ExtraMSG

This is probably my favorite mole, manchamanteles. It's a mole with fruit, and so a little sweeter than some. I think it's more accessble than most, especially the mole poblano, which I think is the worst one to be your first mole because it can have such a strong and unusual flavor. Mediocre mole poblanos have turned many people from moles for the rest of their lives. http://www.mexconnect.com/mex_/recipes/puebla/kgmancha.html

Well, you have the advantage that it's Mexican, so it's not as sweet as a lot of game meat sauces, like port reductions and berry sauces. But it's more sweet than most moles. It's a nice complex sauce. My second choice would maybe be a nut and chile based sauce, maybe using pepitas. I'm not at home. I'd have to check my books for a good one. Mole poblano might work. But I think even though it's one of the more famous moles it is also one of the least accessible (both in taste and recipe complexity). Of course, it has the advantage that you can get a jar of the paste from any Mexican grocer. But I don't touch that stuff.

But you do get to toss your peanut shells on the floor at SM's (thus, if you're wearing sandals, it's S&M's). And the taco with the kalua pork...mmm. If you go to Bewon (which is my favorite Asian restaurant in Portland, and possibly my favorite Asian restaurant I've been to anywhere, or a close second to Arun's in Chicago), get the fixed price dinner. Well worth it and makes a truly wonderful experience. Jim, you should just make your disclaimer part of your sig: "I sell olive oil to pretty much every decent restaurant, so don't call me a shill, please."

I like sweet things with elk, so I would suggest the machamanteles, a pineapple and plantain mole. Here's a relatively easy recipe (believe me, if you saw some of the recipes in my books...): http://www.mexconnect.com/mex_/recipes/puebla/kgmancha.html What cuts of the elk is it?

I don't think Gartner's carries game meats. They do butcher game meats for people, but they aren't allowed to resell those. I know they sometimes have specialty meats in the freezer, such as rack of lamb, but I think it's a crap shoot. I love Gartner's, but it doesn't have an upscale clientelle. It's people looking to bbq and grill and older people from the neighborhoods mostly.

That doesn't make sense. If demand for carbohydrates has declined, then price would decline as well, not increase, unless the supply has dropped in anticipation of declining demand while demand had actually stayed steady. If you're seeing increases in grains, I doubt it's low-carb dieters' faults.

I mentioned this place in another thread. I'm not sure how new it is, but I can't find mention of it in the Oregonian, Willamette Week, Citysearch, eGullet, or Chowhound. It's at 2335 NW Thurman. It's an artisinal bakery with French style loaves. They also have several pastries. They have several sandwiches including paninis plus do "tonics". The quality on the stuff we tried seemed pretty good. Another of the many artisinal bakeries in town. It's larger inside than Pearl or Ken's, yet itt was slammed on Saturday. All the chairs were taken and the line almost went out the door. Several actual French people there, too. I didn't realize there were that many French people in all of Portland. Anyone else tried this place, yet?

If you like ethnic and Latin flavors, I'd suggest Andina. Bakeries: Ken's Pearl Grand Central Le Honere I'm not sure if that name's correct on the last one. I went there this weekend but they were out of menus so I didn't bring one home. It's rather new, I think. I couldn't find any info on the web, though it doesn't help that I can't exactly remeber the name. EDIT: It's St. Honore (makes sense since it's also a patisserie) and it's at 2335 NW Thurman.

I'm pretty sure it comes pre-rinsed for me. I do just get it in bulk bins. When I use it as a breading, I'm not using it raw. I'm pre-cooking it and using leftovers from the fridge where it dries out to some degree.

I just wanted to put in a plug for quinoa. I usually have it in the pantry, forget about it until I'm cleaning out the pantry, make a ton of it, then work with it for a week. The stuff's great. It's got the nice, tiny-grain texture of the more popular (non-grain) cous cous, but with a pleasant nutty flavor. Easy as hell to make, too. I just toss it in my rice cooker with a 2:1 ratio of water to quinoa. And the leftovers work for all kinds of dishes, too. eg, I used it as a textural component to a mixed greens salad with a vinaigrette. I've put it in foccacia and other bread doughs and cooked them up like normal. Adds nice flavor and texture. I've used it as a breading for pan-fried and baked items. Good stuff. Highly recommend. What are your favorite uses for quinoa?

It's not just writing; it's everything. In most any area of human endeavor there will only be a small percentage of practitioners who do something very well. cookingwithamy, while I emphatically agree with the general proposition you've put forward, I can't see the discussion going anywhere on that basis. What exactly is it that's bothering you about food writing in general? And perhaps you'd like to give some examples. I'd also like to point out that there is a lot more good food writing out there than most people are aware of. At some point I can try to assemble a list of lesser-known sources of good food writing. More importantly, what can be done to improve the quality of food writing? I think open and forthright criticism and/or praise, like we give here on eGullet all the time, can make a difference. So by all means, if you read something and you think it's great, celebrate it here. And if you have a problem with something you read -- its content or its quality -- make your case here as well. FG captured my thoughts exactly as I was reading this thread. Not only would I like to see some direct answers to his questions, but I'd like to add one more question: What are the examples of good writing, especially in food? FG asked for some examples of bad writing, but as much as I want to know what you think that is, I'd like to know what it compares unfavorably to. You put forward such a blanket statement, it would just be nice to have some specifics.

