gknl

Is it a brand of chocolate? Or is that a chefs name? Useless trivia: I just found out the other day that Duncan Hines was a professional writer back in the day. I had no idea he was a real person: "The highest compliment a restaurant or motel could receive would be "Recommended by Duncan Hines." In the 1940's and 50's, Hines was the most trusted name in the hospitality industry, if not America. He was featured on Mutual Radio Network on a daily basis, and weekly, his newspaper column appeared in a hundred newspapers with a combined circulation of 20 million. Hines' life took a dramatic turn in 1949 when he met Roy Park who worked as a public relations representative for a midwestern food co-op. They became friends and soon after formed an association that led to Hines-Park Foods. Before long some 200 food products and 50 kitchen items were being marketed nationwide with the Duncan Hines brand name." http://www.duncanhinesfestival.com/ That site also has a description of the world's largest brownie: On June 11 and 12, 1999, the community of Bowling Green, KY., created the "Duncan Hines World's Biggest Brownie" in honor of its native son, Mr. Duncan Hines. The finished brownie measures approximately 29' - 8" X 12' -- that's more than 355 square feet!! Iced and assembled it weights-in at approximately 950 pounds. Ingredients: 615 packages of Duncan Hines Chewy Fudge brownie mix 9.5 gallons of water 1,845 eggs (or 153.75 dozen) 19 gallons of oil 615 pounds of Duncan Hines Creamy Homestyle Frosting

I like both kinds, warm and cold, too. I usually use Yukon golds or reds. There's one in the Pasta and Cheese cookbook (is that store still around?) that's pretty good. It's a play on baked potato flavorings and includes sour cream, scallions, and chives in addition to mayo (with dijon mustard, balsamic vinegar, and lemon juice).

Within the past year or so, Food Arts ran an interesting piece by Wayne Brachman (from Food Network's Melting Pot and former pastry chef for Robert Flay) ... sort of a "day in the life" of a TV chef. Don't be fooled- just as every chef you read about has a publicist, every chef you see on TV has undergone extensive coaching. The Brachman article mentioned a weeklong seminar for chefs-who-might-be stars, run, I believe by the consultant you mentioned. It's serious business. Being in front of the camera isn't natural for most people. And being able to carry even a short segment is difficult, let alone doing a half hour or hour show. What's annoying is that people who start out having some trait that makes them interesting get turned into personas based on some schtick that gets more and more emphasized. Sometimes it's painful watching someone try so hard on camera, especially when they talk too loud or try to project to the camera. It's like someone over-acting. Actually, it is over-acting. I do find that more on FoodTv shows than the PBS shows though. Much as I dislike the way FoodTv has changed over the years I've been watching them, I'm sure their ratings are higher than ever and they're making more money, so I guess it's more power to them. But still, I miss shows like Chef du Jour and the old Emeril Live (I remember when I first saw that that show several years ago, I was amazed at what he did, there was good stuff in every episode. Now he just throws things together and makes jokes). The whole idea of the celebrity chef is a bit skewed anyway. The PBS shows were by and large advertizing for cookbooks but now cooking shows are designed to sell not only books, but other products. I was in Target yesterday and saw the Ming Tsai Blue Ginger collection of everything from pans and utensils to different sauces and cookies. I'm all for capitalism and people making money, but I have to admit I cringed when I saw it and not because everything was marked down 20%. That sort of behind the scenes coaching happens with books too. Some chefs have editors in addition to the publisher's editors; some go as far as to hire ghost writers. And at least chef I know of has a personal editor (called "so and so's voice") to work on all public speaking and articles (I'm not being coy by not mentioning the name, I'm just not sure if the chef would mind or not). Celebrity is a brutal, high-stakes game. And like a drug, it's hard to give up once you've had a taste.

