Carrot Top

That's a good menu, Deborah. Let me extend a sprig of thyme in hopes that we can sit at the same table. I promise I'll only bite the food.

There *is* something about the food at these sorts of functions where the focus is *not* supposed to be on the food but on the social occurence that often leads to one of two things happening: Either the food is hyper-overblown in name and fuss and pompous preparation and presentation that it is extremely difficult to carry off the real taste within it, or The food has got to be somewhat self-deprecatory, at least in name, and following on from this thought even in presentation and hoopla. I prefer the second sort of menu. You can place a fancy name on any old thing and it can still be a piece of sh**, but it also happens that something quiet and unostentatious can hold depths of unexpected finesse and flavor. I am sure there is a wonderful Southern saying that would express the thoughts held in that last sentence much better than I said it, but I've left the rolling hills of West Virginia behind now for more than two years and my language skills have surely dulled in their punguency.

Sounds good. Might be time for you to write a cookbook, Busboy.

Now real folksy presidential eating is the cottage cheese and ketchup of Nixon. Bubble and Squeak and things like that, Brit food for Brits (or Chinese for the Chinese etc) would be nice - it seems to hint at friendship, doesn't it. But protocol directive is often written "against" this sort of feeding their national food to the national visitors. The idea behind this is that: 1) It might be considered insulting in some way, i.e. "we can do this better than you"; and 2) The concept that lies behind the sorts of meals that are demonstrative of culture in a formal extended sense (whether in the businessplace or in the political arena) is to show who "we" are that is serving the meal. To show who we are and hopefully be understood and appreciated for it.

I have heard of this happening in the eighteenth and nineteenth century but am not aware as to when it has happened in the twenty-first century. Can you give us some examples, please, for reference? Of course I did know about the hot dogs and FDR. That's sort of what we do here in America. Hot dogs everywhere for everyone.

Hey. You guys are giving me an idea.

At least she didn't serve risotto.

I wonder what the President and the First Lady would say to this claim.

Don't forget the Coors Lite. You know how fat their butts are from sitting on them day and night.

Yeah there you go. Real American home cookin'.

That they are not there for the food is certain. But that the food that is served at the White House has to be perhaps better than other places that may serve the usual political banquet in DC may also be close to a certainty, I would think. When I spoke of ascertaining tastes and fitting them in terms of defining menu, I meant the top guns (it sounded like there were a lot of top guns there, I do not read of style nor of politics on a daily basis so was uninformed as to the specific breakdown of VIP's vs. IP's). Generally when the top guns come to dinner the chef is provided with a list of likes/dislikes/allergies etc. To not do this would be to risk political or business amicability over perhaps a piece of toast or a certain vegetable and that is not to be desired. Certainly there are many wonderful options for food that could make a great display in this instance. All I can say is again, that I think her menu was good - it pleases me. To hear other ideas (and most particularly from those people who may not think her menu good - it would give them a chance to show their own stuff) would of course be fun.

I should add that my reasoning behind saying that there is protocol involved in the planning of these dinners is that the previous Executive Chef at the White House told me this fact himself during a visit to the kitchens where I spent the afternoon discussing the operations there. It is my assumption that this has not changed.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion and everyone can express it. And then they can hear whatever someone else has to say in their turn. We do not need to agree and we do not always need to get along. ........................................... I am sure that each person in their own profession has a word or two to say in return when someone not in that profession has critical viewpoint that lands within the venue of their profession. Generally as a rule, I do not join internet forums for the discussion of architecture or of politics or of practice of the law or of anything else. I may read but I do not criticize the professionals in the field. Food is common to us all so we all can talk about it. But some people *do* do this professionally and their viewpoints may be different than someone that does not do this professionally. May be, may not be. My professional hackles rose at the mixing of global and domestic politics mixing with food and the reputation of a chef that was occuring. I no longer work in this field but still have great loyalty to it and to its culture, ways, and people. ............................................... I do have a temper once in a while and once in a while I indulge it. What runs through my mind during these times is this saying: "If you're gonna talk the talk, then you better be able to walk the walk." .................................................... I am sorry that your particular glimpses of food at the top have been disappointing, Busboy. Maybe we're better at it in New York where the money is rather than Washington where the politics are. What I viewed during several visits to DC to work as consultant on large politically based food gatherings seemed to provide evidence to support this notion but that was a random sampling so I will not speak assuredly to say that it is a fact.

Pardon me? I thought I was entitled to an opinion? perhaps not. ← As you are entitled, so am I, Deborah. My opinion stands in the words above. Generally I do not feel the need to express it. Once in a rare while I do. This is one of those times.

As a chef, I must say that anyone who is willing to criticize a chef should be ready to stand and equal them.

Menu planning at the White House is done not simply upon the whim and desire of the Executive Chef. Her creativity is shaped ultimately by protocol. Protocol is determined by people who are hired to do such things, and it does involve food when guests visit. Not only is protocol defined by the way an incumbent may want to "look" to the press and media and world, it is also defined by numerous other considerations that take into account the appetites, likes, dislikes and allergies of the guests. All the guests. Which means a lot of fine-tuning of menu. One of the other factors that comes into planning is the fact that most guests of this type have been dining upon the finest foods in the world as a matter of course each day, all day, for as long as they have been in their positions. Foie gras might have little interest to them. Fancy or fussy presentations the same. An overindulgence in food is the one thing they just may abhor - for it is in their face quite often, this fineness of table. There is also a trend towards simplicity and elegance in a pared-down sense in these worlds. The beauty lies in the simple and pure. The not overdone. The unpretensious. Extravagance may be passe in this moment of history. I thought this menu was excellent. It was not a blaring of trumpets but a quiet welcome in a clear and simple and fine manner. Politics aside. This is about the table, where we are supposed to sit together and find what we can in common to move forward in some small way. Is it all bullshit? Perhaps. But that was a fine dinner, nonetheless. The new Executive Chef at the White House looks like she's doing a fine job, to me. ............................................... No, I won't try to write a menu for this. But yes, I would still love to see what others would come up with.

