Some readers know how deeply I care and am energized by the modern Abolitionist movement across the world. There are more slaves now than there ever were at any time in human history. Human trafficking is tied with arms dealing for the second-most lucrative illicit business (after drugs). It is a $32 billion industry worldwide. More than two million children are sold into the sex trade every year.
 Image from 25x4 What is slavery? Here is a succinct definition from Kevin Bales, who founded Free The Slaves:
Slavery is one person controlling another person using violence or the threat of violence, exploiting them economically and paying them nothing.
We often see terms like “slave like conditions”, or see the word slavery mixed in with paid child labor, sweatshops or similar forms of labor abuses. It is a mistake to confuse slavery with labor exploitation or other labor crimes. If the victim is paid or can get away it is not slavery.
In modern day slavery, human beings are literally bought and sold as property on an international market, for amounts ranging from $80 to $5000 or more. They have no control over their lives or their children’s lives: where they live, what work they do (usually dirty, degrading or dangerous), their sexuality, or their health. Being enslaved is extremely hazardous to human life and health – for example 25% of child slaves in India do not make it to adulthood, and another 22% are permanently disabled.
My friend Sarah Symons is the founder of The Emancipation Network, which works to get people out of slavery by helping them find ways to support themselves (and to help them in the transition from bondage to freedom). Sarah is on one of her periodic trips to India to help with some of her organization’s partner agencies and the schools they support.
She writes, in part:
Today we visited 10 of our school sponsored kids who have been placed in Ram Krishna Mission Boarding School. It was absolutely amazing! The kids looked so good, so happy and healthy and clean, that I almost did not recognize them. These girls, aged 6-13, were all born into the Kidderpore red light community of Calcutta. Their mothers were trafficked as young girls into brothels, and are still working the streets, kept captive now by a complete lack of other options, and by the extreme stigma hanging like a cloud over the whole district.
When the children lived at home, they shared a tiny room in the brothel with their mothers – it was a dangerous situation in the extreme, as there is always the risk that a client would tire of the mother and reach for her young daughter instead. Our partner agency Apne Aap, which runs a prevention program in Kidderpore, eventually took these 10 girls into the night shelter because they were at especially high risk or had already been exploited. The Emancipation Network began paying for their schooling three years ago and this past spring, they were enrolled in the Boarding School. . . .
The red light area is a scary place for a child to grow up. There was never enough food, clothing, supervision or attention and these kids had to become self-sufficient at a very early age. Seeing their mothers hurt and exploited on a nightly basis was the hardest part. Without intervention, girls growing up in red light areas almost always end up in forced prostitution themselves. . . .
Education is a surefire way to end the cycle of intergenerational slavery. Educating girls is the fastest way to transform a society from within.
(The full article, which is stirring, is available here.)
There are two ways to support The Emancipation Network. One is to directly sponsor children so more can be lifted out of slavery. The Emancipation Network pays for their schooling in boarding schools like the one Sarah describes in her blog post.
Another way is to purchase items at the Made By Survivors store. This shop contains products made by freed slaves and the proceeds directly support abolitionist efforts. There is some very cool stuff here.
Thank you to my friend Sarah and everyone else who works so hard to free people. Your actions both inspire and shame me. I should — we all should — do more.
My latest article on my blog at the Washington Times Communities, Public Square Today, is now live:
Obama Administration Falls Short On Civic Participation
On the morning of President Obama’s first State of the Union address, I published a rather dispirited prediction for the talk. One commenter asked me:
I am very downhearted at how casually people dismiss the possibility of our government doing much good. I definitely agree that the structures don’t feel like they are working.
I am cautiously reassured at how many of these points the president touched on. Not to exaggerate the point, but it almost felt like a speech that was consciously designed not to be the kind that inspires the skepticism you express here.
Any second thoughts?
Now that the dust is settling, I thought it might be worthwhile to look less at the state of the Union address itself, but at the state of the administration. As most readers know, my main focus is on civic participation and I look at government through that lens. In other words, one of the major problems I see in politics in America is that most people see no place for themselves in it. Under these conditions, government and politics is not about how we solve our problems together; it is how they provide us the services we need.
 From The White House This is anathema to the fundamental notion of self-governance.
One reason candidate Obama gave such hope to many is that they sensed in his rhetoric and biography that his bias is towards collaboration and participation when it comes community problem solving.
