America's Test Kitchen covered sangria -- here's an excerpt

Many people mistake sangria for an unruly collection of fruit awash in a sea of overly sweetened red wine. There's also the premade sangria sold in liquor stores, which is at once sugary, watery, and flavorless--a poor substitute for Hi-C.
The Goal

A robust, sweet-tart punch.
The Solution

Start with cheap red wine, which actually makes a better sangria than the expensive stuff. (Experts told us that the sugar and fruit called for in sangria throw off the balance of any wine used, so why spend a lot on something that was carefully crafted?)We experimented with untold varieties of fruit to put in our sangria and finally concluded that simpler is better. We preferred the straightforward tang of citrus in the form of oranges and lemons. And we discovered that the zest and pith as well as the fruit itself make an important contribution to flavor. Orange liqueur is standard in recipes for sangria, and after experimenting we found that here, as with the wine, cheaper was just fine, this time in the form of Triple Sec. Fortification with any other alcoholic beverage, from gin to port to brandy, simply gave the punch too much punch. What we wanted, and what we now had, was a light, refreshing, very drinkable drink.

Here's the recipe -- http://www.recipezaar.com/The-Best-Sangria-64855 . I haven't tried it yet, but it's on my list

Back to Bush-bashing again? Certainly not over spending. Bush can be blamed for the first $350B bailout while Obama and Democrooks are responsible for $1,287B (the $787B second bailout, the second $350B chunk of the first bailout, and the $150B of "sweeteners" in the first bailout).

In 100 days the Magic Kenyan and his merry band of Tax Cheats have burned through the Monopoly money--no one knows where it's gone and no one's talking--and changed EXACTLY NOTHING.

Hell, anyone who studied FDR's folly for 10 minutes knows it's impossible for a country to spend its way out of debt. But why let the lessons of history get in the way? As Rahm the Ballerina says, "Don't waste a crisis."

Democrat corruption continues unabated, thanks in part to a worshipful mainstream media that are farther from real journalism than Pluto is from the sun.

The libertarian-bashing is perplexing, since they're not in power and never have been.

Is it to take minds off the thieving socialist utopia that has arrived and is a steaming pile of sh;t? I don't blame you.

It is for a vitamin health drink. Japan is big on those things and has been for many years. That sort of thing is just starting to slink it's way into the US market. A popular drink over there is called Pocari Sweat. Sort of like Gatorade. The name sounds absolutely disgusting, but it really isn't too bad. Whether it has any real health benefits is up for question.

You can't walk 50 feet in Japan without running into a street vending machine for that sort of stuff. In the US, everything on the shelf is full of corn syrup or sugar. They have that too.. however, the unsweetened stuff in the US is always 'diet' and packed with fake sweeteners. In Japan the zero sugar drinks are much more easily found. Mostly teas and the like.

Tea, strong no sugar milk. Coffee, instant two spoonfuls, one sweetener. Sometimes I make mochas in the morning too. Usually I have one of each per am and that's it.

>> ^StukaFox:
Welcome to ALL your food if the Republicans had their way with the FDA. Remember: Industry is the best police of industry!


Although I'm Libertarian and support a modest FDA, arguing about their role right now is like complaining about a leaky roof during a flood. So with that out of the way, I'll point out that the consumer's best friend is always going to be a solid court system. Even the most staunch capitalists aren't in favor of anarchy, protecting rights, upholding contracts, and offering recourse is essential, and I'm not sure China has that. Just recently, some guy here sold peanuts he knew were contaminated, and the socialists came out of the woodwork to claim that this is what capitalists are incentivized to do, make profits. Meanwhile, the company is about to be sued into oblivion, it has already filed for bankruptcy. If he was a good capitalist, he would have done what was profitable, and selling poisoned peanuts was the least profitable decision he could have made under this system. No system, it turns out, can prevent people from being idiots.

Still, the socialists argue that there is a way to protect everyone from idiots: by charging each family $1,000 a day to appoint one government inspector per peanut, and then $1,000 more to hire watchdogs for those inspectors, and so forth. Similarly, a socialist would probably approve regulation that locked us all in our basements to reduce the murder and fraud rate to 0. That's just an extreme example of how socialists fundamentally cannot understand that saving a few human lives simply is not worth incurring a greater, but non-fatal aggregate cost. In this case: the freedom to interact with other human beings. In the food case, the cost of the food itself. How much money should we take from people to ensure the safety of their food.

