ExtraMSG

Two LA-SA cookbooks I know of that are decent that include Peruvian food are these: Ortiz Kijac I'm no expert at all in SA cooking, but I looked over available cookbooks extensively before buying these. If you plan on cooking and exploring other LA cuisines, these may be quite useful to you as they are to me. On the subject of Spanish language cookbooks: I am actually in Mexico right now and what I have done the last couple times is pick up cheap but decent basic cooking magazines. There are street vendors here who always have a few. Today I got a full color magazine with no ads called Cocina Practica whose issue is on Antojitos for 18 pesos, less than $1.75. Because they have good pictures even though my Spanish is mediocre at best, I can still follow it well even if I have to break out th dictionario every once in a while. I am sure any used bookstore in Peru would have some that you could buy cheap. Might be an easy way to start. There is a Peruvian restaurant in Portland, OR -- my hometown -- that makes excellent food and would probably help you in your search if you gave them a call during a non busy hour. I think they probably have email, too. In fact, here is their website: Andina Good luck. btw, I read in that Coe book that Peru has over 100 varieties of potatoes and that the locals can distinguish them by taste. I can barely do that with what you find in the supermarket.

Personally, i think there is a real problem with those environmentally minded who attack farm raised salmon. I live in the PNW and truly there isn't that much wild salmon except in Alaska. And most of the salmon that comes from the rivers isn't truly wild either, it's hatchery fish that is somewhere in quality between a farm-raised salmon and a truly wild salmon in quality. Either salmon will have to become even more of a luxury item than it already is because there will be less and less of it, or more efficient means of raising salmon have to be accepted, ie, farm raising salmon. Personally, I think most environmental movements are quite at odds with each other; there's certainly no standard approach. They've fought to get -- oh what is it -- chilean sea bass, I think, removed from restaurants because it is allegedly endangered (very little evidence of that). If it could be successfully farmed, would they also be against that? You can't have it both ways and also say people should eat. They want the moon: organic veganism with no starving people in Africa. Ain't possible.....maybe with sterilization.

Sorry, wish I could help, but I do have one suggestion: try this book. It may give you an interesting perspective on the Incan and Native American influences of Peru and how the cuisine has moved. I have found it fascinating. It also covers Mayan and Aztec foods and traditions.

I believe it's cui and it's available in several South American countries. I have a friend in Ecuador who ate it on my prompting. Not a pleasant experience. Like eating a giant greasy rat. But she ate it. They even brought it out spread eagle on a rotisserie with skin and head and tail still on.

I'm against cooking a duck whole. Unlike chicken and turkey, the breast meat should not be cooked past medium or it'll generally get tough in a hurry. Best to cut up the duck and cook the pieces separately, imo. The legs/thigh pieces can be cooked a multitude of ways and come out excellent -- simmered in fat, sauteed, fried, steamed and baked, roasted, etc. But duck breast really is best broiled, grilled, or pan sauteed medium rare.

You might want to try Santaneca just as a comparison. I'd be interested to know how you think the two compare. Santaneca has a much broader menu.

