russ parsons

someone wrote: "A good Proseco if one must drink white bubbly wine. At least keep it local." actually, most prosecos come from the veneto, which is a couple of hundred miles away--as good as China ... or France ... in the eyes of most piemontese. if you were to do local, you could do moscato d'asti, but then most would argue that that's on the other side of the province.

i'm with wilfred, with the note that the only place i really use a knife very much is around the knee, where there are a lot of tendons that need cutting. for the rest of it, use your fingers or the dull side of the blade to scrape. but don't think about cutting (that'll tempt fate with breaking the flesh/skin).

i admit to being a wine geek, but hte idea of bringing a briefcase full of my own stemware to a restaurant is crossing the line for me.

i'd agree with that. the only possible "white" i can imagine would be either an extremely serious champagne (krug comes to mind) or a sparkling rose.

two of my favorite books haven't been mentioned, one recent and one in the distant past. the pastry book i use probably more than any other (not that i'm a pastry boy), is lindsey shere's wonderful book chez panisse desserts. i'm also quite taken with "the last course" by claudia fleming. the stuff i tested out of that was great.

i confess: i bought the chardonnay glasses not because i thought they'd be better with chardonnay (or, in my case, more likely sauvignon blanc, pinot grigio or riesling), but because they were on sale. my affections (affectations?) are vinous, but my pocketbook is Scotch.

to me, wine books are usually an oxymoron, kind of like sports books. they're usually pretty poorly written, interesting mainly for their advice rather than for any kind of intellectual stimulus. (they usually answer only one question and that is: "what should I buy"). that said, i've always thought a lot of matt kramer's "making sense" books. and not just because he's a friend.

i don't know what is going on exactly, but amazon is heavily discounting spiegelau glasses. frustrated after years of replacing riedels that shattered when i looked at them, i bought a dozen of the spiegelau chardonnay glasses from amazon when they were on special a couple of months ago (something like $6 a stem!). today, i noticed that if you buy a half-dozen bordeaux glasses for $60, they'll give you a half-dozen burgundy glasses free. i have been extremely happy with the quality of the spiegelaus i bought last time and picked up a dozen of each (24 glasses for $120).

cutting salami or even ham paper thin the way the deli guys do is no problem. all you've got to do is practice for about 20 years working for $10 an hour. you know, there is something to be said for practiced technique (something that is often overlooked when cooks talk about recipes).

"I would guess that the "juicyness" of a piece of meat is related to its moisture content." Well, some of it is. But much of it is not. If you'd like, I can supply you the cites in the scientific literature. Note that this is not black/white, all/nothing. But the point was about whether searing "made meat juicier" (as opposed to "sealing in juices.") Of that, there's not much doubt.

"A well seared piece of meat that is over cooked will be like shoe leather, but I suppose if you spit on it enough times one could consider it to be "juicy", couldn't one?" and just how "juicy" is a piece of raw meat?

having written a bit about this, i'd like to point out that there are "myths" and then there are what we might call "occasions of inexact language." For example, the oft-quoted examle of searing sealing in juices. Technically, of course, that is incorrect. Anyone can see it. But if you rephrase it slightly, it becomes correct--and more to the point for a cook. A well-seared piece of meat will be moister. That's because most of the moisture when we eat something comes not from the thing being eaten but from ourselves. It's saliva. And what generates saliva? Things that look and smell delicious. And how do you make meat ... you get the picture. There are marinades that tenderize meat--just not the ones most people think of. Marinades that contain yogurt will tenderize--some so-far poorly explained property of lactic acid. Most acids will denature the protein on the surface of the meat making it softer. But in those cases, we would probably call that "mealy" rather than tender. On the other hand, here's a straight-out myth: Soaking dried beans reduces the amount of gas produced. Simply isn't true. Think about this: dried beans are seeds. Seeds are germinated by soaking. The things that cause flatulence (at least part of it) are sugars the bean plants will need to grow. Hence, it makes no sense that soaking (germinating) would reduce the sugars. (it does reduce cooking time; reasonable minds can differ on whether that's worthwhile, given the loss of flavor).

