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.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)