EL PALENQUE It's nice having an excuse to spend way too much money on food this week since we've emptied out our refrigerator and don't want to make any messes before Mexico. Last night we just got salads at Pizzicato, but tonight I was SW Portland at a clients so we decided to try El Palenque. There's a modest selection of dishes on the menu, and few ala carte items. I didn't look too closely at the Mexican dishes, although what I saw didn't look too bad, maybe slightly more interesting than most Mexican places. I didn't look too closely at the vegetarian options either. I did notice that nachos were included, so I don't know how hard they're trying. They do have vegetarian tamales and pupusas, though. Instead we looked at the Salvadorean choices. You can order pupusas or empenadas with beans and rice for under $8 as a dish, but for $22-something you can order a mixed platter for 2 (and for $28 you can order a mixed platter for 4 that has more stuff). Our came with: 2 pork and cheese pupusas 2 loroco and cheese pupusas Fried plantains Refried black beans Spanish/Mexican rice Beef tamal Salvadorean cheese bread Salsa and pickled onions It comes out taking up an entire large pizza dish. It's really a gigantic amount of food. And by now I'd already eaten my share of some pretty tasty housemade chips and salsa. But by-golly I had a job to do, and that job was stuffing my face, and I did so happily (well not quite as happily now that I've got heartburn). The pupusas were good, both of them. I was mistaken the other night at Santaneca when I said they were spinach and cheese pupusas. It's obvious they were the same as the loroco ones I got. Loroco, apprently, is a Salvadorean edible flower bud much like flor de calabaza for Mexicans. A similar flavor, too. Like a tangy sauteed spinach maybe. Good stuff. My wife really enjoys fried plantains and she loved these ones. They were soft and carmelly with that nice banana flavor with some added depth. There was actually a pretty good pile of them, too, maybe 2 or 3 plantains worth. The black beans were awesome. Excellent beans. They're made much like refried beans at most Mexican places, but with more unmashed beans than probably most Mexican restaurants. They had wondeful, flavorful creamy texture. If these weren't made with lard then the cook deserves a hell of a lot of credit for making some really great vegetarian beans. I didn't ask. I'd be interested to know. The rice was decent. I wouldn't say it was anything special, but it had a nice flavor. The beef tamal was a bit of a mixed bag. The masa had flavor and a surprisingly light texture, but the beef is probably too dry. It had an okay flavor, but I'm not a big fan of dry tamal innards. Masa is dry enough. It was still decent, though. The cheese bread was weird -- and not in a good way. It was like a very light and moist corn bread or almost like a cake (I don't know what it's made with; I would guess wheat flour). On top is a very thin layer of cheese. Some people might like it; I don't know. But neither of us did at all really. To make things worse, the bread itself tasted a little off, like it had been stale and they decided to rewarm it or something. Off to the side they provided some extra salsa and a little bowl of pickled onions. I like pickled stuff like that and it went really good with the cheesy pupusas that really are a little bland and can use a little extra flavor. There was also a little cup of cream or something in the middle of the platter. I don't know what it was good for. It seriously just tasted like cream, not sour cream or crema. You're going to think we're crazy, but we also ordered a side order of empenadas. There were two empenadas filled with plantain and custard, I think. Though since they were sitting on the plantains they may have just been flavored by them. They also had a nice cinnamon flavor to them. It was decent stuff. I think in some ways Santaneca is better. But Palenque is a nice little restaurant with a pleasant interior in a pleasant part of town. The family there was really nice. And the food is decent. Prices were similar at both. I think it's a toss up after one visit to each. Thanks Alberts. I, too, would like to have someone who knows their Salvadorean food well chime in. But it is only Portland.

Basically you're adding an acid or enzyme to scalded milk to cause it to curdle, then combining the curds. There are lots of different methods. The easiest is probably just to scald some milk (like 180 degrees), add some vinegar or lemon juice until it begins to curdle, then pour that mixture through layers of cheesecloth and then squeeze the curds into a ball. It's not the best stuff in the world, but it's the most basic kind of cheese, I think. For anything more complex, you'd certainly need to move onto a book and probably practice, practice, practice. I would highly suggest being very clean in the process, though. More than most things, cheese seems ripe for contamination.

There's a reason there's a slow food movement. Try their long version since you might have access to it. It seems to combine several of the suggestions here.