I would say the reformation is a work in progress in my case. We have opposite tastes in almost everything, food, music, movies, you name it. But she did get a Scorpions song right on the radio the other day, so hope springs eternal. She's not as bad as your horror story, but there are times when I feel like asking her "why can't you just eat it?" Not including onions is the hardest part, though it's not as though she throws things with onions in them against the wall. I do miss vegetables, though I sometimes cook them for myself and just let her eat salad. She doesn't have much interest in cooking either, I'm afraid, which makes it both easier and more difficult in different ways. Thankfully, garlic is not a problem. She has horrible taste in restaurants too-- hehehe as long as anyone can be said to have bad taste -- she's the Queen of Chains. Miss Middle American Consumer incarnate. I can't blame her too much though, having visited her home town in Alabama twice a year for the past few years, there's not much else to choose from out there. Especially compared to the SF Bay Area where we live now. I just don't get the appeal of salad bars. . . . And she doesn't get-- YET-- Chinese food in any of its variations. She likes Indian, Japanese, and Mexican though, so it's not all Sizzler and Applebee's. At least they're relatively cheap. . . . What's funny is that she thinks I'm the food snob when what I'll eat is far broader than what she'll eat. I wouldn't trade her for anyone else though. Whatever differences we have really are minor in the grand scheme of things. John Whiting has it exactly right: the most important thing to getting along is wanting to. If both of you want to get along, you'll find a way to make it work.

That's great! I remember planning a barbeque once when a friend of mine's girlfriend (whom I didn't like that much anyway) told me I had to get "turkey dogs" because she didn't eat "red meat." (we were getting bratwursts and bockwursts). I told her she'd better eat at home before she came then.

I went on a geek binge and just finished: Robert Wolke's What Einstein Told the Cook, Alton Brown's I'm Just Here for the Food, and James Villa's Between Bites. I'm still working my way through Slow Food a collection of essays edited by Carlo Petrini from Slow Food's magazine. The next ones to open will be Hot Sour Salty Sweet, finally!, and In the Heart of the Sea about the sinking of a whaling ship. Does grading tests count as reading too?

Did you or did you not write: "But those who know better have the right to tell you it is drivel?" And that's one of the less offensive things you've written. In this thread you've written about how tastes have changed from the past. Doesn't that suggest that taste is mutable, transitory, perhaps even historically contingent regarding certain things? Or do you believe we've reached the zenith of human achievement in regards to taste, that we've cracked the code, solved the proof, unlocked the olfactory mystery of Good Taste for now and forever? What happens if the standards change and a new consensus emerges though? Is the old taste suddenly wrong? Do the old experts become the new fuckwits? And finally, is it possible for you to discuss something without resorting to a straw man false dichotomy? Accepting that differences in quality between two extremes exists is hardly proof that "good taste" exists in some objective, Platonic ideal form that only some group of experts can define.

No it isn't. Just observe a native - It is easy after that. Just like chopsticks, I learnt to observe and then imitate Okay, but how long did it take you before you stopped needing twice as much bread as they did?

And it's much more difficult than it sounds!

Gknl - I read this to say that political correctness is more important then the truth. I have no quarrel with that position and it's an admirable one. But the price you pay is a lowering of the level of the discourse No, you have it exactly wrong. But then, as others have pointed out, you do have this stunning ability to read what you want to read. Much as I dislike pop-Freudian psychoanalysis, it's hard to read your response as anything but projection. How is explaining WHY you think something is better rather than simply telling someone their taste is drivel "political correctness?" How does civility and intellect (explaining rather than telling) LOWER the level of the discourse? It's been my experience that political correctness results in far more of "this is obviously right and if you disagree you're wrong" non-discussion. I would characterize your rhetoric as "Food Correctness" in which what critical analysis you do offer is buried beneath dogmatic assertions that you're right. What is your continued appeal to that mythical group of the top-however many chefs in the world (all of whom undoubtedly agree with you since it's your list) than an attempt to create some etched in stone, final arbiter of taste authority you can use in place of having to explain yourself? As for lowering the level of discourse, how does one get any lower than "those who disagree with me and my imagined legion of experts deserve to have their opinions pointed out as drivel?" That's just so much infantile "mine's bigger" posturing. And about as useful too. But it's so much easier than thinking.

Hey, the Liberals are pretty good at this crap too. Especially here in the Belly of the Politically Correct Beast that is the Bay Area.

