When is a Peanut Butter cookie, not Peanut Butter? And when is an Oatmeal Chocolate Chip cookie not?
When you use a new recipe!
We had an oatmeal cookie recipe, but were not happy with it. Oftimes, when we used it, we had to add more oatmeal or more flour because the mix was too wet and sticky. It would taste like flour.
So today I used a recipe I downloaded from Cooks.com (I recommend the site). I've pasted the recipe below.
The issue here is that they don't taste like oatmeal cookies. They taste more like peanut butter cookies. So much so, I was afraid I would get indigestion from sampling them (I have issues with peanut butter).
For those trying the recipe be advised that while I doubled the recipe, I only used half the oatmeal called for, with a 12 oz. bag of chocolate chips. And don't try using beaters with this - you'll likely burn them out. It's a very stiff mix.
QUAKER'S BEST OATMEAL COOKIES
3/4 c. firmly packed brown sugar 1/2 c. granulated sugar
1 egg 1 stick butter 1 tsp. vanilla
1 1/2 c. all purpose flour 1 tsp. baking soda 1 tsp. salt (opt.)
3 c. Quaker Oats (quick or old fashioned, uncooked)
Preheat oven to 375 degrees.
Beat together butter and sugars until light and fluffy. Beat in egg and vanilla. Combine flour, baking soda, salt and spices; add to butter mixture, mixing well. Stir in oats. Drop by rounded tablespoonfuls onto ungreased cookie sheet. Bake 8 to 9 minutes for a chewy cookie, 10 to 11 minutes for a crisp cookie. Cool 1 minute on cookie sheet; remove to wire cooling rack. Store in tightly covered container. 4 1/2 dozen.
OATMEAL COOKIE SQUARES: Press dough onto bottom of ungreased 13"x9" pan. Bake about 25 minutes or until light golden brown. Cool completely; cut into 1 1/2" squares. Store in tightly covered container. 4 dozen.
VARIATIONS: Add any one or combination of two of the following ingredients, if desired: 1 cup raisins, chopped nuts, or semi sweet chocolate, butterscotch or peanut butter flavored pieces.
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Sunday, September 6, 2009
Let it Flood!
I found an interesting map today that I found intriguing. It is a map showing the possible loss of land that a sea level rise could cause. Running from zero to 14 meters (about 46 feet, a meter is 39 1/3 inches long). I found that by zooming in, I could follow the extent of flooding.
To my surprise, A great majority of the United States would not be affected. Some major shipping ports would be inundated, but many of these locations already have buffers against storm surge, so the actual effects would be minimized. Some coastal cities would be covered.
But what caught my interest especially is the number of areas, mainly pleasure resorts of the rich and famous, that would be lost.
Goodbye, Martha's Vinyard. The Kennedy's would have to find a new compound. Bye-bye, Southern Florida. No more hanging chads in Palm Beach, since there would be no Palm Beach, west or otherwise.
Goodbye, New Orleans; in fact, much of lower Louisiana and quite a bit of the Gulf Coast. And while South-east Houston would be covered, most would survive.
And last, but most significant, quite a bit of San Francisco would be soggy. Enough, perhaps, to drop the population there below the magic 200,000 number, which would eliminate Nancy Pelosi's 8th District.
So, while in general I think a rise in sea levels should be avoided, this last convinces me that there is indeed cause for hope and change. After all, as some scientists like to tell us, it was only after the disappearance of the big dinosaurs that the little people - I mean mammals - thrived.
Time to add some carbon to the atmosphere!
http://flood.firetree.net/
To my surprise, A great majority of the United States would not be affected. Some major shipping ports would be inundated, but many of these locations already have buffers against storm surge, so the actual effects would be minimized. Some coastal cities would be covered.
But what caught my interest especially is the number of areas, mainly pleasure resorts of the rich and famous, that would be lost.
Goodbye, Martha's Vinyard. The Kennedy's would have to find a new compound. Bye-bye, Southern Florida. No more hanging chads in Palm Beach, since there would be no Palm Beach, west or otherwise.
