cakewalk

Cream of wheat. Mmmm. Still my favorite. I make it with water and then when it's finished I like to add a bit of milk. And now that it can be made in the microwave, even better.

Well, I hate to throw in a wrench, but I believe that they are traditionally made in Mexico and other Latin American countries to celebrate... well.... Christmas. Oy vey. Vy did you tell me dis? Well, I guess it all comes down to individual choice then. In truth, Christmas cookies dressed up as dreidels don't really bother me, so I don't see why I should let empanadas get in the way. Although others will disagree. Have you ever made empanadas?

A lot of Jewish culinary traditions are geographically based. Latkes are an eastern European tradition. Sufganiyot (jelly donuts) are a North African/Sephardi tradition. The connection to Hanukkah, as you noted, Jaymes, is that they're both fried in oil. Oil is a biggie at Hanukkah. (Although I'm damned if I know where that story of the cruet of oil lasting eight days instead of one day came from. Honestly. Does anyone know the origin of that story?) And so empanadas. Well, I'm not sure about them being a "tradition." I mean, how far back are we going here? But you won't hear anything from me against starting a new tradition. The American south west celebrates Hanukkah! Have an empanada! Actually, I like the idea. It's not at all the same as the Christmas cookie issue, IMO. The business about the cookies is that they have become intimately associated with Christmas, so why morph them onto Hanukkah? But empanadas, as far as I know, aren't connected to any holiday (are they?). They're just a food connected to a particular region. Go for it, says I.

But what are those empanadas stuffed with?!

So how come there's an almost-finished latke right next to a hardly-cooked-at-all latke? Is that photo staged? Sorry. Just felt the need to be difficult. They look wonderful.

Why would anyone anaesthesize a fruit fly? For goodness sake, just swat the bugger! But seriously -- this is an incredibly informative thread. Thank you.

Oh I have nothing against ketchup, believe me! When I was a kid my mother used to say,"cakewalk, dahlink, maybe you'd like a bit of hamburger with your ketchup tonight?" Seriously. I suppose we get used to our traditions being somewhat ... traditional. The bacon and stuff with latkes made me laugh, because it's so far off the mark of the traditional latke that it just seemed kinda cool. It didn't really alter the tradition for me because I knew I'd never eat it anyway. But the ketchup, now that's a horse of a different color. It's very close to being a possibility, and totally alters an old tradition, and it made me say, "whoa!" But with a smile! I mean, how seriously can I take such a thing? BTW -- I would never have considered eating potato latkes for breakfast! But now that you mentioned it, I think it's a great idea. In fact I'll probably make some this weekend. (No promises about the ketchup, though. ) And Jim Dixon -- the wince was involuntary, and I didn't mean it as a criticism in any way, it was more of a joke on myself. You know WAY too much about food for me to criticize you! I've printed out plenty of your stuff (not just recipes), and have learned tons from it. So I'll let the ketchup slide, okay?

I agree that he is rather manipulative. The book is enjoyable and enlightening anyway, but it is important to keep that fact in mind.

Oh yes. And we can thank the "hosts" of the Boston Tea Party for that small favor. BTW -- just some info on "twice boiled water." [biology & Medical Science] Does it make any difference to your tea if the water's been boiled twice or more, ie.should you always empty the kettle and start again, or is it OK if you just reheat the remains of water? There seems to be some mixed information about this question. If you look at most sources, they say that a high level of dissolved oxygen gas is desirable in the water, as this produces a tea with more flavour, as it is able to extract more from the leaves. As boiled water loses most of its dissolved oxygen, using twice boiled water will result in water that is less able to extract the flavour. However, the New Scientist debated this question in their Last Word column, and there the answers and explanations are less straightforward. The discussion can be found at: http://www.newscientist.com/lastword/answe...jsp?tp=liquids2 The consensus seems to be that there is a change in water quality which affects brewing, but that it comes from a change in the concentration and type of minerals dissolved in the water, rather than the amount of oxygen. When water is boiled, some minerals and salts can be precipitated out of solution. The longer you boil the water for, the greater the change will be. This can affect the flavour in two ways: 1) The solid salts interact with compounds in the tea, producing different flavours. 2) Tea is formulated differently for specific regions and their water quality. [imagine that] By boiling the water for too long, the mineral composition of the water changes, and the tea formulation is no longer ideal for the water. In addition, if you keep boiling water in the kettle and just topping it up, then you will eventually concentrate certain minerals in the water, which may change the taste. So it's probably best not to keep using the same water, but doing it a couple of times shouldn't make much of a change. I suggest you try an experiment, and see if you can detect any difference to the taste. To my mind, there are far more important factors that alter the taste - using a teapot rather than brewing in the mug helps stop overbrewing that ruins the taste. Also, the water back at my mum's in the North-East seems to give a far tastier cup than London water. For a great rant by a man who thinks he knows how to brew tea best, visit this site: http://communities.msn.co.nz/ChrisSlatersW...site/theteapage This is from another site: Expert advice says that you should use freshly drawn water every time you make a pot of tea or coffee. Why is this? What is wrong with water that has been boiled twice? Can anyone tell the difference? Answer The reason that freshly boiled water is more effective for making tea than water boiled twice is that the fresh water has a higher oxygen content. This should result in a tastier cuppa because more tea will be extracted from the tea leaves. This can be easily demonstrated by placing a measured amount of tea leaves in two glass tumblers and adding freshly boiled water to one and repeatedly boiled water to the other. Examination of both tumblers after three minutes will reveal a much stronger brew from the freshly boiled water.