I think my biggest criticism of the FDA is that any agency which purports to protect you with its powers is subject to corruption. The FDA colludes with businesses all the time to look the other way on things, sort of like how impotent the SEC became (and to what degree were people less skeptical thinking that they were protecting them?). They allow things that have been banned in other countries for years: water fluoridation, bovine growth hormones in milk, nitrates in meat.... they were paid off in the 80s by artificial sweetener interests (billion dollar industry) to ban stevia, a natural patent-less sugar substitute that is far safer. And maybe the most dangerous of all, they have the power to ban promising new drugs they deem "unsafe" or "experimintal." Doesn't matter if you're dying of cancer and have nothing to lose, they won't let you choose.

>> ^Kymbos:
Hmm... the term 'dessicated coconut' comes to mind.


Could you elaborate on this one? Desiccated Coconut is sweetened dried coconut shreds and I'm not sure how this is relevant. Also rediculous comments without voting makes you a troll.

also see http://www.videosift.com/video/Henry-Kissinger-talks-about-The-New-World-Order
for the first time he stated (publicly) that America will be losing it's national soverignty without it's consent.

>> ^quantumushroom:
What if she's really, really sleepy, like if she's had too much date sweetener in her drink?

If you made up that phrase, I salute you. "Date sweetener" is brilliant. If you didn't, you still get a hearty "well played."

What if she's really, really sleepy, like if she's had too much date sweetener in her drink?

I guess no one told her about Fannie May/Freddie Mac being nationalized by *gasp* taxpayer money. Nor the sweetening of the buyout deal on Bear Stearns by JP Morgan in the realm of $30 billion.

Funny hearing her use catch phrases like "change", "politics as usual." I guess they're banking on the poor undecided swing voters who pick someone when they're standing in the booth to confuse who had that slogan that sounded so catchy and pick McCain ...

"... and the networks of lobbyists and special interests that used to run things up there, well whatever they're running now, I know it's not the state of Alaska!"

Heh, yeah and they sure did reel in the big fish when they scored an advisory role in the McCain campaign.

Indeed, manipulative as the ad is, there is is no use fighting this stuff with FUD.
There have been a few basic studies on the dietary impact of glucose and fructose, particular in relation to insulin.

In terms of satiety, this is a fairly recent report :
^ Monsivais et al. (2007). "Sugars and satiety: does the type of sweetener make a difference?". American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 86: 116–123.

Chemically the corn syrup (55% fructose and 45% glucose) used in foods is very similar to sucrose (50% fructose and 50% glucose) and thus mimics its apparent sweetness.
The chief difference, aside from the slight increase in fructose is that sucrose is a disaccharide - the fructose and glucose are covalently bonded by a condensation reaction (removal of a H20).
Corn syrup however, consists of individual molecules of glucose and fructose, which aside from tasting different, can be absorbed more readily by the body : The body requires an enzyme to break down the sucrose into fructose and glucose.

It's pretty clear that refined foods are for the most part bad for us because they deliver nutrients in concentrations far greater than we could ever get by harvesting food by hand. High concentrations of fructose could be problematic.
Honey from bees contains free fructose and glucose molecules (48%,47%), and so would pose a similar risk - the main difference is that honey is not consumed in such vast concentrations as found in soft drinks.

If you really want to taste how much sugar is in a soft drink. Let it go cold and flat and see how much you can drink.
http://www.4hoteliers.com/4hots_fshw.php?mwi=1243

So sadly, I think the advert does have a point: It is probably fine in moderation though perhaps they should have stated (and like honey, it is fine in moderation).

>> ^kronosposeidon:
I'll sweeten the pot by giving two promotes to the winner. And if I somehow get the most votes, then I'll give them to whomever comes in second place. I'll let AC decide when the contest ends, as this is her baby. I'm not the father.


Not the father?!? Please. You spawned this with Bonnie and you know it

I'll sweeten the pot by giving two *promotes to the winner. And if I somehow get the most votes, then I'll give them to whomever comes in second place. I'll let AC decide when the contest ends, as this is her baby. I'm not the father.

>> ^BansheeX:
Do you understand that in a libertarian society, it is illegal to infringe on a person's rights, whether you're a company or an individual? How do you interpret my post as wanting to let companies do ANYTHING they please?

Force of habit, I'm used to bumping heads with Republicans, and rarely do Libertarians preach about the need to restrict the power of corporations to infringe on people's individual rights. Most just talk about the tyranny of regulation, and often go so far as to debate the necessity of OSHA, USDA and even the FTC (which seems to have faded from existence in my lifetime).

"Economics" is too vague. There are many different branches, the dominant philosophy changes with time. Currently, it is neo-Keynesian, but that will change after its collapse. It matters not that 90% of current economics doctorates are in this manner of thinking. The Austrians were already proven right from the FIRST great depression, do we really need another one to figure out that the Federal Reserve is the equivalent of the benevolent dictator argument?

