge.
(at first I thought it was Ronald Murray, the pro-corporate-on-every-issue guy who makes the Reason blog significantly less readable. but Milloy is even worse)
#35 Brent Bozell -- I kinda appreciate the "fraudulent" Media Research Center -- your side has all the other MSM and you still have to complain about this ONE guy?
19: Yeah, he followed me home from Obsidian Wings. The style is more surrealist disruption than coherent hostility, with a strong flavoring of 'look at me bonding and being reasonable' whenever directly addressed, in the hopes of attracting a constituency and confusing people about the bridge he's lurking under.
The only thing to watch out for is that Charlie Whittaker is around also commenting as Charlie.
your side has all the other MSM
Anyone who believes this cannot possibly be likeable.
I have a very dry sense of humor. Why do you ask?
Because you haven't been funny. This might be related to the fact that people who say their sense of humor is "dry" generally aren't funny.
I never said likeable, but entertaining is a possibility.
Cryptic Ned:
Are you claiming that asbestos at the WTC sites of impact would NOT have worked to keep the buildings standing (at least for a little while longer)?
This list is priceless.
LB, if we kept every stray that followed you home... are you going to clean up after him when he poops on the rug?
Ouch, Liz, I resemble that remark.
P.S. to ogged -- please re-read my Ralph Reed comment and tell me that's not funny.
Aw, mom. I'm sure the mange will clear right up, honest!
No, I'm implying that Steven Milloy is a loathsome person on many issues and obviously would not have given a damn if he thought the towers could have been helped by something that was left out intentionally by cost-cutting builders rather than pitiful, unfairly maligned asbestos, the whipping boy of the nanny state.
please re-read my Ralph Reed comment and tell me that's not funny
Comment 6? Definitely not funny.
I'm just happy to see McCain take top honors.
Back to their List:
#32 -- George Allen. I never had heard of the word either. Just give Jim Webb a couple years in the Senate spotlight and then you'll be BEGGING for Allen again.
people who say their sense of humor is "dry" generally aren't funny.
Maybe that's "dry" like a well.
you'll be BEGGING for Allen again
Guess again.
Humor is in the eye of the beholder, ogged. Maybe if there was a rim shot after I mentioned Biden?
36: I'm actually starting to hope McCain's the nominee, rather than someone I haven't heard of. He just looks so bad these days: "Right, we can win the war with 20K more troops. Shit, you mean you're actually going to send 20K more troops? Um...."
There is part of me that misses George Allen and Katherine Harris, as it was so satisfying to watch their campaigns messily implode, but I find comfort in knowing there will always be vile politicians who will self-destruct. They're a renewable resource, as it were.
#30 Rush Limbaugh -- you guys do realize that Michael J. Fox has ADMITTED to not taking medication for his Parkinson's symptoms exactly for the maximum political effect, right?
What *is* funny is someone claiming that humor is subjective while showing that there are robust facts about what isn't funny.
43: If only we could manufacture renewable energy from renewable sleazy politicians. I'm thinking hamster wheels.
45: It would be funny if there were a list demonstrating the 'rules of humor', with a precise explanation of how his post obeyed the rules. ("According to I.ix.3, I am funny because I included a rubber chicken and a small cocker spaniel.")
In 2000 I had the usual mancrush on McCain, and watching him since then, especially since 2006, has been excruciating. The man told the Viet Cong to go fuck themselves but he can't stand up to Bob Jones. Ambition is a hell of a drug, I guess.
#29 Jesus Christ -- He makes the BEAST (as in Anti-Christ?) List of 50 Most "Loathsome" People in America even though, as noted, "May not have existed, and if he did, probably wasn't even American"? What kind of freaking List is this? As for the Sermon on the Mount being "socialism" what about being the Salt and Light of the world -- a city on a hill cannot be hid and you don't light a candle only to put it under a bowl -- while the first is later extended by the metaphor that salt which has lost its flavour is cast out, in addition to THEIR OWN EXHIBIT "A"?!
47.2: I've seen lists like that -- words including the letter K are funny, as is unnecessary precision. ("My car was filled with two tons of herring", less funny than "My car was filled with two metric tonnes of herring".) I don't know that I'd say the rules I saw actually work.
47: I think that's in Aristotle's Comedics. Funniness is an activity, not a state, and it lies in the mean such as the funny man would determine it.
45. FL, did I say that something was NOT funny? Maybe I'm missing your point.
51: That's right near the section where things that may induce drowsiness are described as having a dormitive virtue, right?
Fucking Aristotle.
I'm up to #26 -- Ann Coulter -- anyone want to actually discuss the (de)merits of those (un)included or not?
Not with you. But keep going, really. I, for one, am fascinated.
Coulter doesn't really have any redeeming qualitites. I guess they think she's on the list due to having enough profile?
I hafta say that this year's list doesn't quite measure up to 2004's, due to a lack of instant classic lines, like their take on Jenna Jameson: "The first best-selling author who could be sodomized with a well-thrown baseball since Truman Capote."
She has a disturbing physical resemblance to my sister-in-law. I don't know that that's a redeeming quality, but it does give me the heebie-jeebies.
Well, Liz, I'm not here for a monologe -- if anyone has questions about, or wants to disagree with, my comments on the first half of their List, feel free to let me know.
I thought the line about pig DNA was pretty good.
Yeah, this year's list was enjoyable, but 2004 was great. On the other hand, 2004 had a lot to prompt Teh Loathing.
57. aspotropher -- at least Bush and Cheney have been pretty consistent in the Top Ten ; )
57: That's an old line, though -- Murray Kemption described someone that way. Maybe Whittaker Chambers?
I also like Ken Lay's sentence: "Drinking a martini in his bathrobe and reading the Wall Street Journal at his secret compound in the South Pacific, the 'late' Mr. Lay starts choking on an olive when the 400th major daily article to describe his life as 'Shakespearean' makes him laugh out loud. Lay falls out of his chair, impaling an eyeball with the stem of his glass and catching his penis in a $900 toaster. The electrical current triggers the long-dormant prefrontal cortex of his now-smoldering brain, suddenly activating Lay's conscience. As he is slowly and painfully electrocuted over several minutes, Lay experiences a lifetime of guilt and remorse. Then he catches fire."
John McCain went from 45th to 1st in two years.
57: I like this punishment for 50 Cent: "Punishment: Getting his ass kicked by Will Smith."
Has unfogged ever had trolls that lasted more than a single thread? Because I feel an ominous darkening about this Charlie person.
Has unfogged ever had trolls that lasted more than a single thread?
There was abc123, who I finally asked to stop commenting here. I can't remember if there have been others.
We were deleting the Troll of Sorrow for a week or so, but he was beyond normal trollhood into actual lunacy.
Some of FL's trolls, when he was in his 'waving red rags in front of bulls' period, jumped threads, but none lasted more than a day or two. I'm not thinking of anyone else, but I could be missing someone.
Oh, Yamamoto, who I, but not everyone, thought was a troll, was around for awhile.
Has unfogged ever had trolls that lasted more than a single thread? Because I feel an ominous darkening about this Charlie person.
I'm not sure why anyone might think him funny. He leaves all the vowels out of his posts.
The problem with that list is it's for internal consumption. How about a similiar site devoted to Stuff Very Important to Americans, Which If Destroyed Would Bring The Great Satan To Its Knees? with captions in English and Arabic. But maybe that last is a bit unsubtle.
The last thing I want is to be banned as a troll. If I follow Sebastian Holsclaw's suggestions from over at ObisdianWings, would that help:
Trying to be polite.
Trying not to mischaracterize the positions of the people with whom you are discussing.
Trying to explain your position instead of merely asserting it.
Trying to understand the positions of the people with whom you are discussing even if you disagree with them.
Trying to empathize with the positions of the people with whom you are discussing even if you disagree with them.