Let me swing my leg right up over the side of the box and admit that I used to swirl a bit of chocolate ganache into the finished zabalione - not till blended simply marbleized. Sacreligous? Perhaps. Adored? Definitely.

The thing about the price is that it's my belief that what you are paying for is style not substance. And that's okay in most things as long as one knows what one is doing but my god - to think that the buying of "style" has now extended to canned soups? Please. The canned soups of the "newer" sort brought the price point of an average can of soup up from (the previous versions of condensed soups) around 79 cents to about $1.49 (which is a pretty good average, I think - though there are some priced higher). Then a different and more sophisticated "style" of soups were introduced which now sell for around $2. Are they *all* that different? I don't think so. And now we have the ultimate gussied-up pack of soup that is designed to appeal to those who want to eat well - i.e. foodie soup. And now the price for that is lurking around $3. It is not that it is all that much money. It isn't for the person who is buying it for one meal for themselves. (Though since I am aware of what the cost of ingredients and labor would be to produce this, it startles me the profit that is being made on these soups.) Take a family of four, though, and four packs of soup. $12. spent and that's just for a *starter* to a meal that includes any children - for a bowl of soup just won't do it to keep their tummies full. It is what it is. But my gosh, I can see better ways to spend the money.

Is that how you chopped off the "i" from the "like" written above? Careful with that knife, sb.

I think you're right, prasantrin.

Oh dear. It seems that my reply to your reply must have gotten lost in the mail, too, Pontormo. Here it is, however: I am glad you found something to do with the evil pulp. I was going to suggest perhaps draining it vigorously in a tea towel then mixing it up with an egg or two, some cream, a bit of tiny apple and onion dice, a sprinkling of "curry powder" (blasphemy but we are in America), perhaps a toss of flour then forming the weepy worms into smart little cakes like latkes for a gentle brown in the pan before serving. That treatment might put the Devil to sleep for the amount of time it takes to pop them into your mouth. ............................................ But I still say the stuff is merely the Devil's Hairballs.

Canned soup is something that stands alone as an independent food of a sort. It really is nothing like anything else and should not have to pretend to be. But - if the wish is there to "improve" it somehow, the best way is to stay true to the ingredients. If it is chicken soup, add more chicken chunks. A seafood soup, poach some shrimp or grill some fish and add. If it is a vegetable soup, dice some carrots, onions, celery and saute in butter till soft and stir in. Chopped fresh herbs are always a good addition. Grated cheese of all sorts of varieties can work. Roasted peppers are nice sometimes. The "ladies cookbooks" of the fifties used to advise "a teaspoon of sherry" should be stirred in before serving. Not a bad idea. In some of the newer varieties of soup, depending of the balances of flavor, probably a teaspoon of pernod or of other herb-based spirits might add a flavor layer also. ............................................ (Were you aware that when you go to a "deli" or a "coffeeshop" or any number of chain restaurants that the soups served are "canned"?)

Of course that little flibertigibbet never said those lines! Marie's thoughts were solely upon how to keep her curls more perfect and her corset more tight than any of us other girls. My dear I would never dare whisper these truths to you but you seem so boldly intelligent! It must be the soap operas so readily available to the public that has made you this way even in the finest bloom of your extreme youth!!! Indeed the lines were never uttered by anyone at all. It was a mistake of language that occured at the table of Beaumarchais one dreadful winter's eve. He *had* invited the Brits to dinner again. It was the style to keep running back and forth across the Channel in search of some form of intellectual fervor (and more cute dates) that we all so eagerly desired. There was a writer there (I will not divulge his name - he is still alive too and may wreak his vengeance upon me if I do so and the power of the press is indeed a fearful one and not well suited to a lady's avoidance of wrinkles from worry!). One of those Barbarians. (English.) His command of our fine language was poor. Conversation was rich and hearty that night. Our jewels twinkled and indeed we remained at table so long that the men were growing rough beards. There were no peas nor forks at the table. Glasses were raised to the Republic! In the excitement, someone shouted out (wishing to finally take a sip and not have to wait till the pompous ceremony had ended): "Laissez-faire l'etiquette!" The poor writer heard the syllables but did not translate right. "Etiquette" became "eat the cake". "Laissez-faire" became "Let them". And this, my dear intelligent and so very charming little sister (may I call you that, dear? We used to pet name each other sister in my time) is how history is made. K.

I have heard restaurant consultants advising "for" or "against" noise depending on the ultimate conceived "goal" of the restaurant. Then the designers follow the direction given. That is, when anyone *is* thinking about these things. ................................................. Yeah, lots of quotation marks and *'s in this post. Yes, it *is* meant to convey a tone. Heh.

Good idea, that pizza crust thingie. If I had done that this past weekend, it would have saved me from ordering three large pizzas on Halloween night *after* trick-or-treating when the kids brought home friends and everyone was cold and hungry (and I had no intention of really *cooking* anything for I was cold and hungry myself ). Donkeys are funny animals. What are they useful for *nowadays* besides for keeping coyotes away from lambs or horses out as pasture? *Shrek* must be the answer! How could there have even been that movie without a donkey? (Though I must admit to being madly and inconsolably in love with Puss in Boots who is in that movie. Madly because he is soooooo charming. Inconsolably because he only exists on the flickering screen. Sigh. I love that Puss in Boots.)