Not to lean too heavily on an appeal to authority, but are you saying there's something about Austria in the Great Depression that disproves the underpinnings of what 90% of economists believe? Shouldn't someone at Universities around the world be notified?

I'm just reacting to the insistence that there's something fundamentally flawed with liberal philosophy. Usually that "something flawed" is that "socialism doesn't work" or "the free market fixes everything" or some other nonsensical absolute assertion.

For example, you said I don't understand which powers of government are "justified" and which ones aren't. That's not true, we just have a different concept of what's justified.

You also questioned whether or not I'd go along with letting the government have and use a hypothetical mind control device -- and of course I'd be opposed to such a thing. I'm all for protecting individual rights, and limiting government's power over the individual, I just don't think free markets are always the best way to fulfill every need in society, merely most of them.

The market is millions of people making mutually agreeable transactions. The government is not the market, they're just suppose to protect people's property and settle disputes on a national and domestic level. And it isn't black and white anyway. For example, I disagree with fellow libertarians in that I want to keep the FDA for information, labelling, and enforcement of what constitutes terms like "organic" and "free range," but remove their ability to ban products. That power is currently used for collusive anti-competitive reasons. Go on wikipedia and look up Stevia for one example, the artificial sweetener lobby bribed officials to block its use in products because it was a natural, no-patent substitute to crap like "Aspartame" which would have cost them billions.

I agree on that issue, that there's abuse of the power that needs to stop, but I don't think the solution is to remove government power to ban products.

I'm not entirely sure what such a law would say, there are risks everywhere to everything.

That's easy: show a schedule of payments to potential purchasers, so they know what their obligations will be with regards to the loan.

There's differing opinions out there about who's at fault for the crisis, but part of the problem did start with predatory lending practices, motivated by the hunger for those mortgage backed securities.

Ultimately, though, their only loss will be their credit and the home they couldn't afford because they can walk away and leave their bank or lender with the unpaid loan and depreciating house. That's what the government is trying to bail out with honest taxpayer money.

Actually, since we're still under the auspices of the Bush administration, it's mostly going to help out banks who leveraged themselves to invest in mortgage backed securities. Regular people who got screwed by predatory lending are having to get by with the scraps the Democrats can attach to the legislation.

I know it's all socialism to you, but to me there's a vast difference in those things.

Instead of letting the chips fall where they may, we're trying to delay a necessary recession AGAIN with inflation. Prices want to come down from these artificial levels, and have those jobs reallocate to manufacturing exports because exports are the only thing a the weak dollar is good for.

I agree with the assessment of the current situation, it does seem like we're putting off the inevitable. I'm a cynic though, I think they want to make sure the next President gets the big market crash, and they're intentionally delaying things for that purpose, even at the risk of making that crash worse.

And it will be a replay of the FDR administration with Obama, but pretty effing bad under McCain [snip]

That's exactly how I see it too, and I couldn't be more happy at the thought of a new FDR-style administration, I just hope we don't have another Great Depression and World War to go with it.

Quite the discussion of economic philosophy, in the comments on a video of Obama talking about Republicans being pridefully ignorant on energy.

>> ^NetRunner:
^ I actually agree with you on most of the actions you're recommending, if not your total rejection of "socialism" (which you seem to define as "anything that restricts businesses from doing as they please")

No, I define socialism for what it is: any government which controls over 50% of its capital. We are extremely close to that and it's a major problem. Do you understand that in a libertarian society, it is illegal to infringe on a person's rights, whether you're a company or an individual? How do you interpret my post as wanting to let companies do ANYTHING they please? Gimme a break, companies in a truly free market are forced to follow the law and compete in a fair environment or be taken to court. The enablements of inflation, subsidies, and specialized tax breaks erode that fairness. Without that, companies would have only one legitimate way to make money: to convince you to buy their product over their competitor's. And to pay its workers by outbidding its competition and getting you to agree on a price. Oh, the horror! And not even the highest paid lawyers in the world can win cases on outright false advertising and malpractice.


>> ^NetRunner:
^There is always an implied (and in your case directly stated) belief that anyone who believes in regulating markets doesn't understand economics, and I heartily disagree. If that were the case, all PhD economists would all be endorsing the Libertarian party...and yet, they've got a political spectrum that leans left of the average populace.

"Economics" is too vague. There are many different branches, the dominant philosophy changes with time. Currently, it is neo-Keynesian, but that will change after its collapse. It matters not that 90% of current economics doctorates are in this manner of thinking. The Austrians were already proven right from the FIRST great depression, do we really need another one to figure out that the Federal Reserve is the equivalent of the benevolent dictator argument?