18: I thought that offerings of baked goods were required for every thread trolled.
Charlie Whittaker is around also commenting as Charlie
Doesn't this break the only rule?
I'd add "If some people don't want to read your posts, use a GreaseMonkey script to redact them, and you change your handle in an effort to get around it and further annoy them, you might be a troll more interested in annoyance than discourse."
Dear fucking god. Don't you dare turn this place into fucking Obsidian Wings.
I am not feeling the loathsome list.
Pelosi literally doesn't have testicles. Big deal.
Gates foundation invests in disreputable companies. Who cares.
Bonds takes steroids. Ok he is objectively loathsome ,but anyone who pisses off Joe Buck and the rest of sport reporter moralist brigade is fine in my book.
If I follow Sebastian Holsclaw's suggestions from over at ObisdianWings
Nothing good will come of any sentence that starts this way.
Very meta of the Beast writers to include themselves on their own "50 most loathsome" list. I actually do hate them a little for that. But the play on Time magazine and "You" was neatly done.
Change your ways or find another place to comment. I am not as charitable as my co-bloggers. This is your only warning.
Does anyone know what Obsidian Wings means? Why Obsidian?
Does anyone know what Obsidian Wings means? Why Obsidian?
Given Moe Lane's RPG background, I've always assumed it was an in-game reference.
86 was confirmed somewhere; I wouldn't be able to find the link, though. ObWi has a bigger hoohole than any site I know.
Obsidian was a video game released in 1996, generally considered to be one of the most complex and difficult games ever released, according to some sources. I'm not sure if there's a connection or not.
Sorry, Becks. How would YOU "play devil's advocate" then about Gerald Ford's inclusion to argue both Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan "deserve" more to be included on their List?
Having looked into a walk-through of the Obsidian game, there is a puzzle within it that consists of a scrambled series of stop--motion photos of a bird in flight. To progress, these must be arranged into the correct order so that the bird is flying correctly, and not in reverse.
This may be the reference, but it's a bit, uh, speculative. We may need to venture onto RedState to ask Moe.
Obsidian, a volcanic glass
Obsidian (comics), a DC Comics character
Obsidian (computer game), a 1996 adventure game developed by Rocket Science Games
Obsidian (Transformers), a Transformers character
Obsidian Entertainment, a software developer
Obsidian Order, the fictional Cardassian intelligence agency from Star Trek
Obsidian, the creator of COMMISSIONED (comic)
I'm actually disappointed. I always wanted to see what happened if a bridge dweller came to these here threads. But this particular one...uhm...sucks. Just unbelievably banal.
Well, Pooh, maybe you could ask a better questions than "Does anyone know what Obsidian Wings means?" and you would be more satisfied with the answer?
From comments to the first ever post at Obsidian Wings:
It pleases me strangely to realize that I know where the title comes from. (I suppose "Grunts from the Grigori" would have been too obvious...)
Yeah, sure, way too obvious.
both Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan "deserve" more to be included on their List?
Neither was alive in 2006. Reagan was on the 2004 list, the year he died.
A possible lead: the RPG "In Nomine" has an order of angels called the Grigori, and another order, the Malakite, has black wings.
(Through googling 'wings "the grigori"'.)
87: Apparently it's a reference to an RPG called In Nomine.
Weren't Grigori FALLEN angels?
P.S. Matt F -- was Jesus Christ on the list the year He died?
Charlie: you might try re-reading that entry as an aside to hypocritical evangelicals asshats ... a feature of 2006.
OK, I throw my weight behind the "get rid of Charlie" option. This is tiresome.
71: I still don't get why you thought that of "Yamamoto", considering what is tolerated, in the way of stubborness and obtuseness. She had personal anecdotes, and facts about biochemistry and research protocols I thought worth airing. It is rare that fairly conservative positions are maintained by someone claiming a female persona, but I found it interesting for just that reason. There may be signs I was overlooking, or information I wasn't privy to, but I just didn't get it.