SCREW I "heart" humiliation TOMMY

I made an omelette today, FG, following your method. However, just to set the egg on top entirely, I had the broiler on (a crappy electric oven broiler, too) and just manually put the pan under the broiler about an inch or two away from the element. In about 15 seconds it was set. Then I just finished from there. It's pretty easy for those who don't want runniness at all (like my wife, the person I made the omelette for). I think one problem I may be having is that the pan I'm using may be losing heat quickly after the eggs are tossed in. You wouldn't think so, since it's not something with a lot of mass like a steak, but maybe it is the case. I'm using medium high heat, about 7 on my electric stovetop (came with the house, man I wish I could get gas). Maybe that's not hot enough.

I actually did a third image of a pie. Even has whipped cream on top. The idea is actually a good one. I bet a press release could generate a little buzz for the site. I was thinking about a second idea with SCREW PETA, I "heart" a cow or pig. Even if Atkins did get mad and try to sue or something, that in itself would generate buzz and then you could change it.

If you do it hard enough you can chip the rim of the jar, too. I've never had it happen, though, and I've been using this method since I was probably 8 since my mom taught me the method.

I'd have no problem designing one, but better might be to brainstorm and then have people submit versions that you and FG can choose from. I do wonder about copyright/trademark issues. Might have to go with the less impacting "Screw Low-Carb". Here's a couple quick options I did (animated gif with the two options):

It makes sense that the word came up with the Spanish. And I've read disputes over the source of the word from babracot. However, from my reading it seems pretty solid that the source is Caribbean and that the Spanish word was first applied there to a style of cooking that was then extended elsewhere, probably as much by slaves as anyone, which would explain the bastardization of barbacoa. But that's just a guess. All the later references, of course, are written and not by slaves. This has the OED explanation: http://www.cbbqa.com/history/secondary/Oxf...Dictionary.html Here's an interesting link: http://www.cbbqa.com/dove/Essay_2.html ( same as: http://xroads.virginia.edu/~CLASS/MA95/dove/history.html )

Well, 30 Helens agree that the etymology of the word is barbacoa, but not from cowboys, but rather the Caribbean: http://www.wordorigins.org/ I think this is the same as the OED's explanation, but I don't have access to the OED. I just read through the entire thread and I think MatthewB's comments are closest to my heart (or maybe we've just read too many similar books and taken too many similar classes): Along with A and B, you could split A into both the unreflective and reflective understanding of barbecue. eg, I may use barbecue very loosely, but when reflecting on the word recognize the difference between grilled foods and barbecue. It seems to me most obvious to say that the average person uses barbecue in relation to flavors and methods that they associate with both a) traditional barbecue, and b) the social act of "barbecuing". However, the average person rarely attempts to be strict about their usage. Thus, barbecue chips, barbecue chicken, only hot dogs and hamburgers at a barbecue, anything with barbecue sauce being called barbecue, etc. These are all correct uses of the word because they effectively communicate. They may not perfectly communicate due primarily to regional and generational variation in the term, but this really isn't a problem. There are many worse words -- "love", "happiness", "freedom", "spicy". I'm sure the variation increases the farther outside a traditional barbecue community one gets because there is less linguistic history to ground the word and hence a less established usage. You could probably also split the expert defintions into two branches as well, traditional uses and modern uses, though I'm not sure how much they differ outside of regional variations. But it seems that with all the barbecue books and barbecue contests and barbecue aficionados and barbecue joints that have been around for decades out there, that the way they use the term would comprise the modern usages, whereas it would merely be a historical undertaking to find out the traditional usages. Pinpointing these historical definitions, though, wouldn't say much about the meaning except as it gives an insight into the development of the meaning. These are no longer necessarily meanings of the word because they're historical usages, usages of the past, not present. To fulfill FG's requirement, here is the "expert" definition I'd offer up: noun, meats cooked low and slow using wood-fired heat. verb, to cook meats low and slow uising wood-fired heat. I think there are meats that are traditional for barbecue, generally fatty cuts or cuts with lots of connective tissue because these cuts are served from low and slow methods. However, I'd say that anything can be barbecued, it just may not be good that way.

All the methods above can work, though some of the best, like wrench, aren't usually easily at hand. I most often use the back of a chef's knife. You whack it on the right side away from you trying to dislodge the lid counter-clockwise. Usually takes a couple whacks, but this consistently works, especially in combination with running under tepid water. It will leave dents in the jar lid.

This is exactly how my omelette came out, maybe slightly less brown, but exactly that runny. Also, when I did it, I had left the eggs out to come to near room temperature and I only did two eggs for a 12" pan, so they were pretty thin. I'm out of eggs, but I'm going to do some side by side comparisons of scrambling the omelette before it sets and doing the shaking method to see which I prefer. I think a lot of people would not be happy with the runny aspect, though I don't mind it. EDIT: scrambling method video: http://www.epicurious.com/e_eating/e02_vid...eggs_omelet.ram?

For me, low-carb often just means only eating bread if it's especially good. There's so much crappy bread out there, why bother? Also, when I go out to eat and a place is serving Pearl Bakery or Ken's (Portland artisinal bakeries) or in-house breads, I just eat the crusts. It's my favorite part anyway. My wife always eats the soft middle, which is the part she likes.

How about really lame-ass animation instead:

Your wish is my command:

And people rag about the Zagat effect. At least that's just a popularity contest.

I tried to make a quick illustration of this process. HTH: