What pop song has the creepiest lyrics?
This question comes from a conversation Petulant and I were having earlier. He'd noticed that the song lyrics to "Baby, It's Cold Outside" are like an ode to a date rape, and I sent him the lyrics to "Young Girl" by Gary Puckett and the Union Gap, which is totally the creepiest date/statutory rape song of all time:
Young girl, get out of my mind / My love for you is way out of line / Better run, girl / You're much too young, girl / With all the charms of a woman / You've kept the secret of your youth / You led me to believe /You're old enough /To give me Love / And now it hurts to know the truth, oh / Beneath your perfume and make-up / You're just a baby in disguise / And though you know / That it is wrong to be / Alone with me / That come on look is in your eyes, oh / So hurry home to your mama / I'm sure she wonders where you are / Get out of here / Before I have the time / To change my mind / 'Cause I'm afraid we'll go too far, oh / Young girl…
Gross!!!
Runner-Up: The Police's "Every Breath You Take," aka The Stalker Anthem.
Question of the Day
Things That Amuse Me
When a blogger, whose use of "cunt" as an insult I recently used as an example in a piece about misogynistic language, posts a graphic that's totally meant to put me in my place for my sanctimonious demagoguery (i.e. explaining that misogynistic language is alienating and rude), but misspells the word "misogynistic."
The correct spelling is, of course, misogynistic—mis being from the Greek mīsein, to hate, and gyn being from the Greek gunē, woman.
Carry on.
What Men Can Do
Day Four.
One of the questions I'm most frequently asked by feminist (or pro-feminist) men is what they can do, aside from just not being violent toward women themselves, to help stop violence against women—so this post is for you.
And it's for me, and every other woman, because we need you. See, the thing about men who are violent toward women is that they don't respect women, or what they have to say, or even their basic rights—and when you consider that the responsibility for preventing violence against women has traditionally been left to women, you start to see the problem. We need other men to communicate to them loudly and clearly and constantly that violence against women is totally unacceptable. We need male allies, just like the LGBTQ community needs straight allies, just like people of color need white allies.
Back in July, Kevin (via Donna Darko) posted a list of 10 Things Men Can Do To End Men's Violence Against Women, from the site A Call To Men—and this list is a really good place to start.
1. Acknowledge and understand how sexism, male dominance and male privilege lay the foundation for all forms of violence against women.
2. Examine and challenge our individual sexism and the role that we play in supporting men who are abusive.
3. Recognize and stop colluding with other men by getting out of our socially defined roles, and take a stance to end violence against women.
4. Remember that our silence is affirming. When we choose not to speak out against men's violence, we are supporting it.
5. Educate and re-educate our sons and other young men about our responsibility in ending men's violence against women.
6."Break out of the man box"—Challenge traditional images of manhood that stop us from actively taking a stand to end violence against women.
7. Accept and own our responsibility that violence against women will not end until men become part of the solution to end it. We must take an active role in creating a cultural and social shift that no longer tolerates violence against women.
8. Stop supporting the notion that men's violence against women can end by providing treatment for individual men. Mental illness, lack of anger management skills, chemical dependency, stress, etc… are only excuses for men's behavior. Violence against women is rooted in the historic oppression of women and the outgrowth of the socialization of men.
9. Take responsibility for creating appropriate and effective ways to develop systems to educate and hold men accountable.
10. Create systems of accountability to women in your community. Violence against women will end only when we take direction from those who understand it most—women.
(I will warn you that becoming an ally in this way may prompt misogynists to accuse you of peeing sitting down—but I promise you'll get used to it.)
The list really does make some great suggestions, most of which boil down to simply becoming a man who actively thinks about this stuff, even though it sometimes feels like there's nothing you can do. Trust me when I say the world is (sadly) filled with people who will give you opportunities to speak up, the chance to make a difference.
It's not easy to be a feminist ally, but, then again, it's not supposed to be—and it just isn't. Stephen McArthur:Every 15 seconds in America, a man beats his wife or girlfriend. Every 45 seconds, a man rapes a woman or girl, most often one he knows -- a wife, a girlfriend, a co-worker, or a family member.