100. FL -- Matt F notes that neither Richard Nixon nor Ronald Reagan was alive in 2006, but it is a crime for me to note that Jesus Christ is on their List?!
74: And find another handle. Life is short and I was here first.
74: And find another handle. Life is short and I was here first.
Sorry for the double post. But, I'm damned if I change my name (by those trying to take all the vowels out of my posts); damned if I don't. Can't everyone tell that you are the "Charlie" posting from the UK?
101: The straight answer to that is that I was convinced, not that she was conservative, which is fine to have around to argue with, but that she was a conservative lying and claiming to be a liberal, and further lying about her biography. (Or an apolitical prankster doing a puton.) And that sort of crap annoys me -- there is no way to have a productive argument with someone who is misrepresenting their own positions.
I became convinced of that for two reasons. First, she called the Michael J. Fox Parkinson's ad sinking to Ann Coulter's level. That's simply implausible from anyone who identifies as a liberal or a Democrat -- as a matter of tribal identification, I just didn't buy it. Then she blew a whole lot of pseudo-technical smoke over whether stem-cell research is a fruitful avenue for Parkinson's research, claiming, falsely, that it wasn't. She was also claiming to be a biologist married to a Parkinson's patient. That doesn't mean that she couldn't have opposed stem-cell research for moral reasons, but she was claiming to oppose it as useless, which from someone claiming to be a biologist was really unlikely to be an error of fact -- she was trying to bullshit us by claiming expertise. There's more, subtler stuff, but that's was the clear evidence.
If she'd come in as a conservative opposed to stem cell research for moral reasons, we might have been able to talk. As a 'liberal' 'biologist' making claims of fact that stem cell research has been shown to be scientifically useless, life's too short to talk to people like that.
You do realize that Michael J. Fox has ADMITTED to not taking medication for his Parkinson's symptoms exactly for the maximum political effect, right?
Dude, you weren't even reading the site when Yamamoto was around. You didn't ask the question, and you have no idea what I'm talking about. What part of your tiny mind makes you think that that last comment was likely to be successfully ingratiating?
And change your handle or get banned -- I'd hate to mix you up with someone who I thought well of.
111: Okay, second time he's posted that bullshit claim in the same damned thread.
Because I'm an honest conservative opposed to some stem cell research for moral reasons (I hope this doesn't mess up all the disemvoweling now).
Of course. He's trolling. The Yamamoto thing was ambiguous, which is why I explain defensively when anyone asks, but Charlie's obvious.
Even assuming Fox was "too medicated" for that particular campaign ad, he indeed has admitted to not taking medication for his Congressional testimony.
No, Liz, I am not trolling. I will be back with the link.
114: Actually, what are those moral reasons? I've not really thought about this much before now.
LB: what can I say? I think you're a pretty OK person too.
Here you go Liz: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/25/arts/television/25watch.html?ex=1169355600&en=75945ed7de4473a1&ei=5070
The New York Times reported October 25, "A spokesman for Mr. Fox said his tremors were caused by his medication."
In his book, Fox indicated that "upping the dosage" of his medication, L-dopa (short for Levodopa), can cause "random, spastic, hyperextended movements of the extremities":
Every P.D. patient's experience is unique. Mine is this: If I miss or ignore those early-warning signs, there's no second chance. I am down for the full sixty to ninety minutes. It's no good upping the dosage, either -- that only results in exaggerated dyskinesias (random, spastic, hyperextended movements of the extremities) when the L-dopa finally does take effect.
The entry for Levodopa on the website of the Parkinson's Disease Foundation notes that "Levodopa is the 'gold standard' by which all treatments for Parkinson's are measured" but that "with increased dosing and prolonged use of levodopa, patients experience other side-effects including dyskinesias (spontaneous, involuntary movements) and 'on-off' periods when the medication will suddenly and unpredictably start or stop working."