>> ^NetRunner:
^My favorite "market regulation" is a ban on slavery. If you follow the Libertarian/market fundamentalist argument -- slavery should be legal. People should be able to sell themselves into permanent servitude, and then be resold by their owners.

I don't think that's going to fly, because no one would know if you were voluntarily doing it or somehow coerced or tricked into doing it. But fundamentally, you're right, people own their own bodies, and that means they are free to inflict themselves with drugs, kill themselves, whatever. If our technology comes to a point where the government is capable of manipulating your body into not doing something with some kind of field under the pretense of protecting you, will you allow them this ability? Or are you smart enough to realize that the power will be abused and incur ultimate costs far greater than the benefits?

>> ^NetRunner
Fraud should also be legalized -- if I'm smart enough to dupe a person or corporation out of their money, I should get to keep it.

Wrong, misrepresentation or not honoring a verbal or contractual agreement is the equivalent of theft. The transaction is not complete until both parties receive what they contractually agreed upon. If some person in Negeria tells you you won a prize and you pay them the collection fee, and they give you no prize, that is an unlawful appropriation of property and an infringement of rights. Not a freely acceptable activity under a libertarian free market, because the federal government has legitimate duties to protect people from infringements of rights and offer a means of recourse through the courts. See, this is the problem. You don't even understand the few government powers that ARE justified, you're so wrapped up in its "regulatory" extensions!

>> ^NetRunner:
^Violent intimidation should also be legalized. If my competitors think they can open a store in my neighborhood, they better be able to protect it from my guys burning it down.

Ummm, arson is destruction property you don't own. Rights derive from property, if you don't own it, you can't take or break it with impunity in a system that protects from such infringements.

>> ^NetRunnerAfter all, only a socialist would think we should interfere with the free market.

The market is millions of people making mutually agreeable transactions. The government is not the market, they're just suppose to protect people's property and settle disputes on a national and domestic level. And it isn't black and white anyway. For example, I disagree with fellow libertarians in that I want to keep the FDA for information, labelling, and enforcement of what constitutes terms like "organic" and "free range," but remove their ability to ban products. That power is currently used for collusive anti-competitive reasons. Go on wikipedia and look up Stevia for one example, the artificial sweetener lobby bribed officials to block its use in products because it was a natural, no-patent substitute to crap like "Aspartame" which would have cost them billions.

>> ^NetRunnerThose sound silly, but they're along your line of thinking. When us "socialists" talk about regulating the mortgage market, most of us are thinking that the law should require lending companies be upfront about the risks and costs involved in loans to the customer. It shouldn't be "caveat emptor" at all times, and buying a home shouldn't mean you need to hire a lawyer, just to hear the truth about what your obligations will be.


I'm not entirely sure what such a law would say, there are risks everywhere to everything. You can't slam your finger in the car door and sue the automaker for not explaining the risks of doors to you. Likewise, if you are speculating on home appreciation and taking a non-standard loan, I have ZERO sympathy for you if you didn't read the paperwork and ask questions beforehand. Many of these people lied about their incomes to get mortgages on homes they knew they couldn't afford, but thought would pay for themselves.

Ultimately, though, their only loss will be their credit and the home they couldn't afford because they can walk away and leave their bank or lender with the unpaid loan and depreciating house. That's what the government is trying to bail out with honest taxpayer money. Instead of letting the chips fall where they may, we're trying to delay a necessary recession AGAIN with inflation. Prices want to come down from these artificial levels, and have those jobs reallocate to manufacturing exports because exports are the only thing a the weak dollar is good for. Yes, that's a painful process, just like a junkie from a high, but you have to come down from it, not shoot up with more heroin until you kill the dollar.See, that's the market's automatic way of healing itself. BUT IT ISN'T BEING ALLOWED TO HAPPEN. We're getting more intervention, full of moral hazard from socialized losses and a systemic destruction of natural deterrents (why would I keep saving prudently if I lose and a speculator wins? Why would banks stop being taking risks if the government will always spare them true consequence?).

But tell me, how many politicians are going to win an election saying that pain is necessary? Zero. They're going to play to people's ignorance and gravy train optimism and propose an easy government solution. And it will be a replay of the FDR administration with Obama, but pretty effing bad under McCain as well.

And I just want to say thank god that you didn't know any myths about gold, because I'm tired of writing today, but I see jwray made up for that. *sigh*

I've always cheated, making this with plain rice and topping it with condensed milk to sweeten.