Interesting stuff here. Jinmyo and Jim Dixon -- thanks for your unique perspectives! Seriously. The only thing that made me wince was the ketchup. I made latkes for the first time in years and years. I showed up at my friends' door and they said, oh good, just in time to help us peel potatoes! I used to grate them by hand, but my friends have a "Magimix" (I can't tell you what memories just reading that word brought back, I think of the commercials in the movie theaters ), and boy you can just keep grating hundreds of pounds of potatoes, no sweat. (When you're doing it by hand, all you want to do is stop.) But then you have to fry all that stuff. Anyway, I make latkes like my mother did -- without a recipe. I remember asking her for her recipe once, how many and how much, and she kept saying, "until the consistency is right." Well, that seems to work. They came out great, there were a whole mess of people over, and the latkes were gone in the space of about 10 minutes. (And I hope I don't have to make them again for another 10 years!!) Happy Hanukkah!

Re: flicking the switch back on. Does anyone know anything about re-boiling water that has already boiled? It's supposed to be "bad for you." I'm not sure why. Anyone?

The cast iron tea kettle is very pretty. Nice lines. But really -- when that thing is filled with water, how do you lift it? Glenn -- I miss your top fives.

I'm still mid-chapter, but one thing surprises me. As he speaks about all the early methods of cooking, it seems that the matter of taste and flavor, and improving the taste and flavor, is already of major importance. IOW, even back then people didn't merely "eat to live." Somehow I'm very skeptical about this. Maybe I'm just reading it incorrectly. Maybe this is somehow connected to Yvonne's problem with the premise that cooking made us social? (I am skeptical about this as well.)

Oh the joy of recognition!

So, just a bit more about the food. Since I wasn't eating meat or shellfish, Suvir was kind enough to arrange some special fare for me. While everyone was eating what looked like a very delicious dish of Beggar's Purse, which included crabmeat that I don't eat, I was swooning over grilled sea bass and grilled halibut w/garam masala and a mango chutney that was incredible. The sea bass was absolutely delicious, and made me remember a line from a poem I haven?t thought of in years and years. (It's an early poem by Seamus Heaney about trout fishing, and he mentions how the fish "slips like butter down the throat of the river." Nice poem.) And that halibut was tasty and light and delicious as it slipped down my throat like, well, butter. And instead of the various other meat dishes, I had grilled mushrooms (like no grilled mushrooms I have ever eaten before), paneer (which I really liked a lot), curried hard boiled eggs with saffron rice (delicious) and eggplant, and something else but I absolutely cannot read my handwriting!! It looks like it says vegetable seekh kabab, made with peppers, mushrooms, cauliflower, lentils and carrots, Suvir is this right? They were shaped into sort-of cylinders, and were wonderful. The okra was really incredible, as others have mentioned. A salty, citrus-y taste, and nice and crisp. This is the first time I have ever eaten okra (and everyone at the table was careful to tell me that this was atypical!). And I agree with everyone's assessment of the cauliflower, it was delicious. The desserts were great. The kulfi and the sauce (or was the kulfi the sauce?) were delicious, I have never tasted such a combination of flavors -- and sitting next to Charlie was a real treat, let me tell you. I feel a little like that cat that swallowed the canary, he imparted so much knowledge. Also, that pistachio flavored pudding was so good! Now I'll admit that I am an absolute chocolate freak, but really I don't think even the best chocolate could have come anywhere near those desserts. The various different combinations of flavors throughout the evening were a treat. As were the various different combinations of people. If it so happened that I ate something that didn't agree with my palate, I would have put it aside, but in no way would I have allowed it to ruin the splendor of everything else. The eGullet community includes a large and diverse combination of people, and it's certainly an understatement to say that most people are very complex, not unlike the foods we so enjoy. There are bound to be people who will clash with one another. I prefer to acknowledge that these clashes exist, put those who don't agree with my palate aside without fanfare, and still enjoy the splendor of everyone else. I had a wonderful, enjoyable, and immensely educational evening. Thank you all!