I'm sure there is an extent to which many high cuisines of many cultures do share some values. I don't know that hotel dining should be the representative, however. So often hotel dining is disproportionately influenced by western traditions -- chefs trained in the French tradition and menus oriented towards satisfying wealthy foreign palates. I'd have to do some research on high cuisine traditions around the world before I could make too strong of a judgment. My readings of food history suggest that most cultures have very limited high cuisine traditions, ie, traditions where food is treated as an art or where impressiveness, showmanship, and luxury items are emphasized. What these different attempts at high cuisine share, however, I haven't the slightest clue, really. In taking a thoughtful approach to the question of what they share and whether they have meanigfully divergent goals, I think it would be necessary to try to move backwards through time to try to filter out some of the western influences (and it's not just western influences, but influences of modern dominant food cultures). Or at least, I think it would be more interesting to the ultimate goal to see how much diversity there has been. I have to say, though, as a diner I don't know that if I always understand the passion some cultures have for their delicacies. Sometimes I get it, sometimes I don't. I'm inclined to say that while many goals may be shared between culinary traditions, there will always remain a set of criteria between that are incommensurable, that cannot be truly explained or translated. If that's the case, I think, then, that guides such as Mobil and Michelin that truly hold the French culinary tradition as the proper or model culinary tradition will never be able to adequately recognize restaurants from other traditions. Those traditions will have to transform themselves and mold themselves to the French ideals to be recognized as equals. I think to a large degree that's unfortunate. Here's a question. If a Moroccan restaurant used the best ingredients, had wonderful and creative preparations, was in a fabulous setting, had luxurious tables and plates, washed your hands for you, etc, but you ate with your hands and sat on pillows on the floor, could it ever even achieve 3 stars in Mobil?

I've "confited" chicken in lard before. It comes out a bit porky. I've wrapped it in bacon, too, and used lard to slow cook it. It just depends on what you're looking for. It definitely imparts flavor. If you're trying to keep it "chickeny", you might try doing half and half either shortening or vegetable oil and duck fat. I've done that before. It retains a lot more of its chicken character while giving it that wonderful moist and tender texture.

That sounds a lot better than the canned yams poured into a casserole dish, tossed with butter and brown sugar and topped with marshmallows that I avoided every Thanksgiving as a kid.

Just thought you might be interested that Cook's Illustrated covers several of the specific comments made: They finish with olive oil and balsamic.

Ethnic dishes that use the savory spices are wonderful with dried fruits, imo -- Middle Eastern, Indian, Mexican. A wondeful traditional filling for a variety of dishes in Mexican cooking is the picadillo, which is a chopped (the word picada in Spanish) meat or ground meat sauteed with aromatics, savory spices, nuts, and dried fruit. Often there's a salty element, too, like Spanish olives or cotija cheese. You can use chorizo for the meat or use it as an additional flavoring element. Then take this and you can use it for a variety of Mexican entrees, such as enchiladas, gorditas, tacos, whatever you're familiar with, or look into my favorite dish using picadillo, Chiles en Nogada: poblano chiles stuffed with picadillo and sauced with a walnut/sour cream sauce and sprinkled with pomegranate seeds. But I'm always tossing dried fruit into dishes whenever I think they could use a little sweetness. I always keep golden raisins and dried apricots in the pantry.

Instead of pan sauteeing it, use your broiler. It has the advantage of allowing you to cook the skin side first while letting the fat baste the breast. Put it about 8 inches from the element (door cracked open so the broiler won't turn off) and broil it about 5 minutes a side. Then put it about 4 inches from the broiler and crisp it up the rest of the way, maybe another 4 minutes. You want it to be no more than medium. Times are tough on this sort of thing. I'd suggest using a meat thermometer. My most basic duck breast dishes are generally served with polenta and a sweet wine sauce, like reduced port finished with demi-glace or butter. But I always buy whole poultry and make stock from the carcasses, reduce it, and keep the fat on top to seal it and use for sauteeing stuff. Then I have the demi-glace for sauces and the like. But you can just reduce a port wine or something similar (I like port because you can get away with a cheap one), add some dried fruit, dried morels, whatever, and reduce it with some brown sugar until it's a nice consistency. Maybe crumble some blue cheese over the top. The polenta would probably be the toughest part. It all goes so great together, though. That was my first duck breast dish I ever made, grilled duck breasts with port wine sauce and morels over polenta and I go back to it often (wife loves it).