Indeed, on his first full day in office, President Obama famously signed a striking executive order on openness and transparency in government. In this message, he says that government “should be transparent, . . . participatory, [and] . . . collaborative.”
What Progress On Participation?
So far, however, it appears that the vastly greater share of energy has been spent on the “transparency” piece. This has been well-spent energy (although there’s a far piece to go in implementing the Obama transparency mandates).
But there are two other legs of the stool — participation and collaboration — where progress is lacking. An example of this is health care reform. This would have been a terrific area to actively, and authentically, reach out to people from all walks of life and craft what the proposals ought to look like. Instead, the political class developed its proposals and sold them to the public using fake town halls.
My friend Peter Levine has written a very thoughtful critique on the administration’s progress in the areas of participation and collaboration. He says, in part:
The agenda so far has been strong on service and transparency, but almost entirely missing participation or collaboration–equal pillars in the original executive order. Service does not necessarily build civic skills or address fundamental problems; besides, even an expanded AmeriCorps offers no role to most people. “Transparency” means feeding information to organized interest groups, reporters, and a few independent citizens who have deep interests and skills in particular areas.
These forms of civic engagement are not nearly “edgy” enough; there is no fight in them. People are angry, in America–from the Tea Partiers to MoveOn. When citizens try to solve serious social problems, they identify enemies. They do not just hold hands and serve together; they strike back at those whom they perceive as threats. If “active citizenship” reduces to non-controversial “service,” it will completely lose touch with the legitimate anger of the American people.
I agree with Peter’s critique, which is far better supported than this brief excerpt can do justice to. (So read it.)
Where Does Participation Go?
One critique of the civic participation movement is that it is all about talk and no action. This is a valid concern. Conversations on the community level can’t go nowhere; they need to connect to real changes.
Another friend of mine, Lars Hasselblad Torres, has put it this way, in a comment on Peter Levine’s piece: “We need to push through the veneer of ‘discussion’ as a good and reasonable outcome to policy implementation.” He’s right. He goes on:
I’d also like to see work up front, setting the policy agenda. The State of the Union is one such focusing opportunity. Instead of lecturing (possibly humiliating, alienating) Republicans, how about building truly post-partisan mechanisms?
At the same time, I applaud the work happening in the Office of Science and Technology Policy to engage the public participation community in framing up priorities for agency reform. Its a great start; now we need teeth.
So far, I agree: the focus has been on data and on internet-based outreach. This is insufficient, as both are far too subject to intermediaries and manipulation. Direct participation that takes the conversation into communities, states and regions is needed.
I agree with Lars, too. And this, in the end, is my critique of the State Of The Union address. The language has shifted from “we” to “me.” No longer are ordinary people being called on to work together — instead, the solutions come from moves made by the administration or by Congress.
The State Of The Union Falls Short
While there were excellent moments of humility in the address, and a laudable restraint when it comes to trotting out Main Street people as emblems of various things, the focus was all on government as doing things for the American people.
This is fine on one level. However, Obama has expressly portrayed himself as a different kind of political leader. Many of the markers that have led us to believe that this is the case, appear to have fallen by the wayside.
In a May 2007 speech, according to Peter, Obama said:
“[W]hen politics gets local, when the person talking to you is your neighbor standing on your front porch, things change.” In that speech, he called for dialogues in every community on Iraq, health care, and climate change.
The call for neighbor to talk to neighbor about important issues of the day appears to be withering under the heat of actual governance.
Instead, we hear this, on jobs:
Now, the House has passed a jobs bill that includes some of these steps [a jobs bill]. As the first order of business this year, I urge the Senate to do the same, and I know they will. They will. People are out of work. They’re hurting. They need our help. And I want a jobs bill on my desk without delay.
On financial reform:
Now, the House has already passed financial reform with many of these changes. And the lobbyists are trying to kill it. But we cannot let them win this fight. And if the bill that ends up on my desk does not meet the test of real reform, I will send it back until we get it right. We’ve got to get it right.
On climate change legislation:
I am grateful to the House for passing such a bill last year. And this year I’m eager to help advance the bipartisan effort in the Senate.
On education:
When we renew the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, we will work with Congress to expand these reforms to all 50 states. Still, in this economy, a high school diploma no longer guarantees a good job. That’s why I urge the Senate to follow the House and pass a bill that will revitalize our community colleges, which are a career pathway to the children of so many working families.