As I've said before, the very thought of it gives me shivers. How wouldn't things change?! From the shame associated with being a victim of sexual or domestic abuse to how such victims are treated by the police and the legal system, everything would be different. We wouldn’t be talking about the ubiquitous straw-woman who invented an assault in a petty act of revenge, but the very real women, millions upon millions of them, who have been attacked—and we’d be talking about their attackers. Suddenly, the onus to avoid abuse would not be exclusively placed on women, creating a belief that violence against women preventable by its victims. Wow.
…Women have led the way in America working to bring the issue of violence against women to the attention of our media, our community organizations, our governments, our schools, and our religious institutions. The time has come for men to stop being bystanders.
Most men in this country are not violent, most do not beat their wives and girlfriends. Despite that fact, domestic violence is really a gender issue. Men commit 90 to 95 percent of domestic violence acts. I think most men instinctively know this is true, but most men find it really hard to talk about it, think about it, or much less do anything about it. Some men believe that because he is not violent or it's not happening in his family, he needn't do anything. Some men believe it is a "woman's" issue, so he can really ignore it. Some men can't imagine talking about this issue with other men, some of whom he might suspect are abusing women in their lives.
Let's face it. This is an embarrasing issue for men. It's much easier for us to simply let women try to take care of this problem. It's really hard for most men to admit that this is our problem. Violence against women is men's violence. Can we find a way to help men own this problem and work together to solve it? How can we end the pervasive silence? How can we help our communities get past the attitude that this happens someplace else, certainly not where we live?
Given the prevalence of male violence against women, why has this not been a very public men's issue. Isn't it really in men's self-interest to address gender violence? Don't most of us really care about the women and girls in our lives?
Most men have a woman or girl in his life who has been a victim of male violence, a mother who was beaten, a co-worker who was abused, a sister or daughter who was raped or killed, a friend whose daughter was attacked, a friend whose wife was battered in a previous marriage. How would things change if our male governmental leaders, our male religious leaders, our male media leaders, our male teachers, our male business leaders, all of us began to speak out, identify male violence around them, and begin working to end it?
Men's involvement will and does make a difference, and there's a lot that men can do to help stop violence against women—even and especially the men who would never commit violence against women in the first place.
To wrap up, I'll quickly just make two other suggestions to men who want to help end violence against women:
1. If you're a blogger, blog about the 16 Days of Action. Blog the list of 10 Things Men Can Do To End Men's Violence Against Women. Link to the women who are blogging about it.
2. Donate. Donate to organizations that support victims of domestic violence and sexual assault, and to organizations that advocate against abuse. Donate to the female bloggers who write about it. It doesn't have to be money you donate; you can donate your time and talent, too.
--------------------
NOTE: This thread is for feminists and feminist allies. If your comment is about how not being violent is enough and you resent the implication that silence and inaction = tacit support of violence against women, don't bother. That is not the position of this blog. If your comment is that anything recognizing violence against women specifically is sexist, don't bother. That is not the position of this blog. This thread is to discuss positive action men can take to stop violence against women. Period.
The More Things Change
Yet another candidate is the darling of the media. This time it's Mike Huckabee who's all over the airwaves and the pixels because ... well, it's his turn, I guess, and the pundits have already had their fascination with Mitt, Rudy, and Fred. (John McCain is so 2000.) Hendrik Hertzberg of The New Yorker takes a look.
Huckabee. Funny, improbable name; funny, improbable candidate. How funny? Well, have a look at the first Huckabee for President campaign commercial, aired last week in Iowa and now ubiquitous on the Web. In it, the former governor of Arkansas trades straight-faced non sequiturs with Chuck Norris, the B-list action star. (Norris: “Mike Huckabee wants to put the I.R.S. out of business.” Huckabee: “When Chuck Norris does a pushup, he isn’t lifting himself up, he’s pushing the earth down.”) It’s an unusually entertaining spot—or, rather, meta-spot, the subtext of which is its own absurdity and, by extension, that of the whole genre.We're hearing a lot of talk about the election of 2008 being a "change" election, as if that makes it somehow different than every other election in the past. The idea, I suppose, is that the choice is between "stay the course" and "change," but since everybody -- in both parties -- seems to agree that sticking with the policies of the current administration would be a disaster, the alternative has to be "change." I can't argue with much of that; but ironically, the candidates, especially the Republicans, don't seem to represent much of a change. All of them pretty much represent the spectrum of the modern GOP; white, rich, anti-abortion, indifferent or hostile to gay rights, and completely sold on the idea that scaring the populace with warnings of invasions of brown-skinned people, be they Mexicans or Arabs, is the easiest way to win the election. And they all seem to be saying, "I'm not George W. Bush, but I stand for just about everything he does." Some change.