i'll put in my two bits about mario: i've talked to a lot of dumb chefs in my day and he's certainly not one of them. he's smart and funny and genuinely larger than life. and he's a great cook. even though he runs a bunch of restaurants, all of the meals i've eaten at them have been either very good or great. same goes for his partner, joe bastianich. definitely not to be mistaken for your typical food network chef.

white tuna is albacore, not escolar. escolar is a very oily fish, albacore is pretty low in fat (for tuna). the fat in escolar also has the peculiarity of containing a natural laxative. eat carefully and close to home.

lizzieee wrote: it does not eliminate bias, it merely disguises it, so you don't know whose biases you're reading. having been an anonymous restaurant critic at one point, i can say that it is extremely uncomfortable. all critics (or raters ... see the great book on Loiseau) have their biases. there is no such thing as an objective reality when it comes to dining. what readers need to know is who the critics are and what their biases are so they can judge for themselves.

i did a story on this many years ago. and oddly enough, it was spurred by the same question: soaking was such a pain, would it be possible to freeze soaked beans so you'd have them as a convenience. but when i started doing the research, what i found was startling. there is absolutely no advantage--digestive-wise--to soaking beans. in fact, it's counter-intuitive. the sugars that our gut can't handle are the ones the beans need in germination. soaking is the first stage of germination ... how could it reduce them? i talked to scientists who study dried beans (yes, there is such a thing) and the general consensus is that the hot soak method does work (the boiling water kills the bean), but so slightly that you'd have to repeat it 4 to 5 times to actually reduce the sugars. soaking does shorten the cooking time by about 30 to 50%, depending on the variety and age of the bean. i don't see the point, since cooking beans is so passive (what's another 30 minutes of sitting in the oven by themselves?). And I find the flavor of beans that are cooked without soaking is far superior. the broth is very thick and "beany" (if you don't like the flavor of beans, this could be a drawback). one word of warning is necessary: if you are cooking from a recipe that requires soaking, you will need more liquid in addition to more time. those unsoaked beans really soak up the broth. i also discovered an interesting cultural paradox: in cuisines that most commonly eat beans (mexico, central america), beans are rarely soaked. in cuisines that most commonly eat rice (india, china, japan), rice is commonly soaked. Yet we soak beans but don't soak rice. what's up with that?

as a lurker on alt.coffee (where the REAL coffee-geeks are), this has been addressed fairly recently. as i recall, and in loose summary, a couple of guys tasted frozen beans vs. fresh and found that even after 2 months, they couldn't tell the difference. i've got a pretty bad espresso habit (and the rancilio silvia to prove it). i get my coffee from Josuma (650/366-5453). they sell roasted beans, minimum order of 5 pounds and with shipping it comes out to about $9 a pound. great stuff.

can geoducks be eaten raw? i mean totally raw? everytime i've done anything with them, i blanched them in boiling water to remove the outer "skin". i realize this is getting rather talmudic, but would that still be raw?

i'm doing a little string-gathering. anyone got any favorite alive dishes? i'm thinking of things like sushi bars etc. are there other places? oysters are obvious, scallops a little less so. whole fish definitely on the rim.

it's actually kind of interesting. with new staffers, sometimes they want to use the kitchen for "warming up leftovers", but we make the point that this is a place of work, not a cafeteria annex and in a way that seems to enhance our reputation among the staff--we're working, not playing in the kitchen; we're journalists, not "moms". and i've got test kitchen envy, too. everything in it is so much nicer than what i've got at home... for the record, i should also point out that it is all home equipment, albeit very nice home equipment. well, very nice to me, anyway: i cook on a 1940s o'keef and merrit (though with with 4 burners a griddle and a separate broiler, i think it's very nice, too). anyway... who isn't a sucker for marble pastry stations?