Carbidopa/Levodopa (Sinemet®) Levodopa is a substance that is converted into dopamine by an enzyme in the brain. It is then released by brain cells and activates dopamine receptors allowing for normal function of the movement control centers of the brain. Forty years after its discovery, levodopa remains the most effective medication for Parkinson's disease. In fact, 70 to 80 percent of treated Parkinson's patients are on levodopa therapy. Levodopa is the "gold standard" by which all treatments for Parkinson's are measured.
Levodopa combined with carbidopa (or Sinemet®) represented a significant improvement in the treatment of Parkinson's disease. The addition of carbidopa prevents levodopa from being converted into dopamine in the bloodstream, allowing more of it to get to the brain. Therefore, a smaller dose of levodopa is needed to treat symptoms. In addition, the nausea and vomiting often associated with levodopa treatment is greatly reduced by the presence of carbidopa. Unfortunately, with increased dosing and prolonged use of levodopa, patients experience other side-effects including dyskinesias (spontaneous, involuntary movements) and "on-off" periods when the medication will suddenly and unpredictably start or stop working.
Charlie UK:
The same reason I am opposed to abortion. I'm against any stem cell research that ends a human life.
"You do realize that Michael J. Fox has ADMITTED to not taking medication"
"A spokesman for Mr. Fox said his tremors were caused by his medication"
Doc, there's no benefit in it. Make fun of him if you like, and if he gets dull enough we'll ban him (probably sometime soon) but there's no reason to argue with one of those.
I hear you. Sometimes the whackness is just so brazen, though.
Here you go Liz
That's LizardBreath to you. Hmph.
I'm against any stem cell research that ends a human life.
Me too. I'm not against any stem cell research. I'm not against organ transplants either.
I didn't think it was "dull" to provide the first link I found for Fox's book where he indeed admits that. There were plenty of other links, if you so choose:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=%22michael+j.+fox%22+book+admitted+Levodopa
Actually, Liz is fine from real people. I've been vaguely regretting the idiotic pseud for a while, but it'd be too annoying to change it now.
Sorry, that last one was for DS.
For Charlie in UK, perhaps you and I don't agree that human embryos are "living" (although there are no stem cells to extract if they are dead). I'm not against organ transplants unless you murder someone for said organs.
128: As it happens, there are no organs to extract unless the donor is alive.
Are you opposed to in vitro fertilisation?
I'm trying carefully not to engage, but I continue to be surprised at the mendacity of complaining that Fox's symptoms were "exaggerated" (by whatever means). Why should Fox have somehow disguised his symptoms completely? The quotation above indicates this is a difficult-to-impossible goal at any given time, regardless of medication--but even setting that consideration aside, what on earth would be the point? Can anyone seriously argue that a debilitating, progressive, fatal disease should look as much as possible like it's really no big deal?
IVF is fine as long as you don't affirmatively destroy the fertilized egg -- I'd much prefer fertilizing only the number of eggs the couple is willing to implant at a time though.
Rah:
So, if Michael J. Fox was not having ANY symptoms the day the ad was being filmed, you think it would have been just fine for him to "act" as if he were?
130: Can anyone seriously argue that a debilitating, progressive, fatal disease should look as much as possible like it's really no big deal?
You assume Fox's antagonists are interested in "seriously arguing" anything. The guy on this thread not only started out arguing the mendacious "admitted he didn't take his meds line," but has now posted a bunch of stuff that contradicts it while trying to pretend it supports his original "argument." Ergo, no "argument" is really happening.
131: So, forgetting to close the fridge door is OK?
... and were suddenly silenced
Again, the remind anyone who did not read # entry making Rush Limbaugh loathsome:
"Exhibit A: If someone had taken a shotgun and blown Rush's head clean off while he was wobbling his bloated body back and forth in an inconceivably cruel mockery of Michael J. Fox, whom he accused of faking his Parkinson's symptoms for political effect, it would have been the greatest viral video of them all."
Why would you include Rush if he were TELLING THE TRUTH?!