How improbable? Well, up until the tail end of the summer, polls had Huckabee’s support for the Republican nomination hovering between zero and three per cent, usually closer to zero. In October, he broke into a trot, in November into a Gallup. In a poll released on Thanksgiving eve by Reuters/Zogby, he is in third place, at eleven per cent, nosing past not only John McCain but also Mitt Romney and narrowing the gap with the fading Fred Thompson to four points. In Iowa, where actual voting will occur on January 3rd, he has surged into what is essentially a tie with Romney for first place.
Huckabee, who at fifty-one is the youngest Republican running, spent half of his adult life as a Southern Baptist minister. Most of his support, so far, comes from the Evangelical Christian right. Yet to those who are not in that category his affect is curiously unthreatening. “I’m a conservative, but I’m not mad at anybody,” he likes to say. His manner and appearance are reassuringly ordinary. When he smiles or laughs, which is often, his dimpled face looks interestingly like that of Wallace, of Wallace & Gromit.
[...]
To all appearances, Huckabee’s gentle rhetoric is a reflection of temperament, not a stylistic tactic. Arkansans caution that he is capable of churlishness. But his history suggests that he prefers consensus to confrontation, that he regards government as a tool for social betterment, and that he has little taste for war, cultural or otherwise. He seems to regard liberalism not as a moral evil, a mental disease, or a character flaw—merely as a political point of view he mostly disagrees with. That may not seem like much, but it makes a nice change. If talk radio hears about it, though, it might be enough to keep him from the top of the ticket.
The Democrats, as Bob Herbert pointed out, don't seem to be much more different than the Republicans when it comes to really making a change. Very few of them are willing to take a stand that represents a monumental shift from the platforms that elected Bill Clinton in 1992 and that which Al Gore ran on in 2000. Perhaps they're counting on the fact that more people voted for those candidates than their opponents (despite the unfortunate outcome for Mr. Gore), but once again, there's nothing that shows a marked departure from the policies of the past. Yes, Barack Obama is the first African-American with a real chance at the nomination, and Hillary Clinton is the first woman, but both candidates have been going to great lengths to discount those qualities as being relevant in the election. (By doing so, that's like saying "don't think about elephants for the next ten minutes." Guess what...you think about nothing else.) The only candidates who are talking about real change -- radical, breathtaking, rafter-shaking change -- are the ones like Mike Gravel and Ron Paul who stand no chance whatsoever of winning the nomination but are there by the grace of nature to provide us with a contrast to the rest of the field and give their fellow candidates someone to point to and say, "Hey, I'm not that guy."
Calling the election of 2008 a "change" election by the pundits isn't much different than the candidate on the stump who tells the crowd that "this election is the most important one in the history of the nation." (Of course it is...to the candidate. Otherwise, why the hell pay attention to him?) But no one on either side has truly told us what the "change" will actually entail...or why we actually need it. We Americans have been remarkably "stay the course" voters for the last few generations, and the changes that have been made in the direction of the country, especially in the last century, have all been from forces outside the various presidential administrations, and the changes those administrations wrought were in response to those outside forces. By most reckonings, the current administration has responded poorly or not at all to the outside forces that have been coming at us. It is in recognizing those failings that we need to find leaders who will provide us with more than just the rhetoric of change but the preparation for the responses to the changes that will be forced upon us.
As John F. Kennedy said in his inaugural address, each generation is tested in some way; the growing pains of a new nation, civil war, the excesses of corporate greed, the dying throes of European imperialism, economic depression, fascism, the nuclear race, or religious zealotry. How we respond tells the world and posterity how much we have grown -- or have not.
Cross-posted from Bark Bark Woof Woof.
Quote of the Day
"The things that I can survive, if it were necessary to do them to me, I would do."—Former Attorney General John Ashcroft, asked whether he would be willing to subject himself to waterboarding.
Any takers?