On health care reform:
[T]this is a complex issue, and the longer it was debated, the more skeptical people became. I take my share of the blame for not explaining it more clearly to the American people. And I know that with all the lobbying and horse-trading, the process left most Americans wondering, ”What’s in it for me?” . . .
[A]s temperatures cool, I want everyone to take another look at the plan we’ve proposed. There’s a reason why many doctors, nurses and health care experts who know our system best consider this approach a vast improvement over the status quo. But if anyone from either party has a better approach that will bring down premiums, bring down the deficit, cover the uninsured, strengthen Medicare for seniors and stop insurance company abuses, let me know. Let me know. Let me know. I’m eager to see it.
Here’s what I ask Congress, though: Don’t walk away from reform. Not now. Not when we are so close. Let us find a way to come together and finish the job for the American people. Let’s get it done. Let’s get it done.
(The bold is added by me for emphasis.)
On all these issues, the picture painted is of a political class doing things for Americans. Obama faults himself for not “explaining” health care properly. But mostly, he calls on Congress to act in the ways he wants them to. (And harshly at that.)
Republicans complain that they are not treated as colleagues by the majority Democrats. They’re right. Meanwhile, Democrats say the Republicans have just become the party of “no.” They’re right too. Obama, for his part, chides Congress for arguing too much.
Ordinary people are left out of this troika. They have no role. This is my chief disappointment with the last year. I see little concrete action taken to invite ordinary people back into politics in any meaningful way.
 Photo By Marc Johnson I’m in the middle of a four-day bipartisan candidate training program that is put on by the Sorensen Institute for Political Leadership at the University of Virginia. As far as I know, this program is unique. It is relentlessly bipartisan, for one thing. More important, though, is that it is entirely ethics-based. I was one of the people who helped design the program in the late 1990’s (when I worked at The Institute for Global Ethics) and I have been involved ever since.
The concept is simple: We take the very best political professionals in Virginia and ask them to come to the program and address their specialty. Over the course of four days, candidates learn everything from how to develop a campaign plan to fundraising, polling, direct mail, crisis communications, how to deal with media, image, and more.
But the difference is that we wrap this in a strong emphasis on ethics. The program begins with a half-day session on campaign ethics (which I lead), and then after every few sessions, we bring the candidates together in small groups to debrief what they have been hearing. It’s been my experience that many first-time candidates become increasingly anxious about just what it takes to run a winning campaign. Being able to air potential dilemmas and think them through in a retreat atmosphere is invaluable and allows them to make better decisions later.
This work really allows me to bring together everything that I learned while working in government and politics, then at the Institute for Global Ethics, and later at The Harwood Institute For Public Innovation. It’s all about how to win, but win while running a race you can be proud of.
And, just in case you might be thinking that this is some nice foundation-funded program that teaches candidates how to be nice losers, nothing could be further from the truth. Candidates apply to be a part of it and pay to be there. Over the years, 300 candidates have gone through the program. 100 are currently in office. I’ll take those odds.
I am grateful for my friends at the Sorensen Institute who continue mounting this program for allowing me to be a part of it.
 "Alarm Clock 3" by Flickr user alancleaver_2000 According to Doug Ward’s excellent OpenGovBlog, the first deadline under President Obama’s “Open Government Directive” has come and gone with 26 agencies failing to meet the Directive’s requirements. Here’s what Obama is requiring: “Within 45 days, each agency shall identify and publish online in an open format at least three high-value data sets and register those data sets via Data.gov. These must be data sets not previously available online or in a downloadable format.” The deadline was January 22.
What’s more, in many cases what counts as “meeting the requirements” is just lame. One agency took data that had been available in PDF form and posting it as an Excel spreadsheet with headers. Another agency reposted data that had been available since 2004, just labeling it with a more specific timeframe.
The Sunlight Foundation, which focuses on this issue relentlessly (and well), has written a piece recapping what they are seeing so far as they sift through the data. Their take:
As a first step toward making agency data available in more accessible formats for sophisticated users, the open government directive is so far somewhat successful–plenty of data sets that had been available only as PDFs, or had to be pulled down by scraping Web sites, are now there for the taking (we’ll have better counts of this later in the week). But new data sets are not predominant: the major agencies covered by the directive released 58 data sets, of which, by our count, 16 were previously unavailable in some format online.
That sounds like progress, I suppose . . . but a long way to go before we have real “transparency.”