DS:
a) Fox has admitted to not taking meds in the past.
to maximize his symptoms for political effect
b) Fox films another commerical showing his symptoms again, I don't think anyone is arguing, for political effect.
c) It is reasonable to ask whether Fox was on his meds this time as well.
What part of the argument are you not understanding?
Where's the cake? I prefer angel food, but I will eat devil's food in a pinch.
There were English muffins this morning, but that's a long time ago.
Charlie in UK:
No more so than forgetting your child in a locked car in the summer heat . . .
Cherry danishes. Or cinnamon rolls, but only if you really, really load them up with some quality cinnamon.
I like CinnaBons. I gain 3 lbs just by walking past the kiosk in an airport, though...
Sorry, I just ate all the Cheetos. I have an apple left though.
140: Cute, but you'd likely go to jail for that. Whereas IVF methods are accepted as lawful. So is there an inconsistency here or not?
142: Mmm. I have a devastating cinnamon roll recipe -- cardamom in the dough does wonderful things for it. Maybe I'll make a batch tomorrow morning.
141: You know, I had a co-worker who was quite allergic to cinnamon. I had never heard of it as an allergen before. Is it common, does anyone know?
Abortion is considered lawful too. We were talking "moral" above.
The most common serious allergies are nuts and shellfish AFAIK.
I'm hoping LB will see her way clear to posting the recipe in 145. I've never been able to look at a cinnamon bun since a family member worked at CinnaBon... 15 years ago. We were eating those things every second day for about three months.
147: Sure, but is there an inconsistency?
I am saying there are no inconsistencies in my views on IVF, as far as I am aware.
I actually had the recipe in an email, so here you go. I don't know why it's called what it is.
Boston Cake
3/4 C milk
1/2 C sugar
1/4 tsp salt
1/2 tsp ground cardamom
8 TBSP butter, softened
1 envelope dry yeast
1/4 c warm water (110 deg. F)
1 large egg
3 - 3 1/2 C flour
Filling:
4 TBSP butter, melted
1 c powdered sugar
2 tsp ground cinnamon
Glaze:
1 egg yolk
2 TBSP milk
Icing:
1/2 C powdered sugar
2 tsp water
Heat the milk until small bubbles form on the side of the pan, pour into a mixing bowl and add the sugar, salt, cardamom and 2 TBSP of the butter. Let cool until lukewarm. In a small bowl, dissolve the yeast in the warm water and add to the milk along with the beaten egg, mix well and add the flour gradually until you get a sticky dough. Turn the dough onto a board and knead until it is smooth and elastic, adding a little more flour if necessary. Add the rest of the softened butter in pieces and knead until the butter has been absorbed. Place in a greased bowl, cover with a kitchen towel and let rise in a warm place for 1 1/2 to 2 hours, or until doubled.
Turn the dough onto a floured board, knead it lightly and cut it in two pieces. Roll each piece with a rolling pin to a rectangle approx. 1/2 inch thick and 9x12 inches in size, spread each with half the filling and roll up lengthwise. Cut each piece into slices about 2 inches thick. Butter a 9 inch cake pan and stand the pieces on end in teh cake pan, leaving about 1.2 inch between slices to have room for expansion. Let rise, covered loosely with a plastic wrap, for 45 minutes to an hour. [Or overnight in the refrigerator. This is a little timeconsuming to make before breakfast; making it the night before works better.]
Preheat oven to 375. For the glaze, mix the egg yolk with the milk and brush the cake before baking it in the lower level of the oven for about 30 minutes, or until nicely browned.
To make filling: Beat the melted butter with powdered sugar and cinnamon until it reaches spreading consistency.
To make icing: mix the powdered sugar with about 2 tsp of water, or until it reaches spreading consistency. Drizzle on baked cake.
If they called it Kennedy Cake you couldn't make it.
152: That's great, but isn't the other example you cite relevant? If you cause death by neglect, having put someone in a potentially risky situation which you had a duty to keep an eye on but failed to, you're morally culpable, right?