hmmm, jeannie, no test kitchen because you're JOURNALISTS? i'll try not to take offense. i certainly admire the devotion of food writers who test recipes at home--i do that, too, before i turn it in. but there is no replacement for having a pair of impartial eyes (or several pairs) go over a recipe before you run it. i understand it's a rarity, but i'm extremely proud of the work of our test kitchen and i think having it makes us a better section (than we would be without it). everything recipe we run is tested in house and all of our photography is done here. as well. and we kind of think of ourselves as journalists, too.

i played around with gnocchi quite a bit and found that it's a lot like pie dough ... it's a touch/technique thing. i don't use any egg, it makes it dense. i steam a floury potato, rice it onto a board and spread it to allow as much evaporation as possible. add just enough flour to let it stick, then quickly knead it into a mass. roll it into a rope and then cut the rope into sections. if you work it too long, it will get gluey. if you use too much egg it will get gluey. you'll know by the feel right when it comes together.

I'm with the cookbook lady on this one. it's a very well made book, but the food looks ridiculous--that hyper modern style where the dish is deconstructed into its components, which are arranged haphazardly, as if to convey whimsicality. to me, it looks like what you might find under the high chair after you took a not-very-well-behaved two-year-old to the restaurant. on the other hand, i also got ici-la's "vegetables" by guy martin (le grand vefour). now THAT'S food i'd like to eat.

I've done a bunch of stuff on brining. hell you can probably still find most of it if you google. but i will say that i REALLY don't like adding sugar to poultry brine. it's ok with pork, in small amounts, but when you do it with poultry it makes it taste just like luncheon meat! (sugar is absolutely NOT necessary for the brine to be effective--it's the salt that provides the chemical reaction).

nice post fat guy, but as a former bbq hound in texas, there are a couple of points i feel obliged to make. first, those longhorns you saw everywhere were not an homage to bbq, but to the university of texas football team. you probably would not find them in, say, college station (though you would find barbecue). 2) beef ribs are eschewed by discerning bbq lovers. they are almost impossible to prepare so they're not greasy. they are for drunken frat boys with fred flintstone complexes. 3) smoked prime rib and pork chops may be delicious, but they fall outside of the canon of dogmatic barbecuing (and who is more dogmatic than a dogmatic barbecuer?). the officially recognized cuts are sausage, brisket and pork ribs. in other, less civilized cultures, they do manage to turn out quite acceptable food by barbecuing pork shoulder and, in darkest kentucky, even mutton. this can be good, when you are out among the natives. a barbecuehound's mind should, after all, be somewhat broad ... but not so much as to be promiscuous. 4) one should automatically be skeptical of any barbecue facility with a parking guard. this is squared (cubed?) if he is armed with a cowboy gun. 5) time is relative in barbecue. sausage can be quick-cooked, meaning 45 minutes to an hour. ribs can be quick-cooked, meaning 2 hours. brisket can be quick-cooked, meaning 6 hours. but the true que hound will know that shortcuts were taken (the real key is the "snap" of the meat, that tells you it was cooked to soft without being par-boiled). In my youth, part of which was misspent as a sportswriter and music writer in Lubbock Texas, i had the great good fortune to learn bbq at the knee of CB "Stubb" Stubblefield. Though Stubb's BBQ is now pretty well known (his sauce and canned vegetables are even available in southern california), all of this only happened after his death. when i knew him, he was running a 30-seat barbecue joint on the bad side of lubbock and was so broke his friends would throw annual "benefit" concerts to keep him in business. of course, these friends included muddy waters, joe ely, george thorogood, terry allen, stevie ray vaughn, jimmie dale gilmore and los lobos, so he managed to stay in business for quite a while ... until the IRS began asking about taxes. he was a great man and i still think about him every time i cook (bbq or not).