GOP Voters Forced to Learn Secret Handshake
A couple of days ago, the Virginia Republican Party raised the bar in asshattery. In a move that reeks of desperation, they are forcing people who vote in the GOP primary to sign an oath of loyalty to the party for the upcoming presidential election:
The State Board of Elections on Monday approved a state Republican Party request to require all who apply for a GOP primary ballot first vow in writing that they'll vote for the party's presidential nominee next fall.As Steve Benen recalls, this is not exactly an isolated incident. Funny how we only hear of Republicans embracing this kind of concept, isn't it? I'm just having a hard time reconciling the amount of time wasted by the Virginia state election board in looking this request over. They must really not have anything else to do. And then approving? ASSHATTERY. I'm almost tempted to move to Virginia for the sole purpose of signing the oath and then using it as an ass rag right before I vote against party lines, just to see what the oath police do. If there are any Shakers in Virginia, please let us know if you get oath samples in the mail with fine print that says "No Backsies!" That would be a keeper.
While it would be easy to go in another direction about how swearing fealty to the Party is quite the scary concept, I think we can have more fun with this in a Match Game kind of way:
To that end, I agree, without hesitation, to vote for the Republican nominee in the next presidential election.
As part of this oath of loyalty, I fully understand that I am obligated to _________.
Here are some possibilities to get you started:
1. Learn the secret handshake
2. Laugh and shoot milk through my nose
3. Come to meetings dressed as Spongebob Squarepants
Have at it, Shakers!
WTF Dennis?
You know, for a long time, I gave Dennis Kucinich the benefit of the doubt. When people accused him of just being a goofy, pointless, time-wasting vanity candidate, I defended him. He's earnest, I said. Well, no more.
That he would seriously consider for one second sharing a ticket with Ron Paul—the same Ron Paul who isn't even pro-choice and refused Medicaid and Medicare payments at his private practice because he's so against government-sponsored healthcare—is laughable, and he's lost me well and truly.
Blog Reader Survey
Hey, Shakers. When you've got a moment, help the Blog Reader Project by taking the Blog Reader Project survey. The more of us who take it, the more we'll know about our community, so check it out!
If CNN thought Angie Tucker mattered...
...then you might expect to see a story like this:
But CNN doesn't.
So you don't.
("CNN" text from actual Tulsa World article by Nicole Marshall. Thanks to Shark-fu for her post "Black and Missing..." . This entry is cross-posted.)
Bloch Head Revisited
Back in April, it was announced that the Office of Special Counsel—a federal investigative unit meant to monitor federal employees, which typically investigates whistleblower cases, discrimination complaints, Hatch Act violations, and the like—would begin investigations on the U.S. attorney firings and other political activities led by Karl Rove. The investigations were to be led by Bush-appointee Scott J. Bloch, head of OSC. At the time, I was not impressed:
The Times calls this "the latest evidence that Rove's once-vaunted operations inside the government, which helped the GOP hold the White House and Congress for six years, now threaten to mire the administration in investigations." Well, maybe so. But that name, Scott Bloch, rang a bell…and, sure enough, nearly two years ago, I blogged about Mr. Bloch, a Bush appointee who had, at the time, found himself smack in the middle of a controversy not totally dissimilar from the U.S. attorney issue he' now to investigate.Well, guess what?
…[I]t was quite evident that Bloch had turned the OSC into just another political arm of the Bush White House-and while they claimed to be supportive of the long-standing policy against discriminating against gays, and supportive of whistleblower statutes, Bloch was busily cooking up excuses for not adhering to the nondiscrimination policy and wantonly dismissing complaints. … Suffice it to say, I'm going to take a wait-and-see approach about whether this investigation is designed to put heat on the White House, or take it off.
Head of Rove Inquiry in Hot Seat Himself. Huh. No one could have predicted a cronied-up Bushie would behave unethically.
Except anyone paying the slightest bit of attention, of course.
Recently, investigators learned that Mr. Bloch erased all the files on his office personal computer late last year. They are now trying to determine whether the deletions were improper or part of a cover-up, lawyers close to the case said.Unbelievable. Or, it would be, if it weren't so totally, infuriatingly believable.
Bypassing his agency's computer technicians, Mr. Bloch phoned 1-800-905-GEEKS for Geeks on Call, the mobile PC-help service. It dispatched a technician in one of its signature PT Cruiser wagons. In an interview, the 49-year-old former labor-law litigator from Lawrence, Kan., confirmed that he contacted Geeks on Call but said he was trying to eradicate a virus that had seized control of his computer.