I've seen the bbq sandwich ad several times here in Portland, OR, but never with Bayless in it. Must be saving the royalties for where it might make a difference. Is there a placce to view it online? I know there used be a site I'd go to all the time a couple years ago where they seemed to have a ton of the current TV commercials. People would vote on their favorites, etc. But I can't remember where it was and I couldn't find it using google. Obviously it could have disappeared by now.

First, it's just an analogy. To say that something is grounded in a similar way to the grounding for racism (or more accurately, cultural bigotry) is not to say that it has the same moral weight. Using such a rhetorical device just hopefully makes the other aware that they'd never stand for that type of faulty foundation when it does have moral weight. Second, I think "complexity" does in some ways reduce problems because "complexity" doesn't have the same sort of connotations that "sophistication" does. To say something is complex is not necessarily to imply that it's better. The terminology previously was "better", "higher", etc, which does, of course have the connotations of being superior. But then you're not necessarily making the point you want to make which is that some ways of cooking, some types of dishes, etc, are inherently better than other kinds. Certainly you don't want to argue for complexity or even difficulty as defining what is better. That'd be stepping into a trap -- first because there is so much we applaud in its simplicity in haute cuisine, and second because there is so much "low" food that is extremely complex and difficult. Then you and I at least agree on this point. I would just extend this to say that even the food common to us Americans, such as BBQ, soul food, Chicago deep dish pizza, and the like, or to other cuisines, such as German, Middle Eastern, Mexican, and other cuisines that at least get some notice in Zagat while even at their best are unable to attain more than three stars in Mobil (and their showing even in their own countries in Michelin is pretty sad, too). Part of that is that these other cuisines don't focus on the overall experience that a restaurant can offer and so do better when they're rated just for food. Part of it is just that they don't get respect because French has for so long and probably will continue to be largely considered the apex of cooking. Even Zagat undervalues a lot of these cuisines, imo. I'd like to see BBQ score better in the south, and Tex-Mex score better in Texas, and deep dish pizza score better in Chicago, and Jewish delis score better in NY. But at least in Zagat they make respectable showings (or show at all).

Apparently that Salvadoran place you guys were thinking of is Palenque not Palmero (which is downtown): http://forums.egullet.org/index.php?act=ST&f=7&t=30179

Thanks. Do they have pupusas and empenadas? What's good? I felt like I didn't really know where to begin at Santaneca.

I don't remember Iron Chef Morrocco. I have seen a moron Chef Rocco, however.

The irony is in most settings I'm used to I'm the most conservative person there. Well, it can be declared. I just don't think it can be proven acontextually. If you start putting criteria like clarity in broths, cheese courses, and uniformly cut vegetables it makes it easy to prove it in a hurry. In one sense what you say is trivially true because the definition of haute cuisine is ultimate in the French culinary tradition. The French culinary tradition has a largely established laundry list of what is required of great food. So some objectivity can be slipped in to show that a dish indeed conforms to that tradition. But that's a relativist's position which I'm entirely comfortable with. To show, however, that haute cuisine is inherently superior to Indian cuisine, though, is a much different endeavor. It's also much different to try to say that one inherently tastes better than the other. But we can disagree. Sure. I think Zagat does have many problems. Never denied that. But with the disadvantages of anarchy or democracy that you note, so comes some advantages. eg, you'd probably consider it a problem of communication that in the Portland, Oregon, guide (before they stopped producing it) Pearl Bakery scored among the highest marks for food. It's a small bakery very similar to Acme in Berkeley. However, it produces excellent breads which are used in several of the nicer restaurants in town. They serve some simple items such as sandwiches and such. If you were to start building criteria about what should be required for a score above 25 for food, you might put that a tasting menu should be offered, that presentation should be artistic, and that a foie gras course should be offered. (I'm just pulling things out of the air, it doesn't really matter which ones.) On all of these criteria, Pearl Bakery would fail. It could not achieve the score it received. However, the score they did receive without any criteria other than what people say they like and how much they say they like it relative to other places represents a sincere love of Pearl Bakery's breads. Will someone expecting a 27 food score to translate to a 4 or 5 star dining experience be sorely disappointed? Of course. But I've been saying all along that one must use their noggin when reading Zagat. The truth is, I don't think anyone would be confused into thinking that Pearl Bakery serves the same food that the 3 and 4 star restaurants in Portland serve. But they would rightly see a passion for Pearl Bakery's breads that would not be as apparent if limited by some specific criteria. I've never said Zagat's way is the best way. I've just said that it's a useful way. I think no guides are all that useful for someone who's lived in a place for very long. I think for the person seeking out fine dining in an American city, Mobil is probably the first guide to look at. I think that for trying to find a decent place in a specific neighborhood or in a specific cuisine (especially ethnic foods or "low" foods) Zagat is the way to go. That makes it much more useful for someone just moving to a town. I think that for keeping up on food in a city, message boards and newspapers are the best bet. At least, that's my experience.