My latest article on my blog at the Washington Times Communities, Public Square Today, is now live:
State Of The Union: In Name Only
Tonight, Barack Obama delivers his very first State Of The Union message to Congress. As is the custom with newly-inaugurated presidents, President Obama did speak to Congress last year, but that is not considered an official “State Of The Union.” The Constitution requires the President to make a report on how things are going “from time to time.”
 Chart by Brad Rourke (click for full size) As I thought about it, I found myself wishing that President Obama might take the tack Jimmy Carter took in in his last days in office in 1981 and mail it in — literally. It was a written report that year. In fact, while our first two presidents gave speeches, for a hundred years beginning with Thomas Jefferson the State Of The Union was a written report ranging from about 2,000 to about 24,000 words (Lincoln’s averaged 6,800 words). Woodrow Wilson ended that practice and ushered in the modern era of giving speeches.
I still think the first State Of The Union was probably the best. We don’t know how long it lasted, but we know that it was the shortest State Of The Union on record: George Washington’s first such address was just 1,089 words. I’ve written memos longer!
As I reflected on the fact that a speech would be inevitable, I then found myself hoping President Obama might take a page from Richard Nixon’s playbook and give a very short speech. Nixon gave a speech of just 28:30 in 1972. (The next year he sent a written report.)
But in the television era, we are by and large stuck with speeches that average about 48 minutes — long enough to take up an hour programming block, but short enough to allow time for pundit reactions. President Obama’s speech last year was right on the money in that respect, at 51:44.
For a political junkie, I have always felt guilty around State Of The Union time. I feel alienated from my fellow politics-watchers. Because I dread these speeches. It seems too short to say anything of value, too long to inspire, too worked-over to offer me anything new.
The state of the union is strong, I will hear. There will be shout-outs to “ordinary” people in the audience — a practice that has long since jumped the shark. There may even be a new initiative or two announced — perhaps a surprise.
But I know what the state of the union is, as does everyone from Skid Row to Main Street to Wall Street. Things are tough. There is little will from Washington to make the changes that we need. Political leaders are out of touch with the concerns of Americans.
A good friend told me earlier that he was despairing that our political institutions could do anything anymore. This is the true state of the union: It sometimes feels a union in name only.
Yes, there are glimmers of hope. Each time I dare, though, my hopes are dashed. It’s not that my favored policies aren’t getting enacted, or that people I disagree with are in power. That’s just window dressing.
It’s that the structures aren’t working. We used to look to politics as the forum in which we solve the problems that arise when people live together and try to self-govern. Now we view politics as the problem and we try as best we can to live a life where we never encounter people unlike us.
Maybe I will hear something from this year’s address that lifts me.
But more likely, I will get over my funk. I will pull up my socks and get on with life, doing the work that must be done in our community irrespective of what messages drip down from the District of Columbia. That, after all, is the story of America.
In the end, when pushed up against the wall, we get to work. But just now, before the dawn, it’s quite dark.
My latest article on my blog at the Washington Times Communities, Public Square Today, is now live:
Donate Services To A Candidate?
A good friend asks:
In your experience, are most services used by local candidates donated? A candidate for the . . . State House, whose staffer attended my recent social networking class, asked me today if I could provide free services. . . . I know that this candidate is getting some services for free. For example, a large and expensive web design company is donating her website. I would like to see this [person] elected, but I’m not in the position to spend a lot of time on a volunteer job. Reduced cost, yes, but free, no. I know I could make a case that my services are necessary to her and worth the money, but there is no use making the point if campaigns for State Houses are normally run completely by donations and volunteers. Any thoughts about this?
This is the dance that all campaigns (even national ones) play. Political campaigns are inherently time-limited and relentlessly focused on one thing: winning. Any money spent that does not have a clear and direct impact on votes is avoided at all costs.
 "Donations" by Flickr user freakapotimus So, campaigns know they need to pay for media time, there is no way around that. They know they need to pay for mailings. Everything else is fair game — staff time, phones, office space, Website (as you note), and social networking consulting services.
However, just because the campaign would like services donated does not mean that you have to provide them gratis. It is up to each individual person. Any free consulting work is a contribution in kind to the campaign (and would need to be valued and reported as such). So, not only is the campaign asking you to work for free, but they are also asking you for a donation.
And so, what is “normal” is not the issue here. The issue is: Do you want to make this campaign contribution?
People make campaign contributions for a lot of reasons. Some do it because they really want a person elected. Others do it because they want to be noticed later, if that person is elected. Some do it to feel closer to power. And, some companies donate their goods or services in part to market them to others, or in hopes that they will be retained on an official basis once the candidate wins.