…Mr. Bloch had his computer's hard disk completely cleansed using a "seven-level" wipe: a thorough scrubbing that conforms to Defense Department data-security standards. The process makes it nearly impossible for forensics experts to restore the data later. He also directed Geeks on Call to erase laptop computers that had been used by his two top political deputies, who had recently left the agency.
I'm certain you'll be shocked—shocked, I say!—to hear that the manager of the D.C. Geeks on Call franchise said that seven-level wipes aren't done to eradicate viruses.
Myrtle—one mint julip, STAT!
Over at TPM, Paul Kiel notes:
The punchline to all this is that even if Bloch were a paragon of integrity, his investigations of administration wrongdoing would be nearly pointless. For instance, Bloch launched an investigation of General Services Administration chief Lurita Doan after she asked her fellow employees "How can we help our candidates?" The comments had come after a political briefing by Karl Rove's aide. Bloch's investigation concluded that Doan should be fired. But that was in June. Bloch made his recommendation to the White House, which has done nothing since. And as for Bloch's wide-ranging probe of Karl Rove's political briefings to federal officials throughout the government? Don't count on any results. It's enough to make a man cynical.Indeed.
Two-Minute Nostalgia Sublime
This series ran in 1985. I don't really remember it, but it seems to be a cartoon version of the '60s film It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World.
Question of the Day
What is the worst single from the 1980's?
There really are tons from which to choose—oy, what a decade! I could go for something obvious like Dire Straits' "Money for Nothing," but instead I'm going to nominate Berlin's interminable "Take My Breath Away" otherwise known as the "love theme" from Top Gun.
That song really and truly does make me want to barf. I'd sooner listen to "Danger Zone" on a loop for 20 minutes than sit through the entirety of "Take My Breath Away" once.
Whiskey. Tango. Foxtrot.
Hillary says that as soon as she's elected, she'll be asking "both Democratic and Republican statesmen to hit the road on her behalf to declare that 'bipartisan foreign policy is back' in post-George W. Bush America."
Now I could write a whole post on what a stupid idea that is, given that Bush has so completely phucked everything from the economy to the national infrastructure to foreign policy with his conservative wet-dream fulfillment that it's going to take some serious progressive policy to get us out of his honking mess. But the problem is, I haven't even gotten to the really crazy part yet:
"I won't even wait until I'm inaugurated, but as soon as I’m elected I'm going to be asking distinguished Americans of both parties — people like Colin Powell, for example, and others — who can represent our country well, including someone I know very well," Mrs. Clinton said, according to a Fox News Web report. "Because I want to send a message heard across the world. The era of cowboy diplomacy is over."And that message is best sent by engaging the talents of Colin Powell, official international pitchman for the Iraq War, otherwise known as the Biggest Clusterfuck in Cowboy Diplomacy ever to come down the pike?!
Flying H. Spaghetti Monster.
And even if someone subscribes to this dubious theory of New Messaging, I cannot for the life of me understand why on planet earth Hillary has any interest in rewarding Colin Powell for bad behavior. And not just any old run-of-the-mill bad behavior, but quite possibly traitorous bad behavior.
After Powell's knowingly false dog-and-pony show for the UN, he shouldn't professionally be given the time of day by any decent person, no less the next president of the United States, no less a Democratic president. Ridiculous.
[H/T PSoTD.]
Babs 4 Hillary
Barbra Streisand has endorsed Hillary:
"Madame President of the United States ... it's an extraordinary thought. We truly are in a momentous time, where a woman's potential has no limitations," Streisand said in a statement released Tuesday by the Clinton campaign. "Hillary Clinton has already proven to a generation of women that there are no limits for success."Not a big surprise, since they've been friends for years.
As much as I love Babs, her endorsement hasn't swayed me. But give her time. When I was 9, she had me convinced that I was destined to be a crossdressing Ashkenazi Jew, mooning over Mandy Patinkin while passionately arguing the Talmud at Yeshiva in between spontaneous bursts of song.
Caption This Photo
Olmert: "I'm totally cutting off the circulation in his hand."
Bush: "Isn't this great? How about a nice ride on the choo-choo?"
Abbas: "Wev. I want to go home."
President Bush with Prime Minister Ehud Olmert of Israel, left, and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas in Annapolis, Md. Doug Mills/The New York Times
Who's Your Inner European?
Open minded and tolerant.
You're up for just about anything.
Who's Your Inner European?
Via Sarah in Chicago, whose Inner European is Swedish, and Diana, whose Inner European is Irish.