I'm not trying to argue which food deserves what ratings. I'm saying that Zagat uses a different set of standards than Mobil or Michelin and that it's useful because of that. Trying to then conform it to a different set of standards is just misguided and will do no more than reduce the variety of voices in food criticism under-representing a segment of the population (possibly a larger segment) that likes "low" food as much or more than "high" food. Saying that high food deserves higher ratings to communicate that it's high food again puts the cart before the horse. There's a problem in that the terms presuppose something that should probably be questioned (or is questionable). It'd be like naming the Republicans the "winning" party and the Democrats the "losing" party and then saying that you want all elections to result in the "winning" part winning because that's what their name implies. That does not mean that I think all guidebooks should follow the Zagat model. That would suffer from the same problem. I'm in favor of a variety of ways of approaching food criticism and a variety of standards by which to guide people to food. Then let them choose which one they like best and fine most useful. Personally, I find Zagat more useful sometimes and Michelin styled more useful sometimes. No, I'm discussing Zagat, the object of Grimes' article. I think there was more than a specific point about The Grocery being made. And this thread quickly moved to Zagat in general rather than Zagat specifically as it related to The Grocery. I don't know what's so political about that. I don't think I've hidden that. I think you're confusing my opinion with an imaginary, but arguably valid, example opinion. I'd probably love Trio from everything I've seen. The next time I go to Chicago I will almost certainly go there. But I can empathize with those (my dad, who has eaten at many fine restaurants, eg) who would find it pretentious. I can empathize with those who find Chez Panisse underwhelming, though I loved it. I agree with those who think taqueria food is superior to Tex-Mex. But I'm not so bold as to suppose that my opinion on the subject has objective grounds that nullify any dispute and would invalidate any guidebook, eg, that came to a different conclusion. Again, I read Grimes and many subsequent posts, including yours, as making a broader point about Zagat's rating system. If I was wrong, I apologize.

Agreed. But that's not what a large portion of the criticism has been. It depends. For some people, the potato chip will always be superior. For some people, the haute cuisine will always be superior. For some, they will be equal (excluding all else such as price, etc). I don't have a problem with Michelin. I think for what it does it's useful as well. But talking specifically about Zagat, I think it takes care of your complaints. Sure, the user has to think (oh my). But the information is there. There's more information in Zagat than any other guide I've seen. They'll rate the food, decor, and service separately. Tell you an average meal price, indicate the cuisine, and describe (though sometimes poorly) the type of place it is. Is your complaint merely that it's not organized to your liking? They've even done a lot of the work for you with their sections that break places out by categories. True. In fact, there will be unresolvable conflict regarding a lot more than popular versus elite tastes. And I've said over and over that standards are fine and good. However, standards are dynamic, remember. There was a time when Shakespeare was the pop art. There was a time when lobster was prison food. My problem is with the cultural arrogance that assumes their standards are self-evident when they're more about the self and less about the evidence.