Goodbye, New Orleans; in fact, much of lower Louisiana and quite a bit of the Gulf Coast. And while South-east Houston would be covered, most would survive.
And last, but most significant, quite a bit of San Francisco would be soggy. Enough, perhaps, to drop the population there below the magic 200,000 number, which would eliminate Nancy Pelosi's 8th District.
So, while in general I think a rise in sea levels should be avoided, this last convinces me that there is indeed cause for hope and change. After all, as some scientists like to tell us, it was only after the disappearance of the big dinosaurs that the little people - I mean mammals - thrived.
Time to add some carbon to the atmosphere!
http://flood.firetree.net/
Saturday, September 5, 2009
True cause (but little known) of American Conflict
Most people don't realize it, but grits is what caused the the war between the states. Southern states tried exporting hominy grits (you know, it's bleached with sulfuric acid?) and once the northern states had ONE TASTE, they banned importation of it.
Well, southern states persisted, even going so far as to smuggle grits in bales of cotton. It soon became a shoving match, with one side trying to make more outrageous claims over the other side. States Rights entered the argument, with southern states claiming they had a right, under the Constitution to sell grits to everyone, and northern states, under the auspices of the federal government, claiming the Protect and Defend clauses. Somehow slavery got in (maybe because that what the poor unfortunates were fed? explains a lot of their politics, now!) and from that point there was no return to sanity.
Even today it threatens to split families (my OWN SON claims to like them!) and I foresee another outbreak in the near future
Some politicians, notably democrats, are claiming grits are good for you (an undisclosed part of the Health Care debate that leaked out). That is bound to get a lot of people stirred up. Already there has been a lot of angry denouncements at Town Hall meetings.
So for the cause of Liberty and freedom, avoid the topic of Grits. Like politics and religion (and this can claim both) some topics should be avoided for peace in the community.
Well, southern states persisted, even going so far as to smuggle grits in bales of cotton. It soon became a shoving match, with one side trying to make more outrageous claims over the other side. States Rights entered the argument, with southern states claiming they had a right, under the Constitution to sell grits to everyone, and northern states, under the auspices of the federal government, claiming the Protect and Defend clauses. Somehow slavery got in (maybe because that what the poor unfortunates were fed? explains a lot of their politics, now!) and from that point there was no return to sanity.
Even today it threatens to split families (my OWN SON claims to like them!) and I foresee another outbreak in the near future
Some politicians, notably democrats, are claiming grits are good for you (an undisclosed part of the Health Care debate that leaked out). That is bound to get a lot of people stirred up. Already there has been a lot of angry denouncements at Town Hall meetings.
So for the cause of Liberty and freedom, avoid the topic of Grits. Like politics and religion (and this can claim both) some topics should be avoided for peace in the community.
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Did Anyone Bother Asking?
There’s a lot of flack going on now about healthcare, with one side saying that government intervention will be the DOOM OF HEALTHCARE, and the other side saying it will be the SAVIOR OF OUR HEALTH. Lots of soundbites, lots of talking heads. But there is one fact among all the rhetoric that stands out.
No one - neither side - bothered to ask me (or, dare I say it, YOU?) my opinion.
All right, assuming there is a problem, what would the solution be? (You have to assume a problem first before solving it. This does not mean there actually is a problem.)
For the sake of the argument, if there is a problem, then it means that there is health care for a chosen group, some are denied, and some have to pay too much for too little. With no rhetoric, lets look at the issues.
–only for a chosen group. This is true. Every insurance company providing health coverage does so for groups that meet their criteria. This is called free enterprise, niche marketing, and so on. They offer a product for a certain demographic, you are free to chose or reject the product. If they can’t make money on the product, they change the items offered. Again, you can accept or reject. And yes, it costs money. They are wanting to make a profit - nothing wrong with that.
– some are denied. This goes back to the chosen group concept. If a company wants to provide health insurance for coal miners between the ages of 18 and 48, they can do so, so long as they provide equal coverage to all in that group. If you are 17 or 49, sorry, you don’t fit that group. But I’m sure they have policies to fit you, as well.