I think the answer to your second question is "yes". At this point, however, I'm not sure which "other example" you are referring to.
156: Leaving children unattended in locked cars on hot sunny days.
O.K., so "leaving children unattended in locked cars on hot sunny days" is relevant to what again (other than my analogy to leaving the IVF freezer door open and killing children that way)?
159: Would you agree that it's wrong? It is a thing that can really happen, after all.
159: You can't question the relevance of a comparison you made. Well, you can, but it makes you look like a douchebag.
Pooh:
It was a "pre-emptive strike" to anyone claiming I didn't know the relevance of my own analogy.
Charlie:
If you are asking whether I think "leaving children unattended in locked cars on hot sunny days" is wrong, my answer to that is "yes" as well (but I thought I already answered that). If that's not what you are asking, please state the question in full.
162: So, you'd agree that 'leaving the fridge door open' is also wrong, with respect to currently feasible IVF methods?
Sorta relevant to the Bush / Cheney entries on their List, I was startled to read today that "Academics credit PRESIDENT CARTER with expanding the role of the vice presidency during his administration. As vice president, Mondale served as the president's senior adviser. He held an office in the West Wing of the White House, had private meetings with the president and spoke on behalf of the president before influential groups."
I thought only EVIL Republicans were responsible for that?
Charlie in UK:
Yes (didn't I answer that already back in my post # 140?).
Maybe it's the time difference and same name thing that's confusing me. Let me know if you have any NEW questions for me.
Interesting U.S. Constitutional trivia:
After tomorrow, if something happens to Bush and Cheney becomes President, he can run for TWO FULL TERMS. I don't know if his heart would last, but it's interesting, nonetheless.
Same thing would have happened if Clinton had been removed from office by the Senate on February 12, 1999 -- Al Gore would have been eligible to run for two terms thereafter -- but not if he had become President even one (1) month earlier.
165: You said:
IVF is fine as long as you don't affirmatively destroy the fertilized egg
However, current IVF methods inevitably involve the death of embryos. They aren't deliberately killed, but they do not survive. Even if freezing of 'surplus' embryos is planned, not all embryos will be judged able to survive the freezing process and will be allowed to die instead ('the fridge door will be left open'). All of this is contemplated, in advance, by those involved: there is little accidental about it. Of the 500,000 frozen embryos currently in the US, realistically only a small percentage will ever be implanted. There are credible anti-abortion positions that oppose IVF for reasons such as these.
My suggestion here is that you do not in fact support IVF, which would be consistent with not supporting stem cell research. I also suspect that you do not in fact support organ donation, as this usually involves the termination of what is, in some sense, life.
It's SPEEDING UP death unnaturally that I have a problem with. I have nothing against being someone being allowed to die natural a death -- that happens sooner or later for every one of us -- especially where I said above that fertilizing only that number of eggs the couple is willing to implant at a time is the best option, I don't see how you can reasonably say I am against IVF in that instance.
Again, for organ transplantation, as long as you don't murder (i.e. decidedly NOT allowing someone to die a natural death) for it, what exactly is the inconsistency in my position?
Again, must be the time difference -- that should read: "I have nothing against someone being allowed to die a natural death . . ."
Mr 2.0 is citing an indited (sp?) drug-abuser (who, should, by law, be rotting in prison) to libel a man who has a painful, debilitating and fatal disease. If Fox was altering his meds for "political effect", it's nothing compared to the what the cancerous offal has done.
fertilizing only that number of eggs the couple is willing to implant at a time is the best option
But I'm not sure that this is currently feasible. Percentages are in operation throughout the whole process. If you attempt to fertilise ten eggs, maybe only four will take. Or maybe six will (I don't know what the actual numbers here are). And as I understand it, no matter how many embryos are available, a maximum of three are implanted at a time; the others are set aside. And of those that are implanted, only some are expected to develop. There's a success rate (i.e. a pregnancy) of around 15-20% per cycle. IVF, in effect, involves the planned termination of potentially viable embryos. It's wasteful.