I think there are going to be a lot of echoes in here. It was a wonderful, even magical, evening, and for me quite a special introduction to Indian food. Suvir, thank you so much for organizing the entire evening, and especially for the attention you gave to my vegetarian dishes. I appreciate it so much, and I am staggered at the amount of work the evening must have demanded from you and your friends at Diwan. Thanks to Nina and Yvonne and Suzanne for their work in making this evening such a success. (And many thanks to Suvir's friend Charlie, who patiently answered all of my "what's this" and "what's that" stuff, of which there was a considerable amount.) It was a pleasure to meet more eGulleteers and put faces to your names and avatars! More later, I just wanted to add my thanks!

Okay guys, I am starving. A gin and tonic on an empty stomach oughta do wonders. See yas soon.

True, of course. In fact, I think food can "reframe one's orientation" about almost any place where one spends long stretches of time. But in North America somehow that always seems reserved for dinner time! Part of it is time limitations. Lunch breaks are short, and good meals seem to be about the lingering and the conversation as much as they are about the food, and that sort of rules lunch out. But also there's always the aspect of "saving" -- time, calories, treats, money, etc. I know I'm going out to dinner tonight, and that has to be balanced with a skimpy lunch. The discrepancies between our dinners and our lunches are amazing. So today: having spent about half the morning with the business of getting an MRI (the knee, dammit), I got to work and wolfed down a sesame bagel with cream cheese and sun dried tomatoes (which will always, from now until forever, make me think of Soba Addict and his oreos and sun dried tomatoes). And some not very good coffee. While I checked my e-mail. Sigh.

Tell us more! I imagine it must be more than buttered bread (although buttered fresh bread and a cup of steaming hot, strong coffee sounds like an ace lunch to me). And why do you suppose it became a lunch tradition rather than a dinner tradition? Does your regular workday have a long lunch break mid-day?

You baked a cake in the morning?! You had the time?!? Mucho impressive!

I love reading the dinner thread, and maybe one day will even add to it. I do eat dinner just about every evening, and many of my dinners are even pretty good, but not necessarily noteworthy. Lunch, however, is a different animal altogether. There have been various posts on the board about what we bring to work for lunch, do we buy it outside or bring it from home, is lunch always leftovers from dinner or do we make something different for lunch, etc. I thought a separate thread about our respective (or collective) lunches might bring about a nice exchange of ideas. I always mean to "bring lunch," but hardly ever do. I just finished eating a salad (from Crown Deli on B'way and 52nd St.) of mixed greens, asparagus tips, red onion, red and green peppers, -- and, on a whim, asked for stuffed grape leaves. The grape leaves were actually very tasty, quite lemony and suprisingly good. What did you have for lunch?

We can continue this thread long after the dinner itself has been digested and, well, you know. I mean, a lot of threads on this board seem to continue way past their bed time. (Not that there's anything wrong with that.)

Sorry nightscotsman, but that will get you absolutely nowhere. I mean, that cake certainly looks absolutely gorgeous, but how do I know what it tastes like? I fear the only way to ascertain these things is to have a taste test. You shall simply have to mail a cake directly to me, cakewalk (the meaning of my name comes through!), and I will then tell you whether or not it passes the cake test. If I can't tell after one cake, you may just have to send another one!

It's so DARK outside. I'll bring red wine as well. Please someone make a suggestion so I don't show up with Manischewitz (which even I won't drink). Suvir can I just take my plate and sit in the kitchen and talk to the cook?