– some have to pay too much for too little. True. Insurers, like every other commercial business, work on the law of averages. Every one. If you own a hardware store, your average is that a certain number of people will enter your store and buy your product. For an insurer, they aim for the highest profit group, consistent with federal laws governing their business. The highest profit group also means the greatest number of clients willing to purchase their product. They will sell to others, but the terms have to be different. Otherwise a law of nature comes into play: they go broke.
So, understanding this, what can we agree on (were we asked!) as a solution. Well, here’s my list.
Tort Reform - if a doctor or hospital screws up, they should make suitable amends. If they are clearly negligent, they should pay for the impact their incompetence caused their patients. But should they be responsible if the patient is incompetent to understand their clear instructions? I don’t think so. As it is, most doctors practice in fear that some disgruntled patient is going to hit them with a suit. What happened to "I’m sorry; let me make that up to you"? If my doctor is treating me for a condition, and makes an honest mistake, not from negligence, I am more concerned that he make it right. Why bother the courts if reasonable people can arrive at a reasonable solution. My mechanic does this; why shouldn’t my doctor.
Indigent Health Care - first let’s define indigent. I DON’T define it as anyone not covered with health care regardless of ability to pay or national origin. If a person is breaking the laws of my land and needs to see a doctor, I am not responsible to pay for them. "But they are poor!" So am I. No one pays for my care except me. "We should take care of those less fortunate!" Go ahead - with your own money, not mine. I chose to whom I donate time and money. My acts of charity are ultimately known to two people - me, and my God. Even my wife need not know, unless it is a gift we both provide. I don’t mind helping people out, and have done so in the past. But, I repeat, it is my choice. It should not be forced on me by the government. If it is, it’s not charity, but taxation.
Care of Uninsurable Conditions - here’s a crux. If an insurance company specifically excludes a condition, it should be easily found in their policies. Often it isn’t, or is buried in a pile of legal terminology. It should be clearly stated. I happen to believe that if a company is going to provide health insurance, it should provide coverage for some of the diseases and conditions they exclude. Often, it’s a matter that a treatment is available, but it is expensive. Well, that’s why they were investing the premiums of millions of people - to cover losses. If it is not a crime, it is at least morally deplorable to allow someone to suffer and maybe die because the insurer doesn’t want to pay. This is not right, never mind legal. If an insurer opts to provide coverage after a certain length of time, this is fine, but to deny a claim despite years of premium collections is reprehensible.
So, if the government want to work on health care tort reform, increase tax write-offs for charitable giving, and require insurers to allow for patients with greater health care needs, I’m for it.
Not that they are likely to ask me!
No one - neither side - bothered to ask me (or, dare I say it, YOU?) my opinion.
All right, assuming there is a problem, what would the solution be? (You have to assume a problem first before solving it. This does not mean there actually is a problem.)
For the sake of the argument, if there is a problem, then it means that there is health care for a chosen group, some are denied, and some have to pay too much for too little. With no rhetoric, lets look at the issues.
–only for a chosen group. This is true. Every insurance company providing health coverage does so for groups that meet their criteria. This is called free enterprise, niche marketing, and so on. They offer a product for a certain demographic, you are free to chose or reject the product. If they can’t make money on the product, they change the items offered. Again, you can accept or reject. And yes, it costs money. They are wanting to make a profit - nothing wrong with that.
– some are denied. This goes back to the chosen group concept. If a company wants to provide health insurance for coal miners between the ages of 18 and 48, they can do so, so long as they provide equal coverage to all in that group. If you are 17 or 49, sorry, you don’t fit that group. But I’m sure they have policies to fit you, as well.
– some have to pay too much for too little. True. Insurers, like every other commercial business, work on the law of averages. Every one. If you own a hardware store, your average is that a certain number of people will enter your store and buy your product. For an insurer, they aim for the highest profit group, consistent with federal laws governing their business. The highest profit group also means the greatest number of clients willing to purchase their product. They will sell to others, but the terms have to be different. Otherwise a law of nature comes into play: they go broke.
So, understanding this, what can we agree on (were we asked!) as a solution. Well, here’s my list.