I know we don't entirely agree. I think with your discussion of Pearl Jam vs Chopin you don't go far enough. You get right up to the edge of saying that one can be as good as another and back away. Like I said, I think it's fine to have standards. It's good even. It might even be necessary. It's one thing to feel someone's taste is bad. That's a natural extension to some degree of having standards. If you didn't think you were right and they were wrong, you'd have different standards. However, feeling that there's something inherently superior about your standards is faulty. I do know people who like Taco Bell better than taquerias. Of course, Taco Bell isn't their favorite Mexican-American, but that just shows how much more they like that type of Mexican than the other. I even have a Texan friend who is totally willing to argue that traditional Mexican and taqueria Mexican is not only not as good as Mexican-American to him, but inferior to Mexican-American. He can make a strong enough case too (lawyer who has a lot of dining experience). I disagree with him, of course, as you probably know if you'd read any of my taqueria posts on the PNW section. Are these positions commensurable? Can we find one objective ground to determine which is right? I don't think so. And I don't think we can with haute cusine versus common food (is there a better word?) anymore than we can show that Christianity is superior to Hinduism or that American culture is superior to Mexican culture. It all presupposes too much -- and the primary thing it presupposes is that what we like is better. That's putting the cart before the horse.

Actually, I wasn't using hyperbole based on what Grimes said. I was exaggerating what I think Bux and Schaem were implying, that those who vote "low" food as tasting as good as "high" food are naive and have little or no taste. They're not worthy of having their votes tallied. I don't think it takes much effort (ie, exaggeration) to take that from the various posts. Instead of me directing more analogies or defending my previous ones at what you've said, I'll just try to reiterate my argument: The complaint that is being made is that "low" food -- street food, comfort food, etc -- does not deserve the food ratings they receive that places them near or equal to the food ratings of haute cuisine restaurants. Mind you, this is only the food rating we're talking about since Zagat does not have a rating for a restaurant as a whole. My response is that there is nothing inherent in haute cuisine that makes it clearly deserving of higher ratings for food than "low" food. Any attempt to do so just shows the prejudice of the one making the argument. How food tastes is subjective. Whether some dish has aesthetic value outside of it's taste is also subjective. My problem is that people are judging the food at The Grocery, and places like it, as less than ADNY, and places like it, a priori. Honestly, and I imagine you already know this, I have not been to The Grocery (nor ADNY) and like Mamster I think that it's very likely that it isn't as good as ADNY. But my reasoning is not based on the type of food that it makes. Like I've said, I think there is bbq, Mexican, Indian, etc, that is every bit as good as anything I've had at any haute cuisine restaurant. Not for "what it is" either. I mean that a) that it tasted as good, b) that I respected it and the effort that went into it as much, and c) that given a last meal before execution (something growingly longed for by those reading this right now?) I would be every bit as likely to choose it over anything else. My problem isn't with having standards. My problem is assuming that one set of standards is objectively superior to another, especially on a matter of taste. The masses always have a strong case on aesthetics. Afterall, you're saying which do you like better, which affects you more, which do you enjoy. And the masses are saying, "well, all of us, way more than you, enjoy this one". All that can be said in response is "yeah, but we know better". I do not believe that once educated in fine dining and introduced to frog legs with pine needle aroma that a person will or should necessarily prefer or respect that more than a pie from Lou Malnatti's. If all the Zagat voters had been to The Grocery -- or even a more striking example, The Olive Garden -- and ADNY and had rated it nearly as high or as high would you attack the guide any less? Probably not. You'd just make the attack entirely a matter of the voters having bad taste. Meanwhile, people would still be using Zagat and finding it quite useful at recommending restaurants.