Whatever your own decision, just make sure you follow all the relevant campaign finance rules for your state.
 Farfalle With Chicken In Dijon Cream Sauce Here’s a dish that sounds like it might be complicated but is really, really easy to make. Lots of times I will want to make a cream sauce for pasta, but I get sort of tired of the usual. This has a slight tang to it and it’s tasty.
Here’s what you need:
- 1lb Farfalle pasta (or penne)
- 1 Onion
- 1.5lb boneless, skinless Chicken Breasts
- 3/4c Heavy Whipping Cream
- 3T Butter
- 1T Dijon mustard
- 3T Rice Vinegar (or white wine)
- 1.4c grated Parmesan cheese
- Extra-virgin olive oil
- Kosher salt
- Pepper
If you use your time wisely while the pasta water is coming to a boil, you can get it all done pretty quickly. The trick is to get ready while the water is boilng, and then do everything at once. Here’s how to make it.
Get ready:
- Start the salted pasta water boiling
- Cut chicken into bite-sized pieces, each about the size of a small walnut. Season aggressively with salt and pepper
- Dice onion (use this onion slicing method)
- When the pasta water is at a rolling boil, heat a saucepan over medium high heat. When it is hot, add olive oil to coat the bottom, and let the oil heat until it shimmers. Toss in about 2TB of butter and let it melt.
Up to this point you can take it easy. But now that the oil is ready, it’s go time! Tell everyone you’ll be eating in about 15 minutes.
Go:
- Add the chicken pieces to the hot saucepan. There’s a trick to this! Use tongs to place them one at a time, quickly, so that they are covering the bottom of the saucepan. They should be sizzling. Start the timer so you know how long the chicken is cooking.
- Add pasta to the pasta water
- Let the chicken pieces sit. DO NOT check them! After four minutes, try turning one over with tongs. If it turns easy and is browned on one side, then you can turn the rest. If not, wait one more minute and turn them all. Do this quickly so they are all pretty much turned at the same time.
- Meanwhile, be mindful of the pasta water! When it’s boiling, start a timer for 11 minutes. (This will prbably be about halfway through the chicken part, but it depends on various factors.)
- Let the chicken cook for one minute on the second side. Remove them and set them aside in a bowl.
- Drain the saucepan of oil and turn the heat to medium
- Add 1TB of butter and the onions. Salt the onions so they will break down. Let them soften for 2 minutes. Add the 1T of Dijon mustard and mix it around for 1 minute.
- Deglaze the pan with the rice vinegar or white wine. Just a little bit! Scrape up all the bits and let the liquid boil a bit.
- Pour in the heavy whipping cream and let it come to a boil so it starts to reduce. (Stir it!) Add in a handful of Parmesan cheese, and lots of pepper.
- Once it has reduced, lower heat to low and add the chicken (and whatever juices have drained into the bowl). Let it warm for one minute.
- Drain pasta, pour into saucepan, and then turn that out into a large pasta bowl for serving.
- Mix the pasta a bit so it is covered with the sauce (but don’t bury the chicken pieces, which should stay at the top when you flip the saucepan). Top with pepper and Paremsan cheese.
Enjoy! This is tasty with some Italian country bread.
Public leaders often have to lead small group discussions. Here is something that might help.
A lot of my work involves leading conversations. Sometimes that is because I am researching how people perceive an issue. Other times I am leading a session designed to convey content — how to use social media, ethical campaigning, public leadership.
 I am preparing for a four-day candidate training seminar that is an initiative of the University of Virginia’s Sorensen Institute for Political Leadership. I’ve been part of this from the beginning, and it is one of the most rewarding things that I do. (Sorensen’s ethics-based candidate training course is the national model for such things and is highly effective.)
Part of the course involves small group discussions, and as we were preparing the agendas for those, I was erminded of a set of “universal probes” that I have been using for years. These are highly useful questions to ask as a follow up (after almost any initial question) and they typically unlock conversation and allow people to think quite deeply about the issue at hand. They are deceptively simple.
I did not come up with these. Chances are, any good focus group moderator will give you the same, or a similar, set. These are just how I articulate them. They arose out of study with one of my mentors, Rich Harwood, and work alongside of two imprtoant colleagues, John Creighton and Dave Moore.
Here are the questions:
- What do you mean by that?