Also, the organ donor would have lived if he or she hadn't had his organs removed in order to do the transplant.
leaving the IVF freezer door open and killing children (emphasis mine)
Makes a presumption based on morals, not science or law. Irrelevant.
I thought only EVIL Republicans were responsible for that?
The EVIL Republicans are responsible for running a sock-puppet as pResident, with the Wizard of Cheney pulling the strings. Neither Mondale nor Gore could be accused of that.
Is there anything you argue in good faith?
Sure there is, Jeff. Just ask Charlie.
Charlie:
1) There are some IVF doctors who will ONLY fertilize the number of embryos the couple is willing to accept to full term -- no selective reductions either. Do you need a link to such a clinic before you will believe it?
2) An organ donor being kept alive solely by unnatural means in order to extract organs is actually a wonderful gift of life and, once the plug is pulled, dies naturally. Not sure again where we are missing each other.
177: It might inform the debate if you set out the methodology you believe they use and explained how you think it materially differs from the process I've described. IVF involves accepting the fact that not all embryos will survive, whether implanted or not. People do it anyway.
We are missing each other - I suspect - because you attach more value to intentions than I do, and perhaps to the extent of ignoring consequences.
Is there a handy term for the other IVF: In Vivo Fertilization?
First of all, human fertilization the "old fashioned way" also involves accepting the fact that not all embryos will survive. So, I'm not sure why that is such a big sticking point for you. Second, as I understand it, an IVF doctor and couple who all believe a complete human being is created at fertilization would do everything reasonably possible to make sure however many eggs that are fertilized are treated with the utmost care, and definitely not discarded, but instead are all given the same chance at implantation AND no selective reduction (abortion) is performed if all implant -- therefore maybe only fertilize one embryo at a time. Other alternatives, of course, could be adopting an already-born child, Gamete Intra-Fallopian Transfer or even Intra-Cytoplasmic Sperm Injection to increase the chances of success.
How about we use OFW for this thread at least?
... therefore maybe only fertilize one embryo at a time
But does this actually happen? Perhaps now would be a good time to provide a citation.
Great list! And menstruation is a sin!
183: And so are breasts. And HEY, stop looking at my bumb...
Ryan Seacrest is the most loathsome person of every year.
LB's recipe has you proof the yeast by mixing it with water first, but you really don't need to anymore. it's sort of a relic from when yeast was less reliable you can just put the yeast in with the milk (and additional liquid). sounds great, though. I love cardamom. even more cinnabon-ish is to make the icing with a little cream cheese, icing sugar, and lemon juice and zest.
And may I just say, this name assignment thing has been very useful for my Kripke reading.
This is true about the yeast. Recipes all make you proof yeast, but it's pointless these days.
This may already have been addressed, but I have a problem with 27. Either I or the trolls get to be the token unfunny person here.
I think I'm funny, so you go for it, bitchphd.
P.S. Charlie: as long as you insist, any IVF doctor will fertilize however many you want to -- you are the client, afterall -- but here's a link I was using:
http://www.str.org/site/DocServer/ivf_discard.pdf?docID=149
People, people, people. You are not handling this situation. See, see!
190: The link you provide does not support your claim. I was actually hoping you might have done a token bit of Googling over the last twelve hours, or so, or you might have talked to a couple who have actually had IVF treatment, but it looks as though you are uninterested in new information.
191: Erm, probably right, and you'll have to excuse me for making a bit of a mess. This isn't much of an issue in the UK, and I was curious. It won't happen again.
For the kingdom ...
This is thread demonstrates why trolls suck. I was hoping for pointless bitching about who's on the list, instead we have a boring argument about stem cell research. I know people who've died from motherfucking Parkinson's disease. Trolls who waste my motherfucking time bloviating about Michael J. Fox's drug regimen need to be rushed to the hospital for immediate forced organ donation.