This means that at the next Shaker Meet-Up, Sarah will be in charge of meatballs, Diana will be in charge of beer, and I'll provide the pot. Sounds about right.
Respecting Ann Coulter's Privacy
Ann Coulter has been getting harassing visitors to her home.
Conservative columnist Ann Coulter is nationally notorious for vitriolic broadsides, but she has been unnerved by invective she received at her Palm Beach home. So much so that she got the county property appraiser to remove her name from public records identifying where she lives.Sheesh.
In doing so, she won an exemption from public disclosure of her address, allowed by law for victims of stalkers or harassment.
Coulter, 45, has called Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards a "faggot" and said she wished he would be killed by terrorists. She once said President Clinton "could be a lunatic" and wrote of a group of widows of men killed in the World Trade Center that she had "never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much."
So maybe it came as no surprise when somebody delivered a greeting card to her home in March with this salutation: "You self-aggrandizing -- sociopath!! The only thing left after a nuclear war are you and cockroaches."
...In June 2006, Coulter received several nonthreatening but antagonistic phone messages from an Alameda, Calif., man whom she did not know.I don't condone this kind of stuff no matter who it is. I think it's stupid and pointless -- not to mention illegal. Writing a column or a blog or speaking on TV is one thing, but everyone has a right to their privacy. Besides, if we progressives can't make our case without resorting to terrorizing someone at home, we're no better than the jerks who do this stuff as a matter of course.
"Hey, Ann, now that you've moved to Florida and you're in your 40s, did you know that you can join the Florida National Guard?" the man, later identified as Brian Hatoff, 58, said in one message.
"Oh, I forgot, you and your rotund buddy down the street [an apparent allusion to radio commentator Rush Limbaugh] and the vice president, you're all registered chicken hawks. You love war until you have to put your own ass on the line. I don't call that patriotism. I call it cowardice."
Coulter told police the calls were made to an unpublished phone number that only a few people knew.
After subpoenaing phone records, Palm Beach police traced the calls to Hatoff.
[...]
The month of March, however, was the most vexing for Coulter, who did not return a phone message asking for comment.
The evening of March 25 she heard somebody screaming from a vacant lot next door: "Ann Coulter is a big [expletive]."
Coulter called police, then went downstairs and locked a door. When police arrived, the person was gone. Coulter opted not to file a report. But police placed a "special watch" on her home.
Coulter called again a few days later. She had checked her mailbox and found an apparently hand-delivered pink and white envelope inside. It read, "Ann Coulter!!" Below her name was a cupid heart with an arrow drawn through it.
On the greeting card inside was written: "Go [expletive] yourself."
Shaker Gourmet: Fluffy Chocolate Chip Cookies
Our recipe this week comes from Shaker Crissa, who says: "It took me many tries - and several years - to figure out a cookie recipe my spouse would love. She does not like sweets, but enjoys fresh cookies and bittersweet chocolates. Cutting down sugar, balancing the liquids, is difficult... This recipe can have either the sugar or butter halved, but results in a denser cookie that is more difficult to bake."
Crissa adds: "These cookies are designed to complement the melty chocolate, and should be served warm. They're less sweet than regulat cookies - and oat flour or molasses is probably not common in everyone's kitchen, but are what make this recipe work and be less sweet. I usually make this and then freeze the majority, only making a handful of cookies at a time."Fluffy Chocolate Chip Cookies
2 cups All Purpose Flour (white or whole wheat)
1 cup Oat Flour
1 cup Sugar
1 tsp Baking Soda
1/2 tsp Salt (or less)
2 Large Eggs
1 cup Margarine, Butter, or Shortening (softened) (no clarified butter)
1 tbsp Molasses
2 tsp Vanilla Extract (I prefer Vanillin)
2 cup chocolate chips
--Pre-heat oven to 375F.
--Mix dry goods in large bowl. Whip eggs, butter, flavorings before folding into dry. Fold until evenly mixed, then fold in chips.
-- Place on baking sheet in small patties - they willfluff, and only spread about 50%. Bake at 375F for ~15 min until tops are no longer wet. To speed cooking, you may want to broil on low the last minute; this also results in denser cookies and can shorten baking by 5 minutes. They will be nearly cake-like when they're done.
If you'd like to participate in Shaker Gourmet, email me at: shakergourmet (at) gmail.com; include a link to your blog if you have one!