- Say more about why you think that?
- What would that get you?
- What would that look like?
- And that leads you to think . . . ?
See? Simple. But ask them, and see what they can unlock. You might be surprised.
If you are a Facebook user, you may have noticed a recent, quiet change. When someone comments on one of your posts, links, or other content, you get an email, as you always have if you keep the default settings. Only now, you can reply to the comment simply by replying to the email.
 "Streaming" by Flickr user makelessnoise This is an important change for Facebook, as it is an implicit acknowledgement that, while the Stream is an important place to share information, it is not the only place in which people want to share. Email remains, for just about everyone, the most indispensable communications tool. One of the pioneers of online civic engagement, Steven Clift, has long been almost a lone voice calling on organizations not to neglect their email strategy as they implement fancy social-networking strategies. He points out:
[N]ow that Facebook and Twitter have become so popular, they are now “streams” rather than reliable ways to reach the people who at one point said they wanted to “follow” you. People dip into the stream created by their friends and those they find interesting when they are thirsty
… often in their scarce idle time. They feel no obligation to drink from the end of the fire hose they have friended and followed.
He is absolutely right. This is the logical next step as people get used to “streams” as being a part of their digital life. In an earlier post, I’ve described a few of the nascent guidelines that people are beginning to follow when it comes to the Stream and the workplace:
- When you are sharing something, if it is interesting but not critical, add it to the Stream (by sharing on Facebook or Twitter, for instance).
- Don’t get upset if someone misses something you put in the Stream.
- Try to reserve emails to people’s Inboxes for things you really need them to see or act on.
Facebook’s move to make elements of their Stream more usable form within email are thus a very good idea.
While I do not necessarily want to see every last thing all my friends and others have posted into the Stream, I do want to see if people are interacting with what I have posted or adding comments after me. Those actions are worth seeing in my Inbox and I do want to be able to act on them from within it.
Our workplace (and other) norms are shifting as we get used to the ubiquitous Streams in our lives. For instance, it used to be assumed that you saw all of your friends’ status updates. Now, as people have more friends and as the Facebook newsfeed has gotten a little more selective in what it shows, people have begun to call attention to the shared items they think are noteworthy. By the same token, more people are sharing ephemeral trivia in the Stream rather than clogging people’s Inboxes.
I wonder, in five years and some of these norms have established and settled, what they will be. I am also curious to see how pervasive the new norms will be — will Aunt Edna begin to use the Stream for LOLcats?
Only time will tell.
It’s Saturday morning, 8:30. You’ve gone out to get the car washed and your hair cut. But it’s still too early to mow the lawn. And the family is waking up hungry. What do you do? Pancakes, that’s what!
Believe me, this takes about as much time as making toast, and is a lot more fun. Plus, you get the satisfaction of thinking to yourself, “Who needs pancake mix?” and you can tell everyone at work on Monday that you made pancakes from scratch.
“Who Needs Pancake Mix?” Pancakes
- 2 Eggs
- 2 C Flour
- 2 T Sugar
- 1 T Baking Powder
- 1 ½ t Salt
- 2 C Milk + a little
- 4 T Butter, melted in the microwave
 All set up! Heat a nonstick griddle over medium-high heat.
Mix together the dry ingredients (flour, sugar, baking powder, salt) until they’re a uniform powder. Then pour in the melted butter, milk and crack the eggs into the mixture. Stir it all together so the yolks make the batter a bit yellowish. Stir until it’s just mixed but still a little lumpy. It should seem a bit thin – if it’s too thick add a few more splashes of milk.
Test to see if the griddle is hot enough by flicking some water onto it – the drops should sizzle and dance if it’s ready. It CAN get too hot, though, so check it after not too long.
 Ready to flip Use a quarter-cup measuring cup or a ladle to pour the pancakes out onto the griddle. When bubbles begin to form around their edges, they are ready to flip.
After you flip them, they will puff up a little. Wait a moment, then press them down with the spatula (they’re tastier if they are thinner). If you want, cut a piece of butter to put on top of each one while the second side is cooking, so it melts down into it.
If you are cooking for a large group, you can have the oven on “warm” with a plate in it – keep the finished pancakes there while you make griddleful after griddleful. Serve in stacks with syrup and watch your family enjoy their morning.
 Ready to eat! You can double the recipe and save it in the fridge overnight for Sunday morning pancakes too. It tastes even better after sitting a while.
|
|
Recent Comments