Tort Reform - if a doctor or hospital screws up, they should make suitable amends. If they are clearly negligent, they should pay for the impact their incompetence caused their patients. But should they be responsible if the patient is incompetent to understand their clear instructions? I don’t think so. As it is, most doctors practice in fear that some disgruntled patient is going to hit them with a suit. What happened to "I’m sorry; let me make that up to you"? If my doctor is treating me for a condition, and makes an honest mistake, not from negligence, I am more concerned that he make it right. Why bother the courts if reasonable people can arrive at a reasonable solution. My mechanic does this; why shouldn’t my doctor.
Indigent Health Care - first let’s define indigent. I DON’T define it as anyone not covered with health care regardless of ability to pay or national origin. If a person is breaking the laws of my land and needs to see a doctor, I am not responsible to pay for them. "But they are poor!" So am I. No one pays for my care except me. "We should take care of those less fortunate!" Go ahead - with your own money, not mine. I chose to whom I donate time and money. My acts of charity are ultimately known to two people - me, and my God. Even my wife need not know, unless it is a gift we both provide. I don’t mind helping people out, and have done so in the past. But, I repeat, it is my choice. It should not be forced on me by the government. If it is, it’s not charity, but taxation.
Care of Uninsurable Conditions - here’s a crux. If an insurance company specifically excludes a condition, it should be easily found in their policies. Often it isn’t, or is buried in a pile of legal terminology. It should be clearly stated. I happen to believe that if a company is going to provide health insurance, it should provide coverage for some of the diseases and conditions they exclude. Often, it’s a matter that a treatment is available, but it is expensive. Well, that’s why they were investing the premiums of millions of people - to cover losses. If it is not a crime, it is at least morally deplorable to allow someone to suffer and maybe die because the insurer doesn’t want to pay. This is not right, never mind legal. If an insurer opts to provide coverage after a certain length of time, this is fine, but to deny a claim despite years of premium collections is reprehensible.
So, if the government want to work on health care tort reform, increase tax write-offs for charitable giving, and require insurers to allow for patients with greater health care needs, I’m for it.
Not that they are likely to ask me!
Saturday, August 15, 2009
Dreams and Realities
A young friend recently posted that perhaps her dreams were unrealistic, that she should forget about them. I demurred.
Dreams, I said, help define who we are as a person. Our dreams may be lofty, or they may be immediate, but to some degree we are who we are because of the dreams of our heart. Most people may not find a way to work out their dreams, but that does not negate their importance.
It was a dream that pushed Christopher Columbus to seek a shorter route to the spicelands of the East. That dream failed to materialize, but can we not honestly say that the reality that resulted far surpassed an immediate, economic goal?
It was a dream that pushed folks forward into a rough and untamed land, leaving their comfortable homes and loved ones in order to find a better life. Many died in the quest, but that does not diminish their dreams.
Men and women have died because they had a dream of reaching the stars. Progress can be deadly at times, but the gains made are many. Much we take advantage of today are the result of pushing the shadows farther back, in order to capture a dream.
So what's in a dream? It is a goal, ever before us, that nonetheless pushes us forward. So embrace your dream, whatever it is. Make it your reality!
Dreams, I said, help define who we are as a person. Our dreams may be lofty, or they may be immediate, but to some degree we are who we are because of the dreams of our heart. Most people may not find a way to work out their dreams, but that does not negate their importance.
It was a dream that pushed Christopher Columbus to seek a shorter route to the spicelands of the East. That dream failed to materialize, but can we not honestly say that the reality that resulted far surpassed an immediate, economic goal?
It was a dream that pushed folks forward into a rough and untamed land, leaving their comfortable homes and loved ones in order to find a better life. Many died in the quest, but that does not diminish their dreams.
Men and women have died because they had a dream of reaching the stars. Progress can be deadly at times, but the gains made are many. Much we take advantage of today are the result of pushing the shadows farther back, in order to capture a dream.
So what's in a dream? It is a goal, ever before us, that nonetheless pushes us forward. So embrace your dream, whatever it is. Make it your reality!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)