And what's considered the best film criticism has changed markedly over even the relatively brief time people have been writing about film (don't kid yourself either, it's still about getting paid). Anytime you appeal to some imagined elite consensus, as if that could be truly obtained, you're confusing contemporary fashion with eternal truth. At best you're describing the current trend. I write this as someone who is basically sympathetic to the idea that taste isn't completely subjective and that all opinions aren't equal or, more precisely, as equally informed. I believe in The Canon of Great Works. But I also believe that its validity lies in so far as it provides a reference point for discussion. Coming up with a list of great anything should not be self-limiting. Criticism, and what we're practicing here is really food criticism, when well practiced is more than making pronouncements about what is the best. It's the process of analysis and evaluation that spurs people to think about the subject at hand. Aesthetics is not the same as math or science. What is considered proper today may change. The words used to describe what's proper will change. But dropped objects will always fall to the earth and 2+2 will always equal 4. Saying the top 500 chefs would agree on something is not the same as proving the Pythagorean Theorem or describing the Kreb's cycle. Nor should it be. Even if there were a critical consensus among the self-described gastronomic elite, it would have no (and should not have) bearing on how most people live their lives. Most people go through life blissfully unaware of how wrong their ways of doing things are. I doubt if any but a few insecure poseurs base all of their movie watching on "Sight and Sound's" (professional film people paid by the market for their opinions) best 100 list. And neither should anyone be derided for enjoying something you don't. UNLESS they set themselves up as some official arbiter of taste (I think anyone who does that should be derided even if they're right ). And posting a personal preference on a message board is hardly that. There is a huge difference between explaining why you feel a certain wine matches better with a certain dish than does milk and saying that someone who prefers milk deserves to have their opinion pointed out as drivel. That's the difference between someone with "good taste" and a snob.

I think of tandoori and tikka too. Tandoori is high on my list of all time favorite things. I also think of this probably inauthentic chicken curry, probably even calling it Indian is a stretch, but it works for me. But what first comes to mind is chicken cooked in a tomato sauce with butter, onions, garlic, cloves, cinnamon, garam masala, lemon juice, and cilantro a friend of mine taught me to make (I know I owe you a post about that, Suvir, but I'm still trying to organize my thoughts about learning to cook with my friend's family). I think what makes Indian chicken dishes different is what makes Indian food distinct, the way so many different spices and flavors can come together without competing. If one is eating in the traditional Indian manner, i.e. no forks, then one should remember not to use one's left hand. And try not to use too much bread otherwise you won't have enough room for all the good stuff!

I agree completely that it is irresponsible at best for the media to report conditional failures without giving equal coverage to subsequent passes. I also think they should give some detail about what the problem(s) were. It would be like the local paper listing all the people who were given traffic or parking tickets under the same heading. Obviously, someone who drives drunk or recklessly isn't the same as someone who didn't have enough change for the parking meter. Far be it for me to defend the media. But irresponsible and media are almost redundant. The media, especially television, depends on sensationalism to sell their product, and tv news is just another product. Why should they care how many lives they ruin? They're convinced they're doing God's Work, after all. The Food Industry isn't the only one they treat like that though. How many crises, health scares and otherwise, do have we have to deal with on an almost daily basis? My only point was that someone has to teach the $4 an hour non-English speaking food worker proper hygiene. Someone dying because someone didn't wash his hands is unconscionable.

We've got a real problem here. There are all sorts of mishaps that used to be regarded as "bad luck" which are now, if you have a good lawyer, actionable. Everybody who deals with the public in a remotely risky capacity wants to cover his butt. Health and safety laws are enacted to reduce the risk. And then the people who enforce them have to cover *their* butts. In the end every butt gets properly sanitized except that of the "4 dollar an hour kid who doesn't speak English". Actually, I think the problem is teaching him to wash his hands afterwards. But there was a restaurant in the Bay Area (Redwood City, I think) that had that problem fairly recently. The owners were in Mexico and evidently, didn't train their staff well enough. Several people died and many more were sickened because of atrocious sanitation and food storage and preparation methods. We're lulled into forgetting how dangerous the microbial environment can be. Sure, the individual risk may be low for most of us, but it sure does suck if you're one of the unlucky few who eat the right thing at the wrong time.

What I usually end up doing is to puree the onions and add that to the dish. I recently watched a documentary called Garlic is as Good as Ten Mothers released in 1980. It was weird in that a lot of it was a defense of using garlic in cooking. I couldn't imagine having to do that today. It's worth watching if you like that sort of thing, if nothing else for seeing Alice Waters and Ruth Reichel 20 years younger. I guess it's difficult for some to overcome bad childhood experiences with certain foods. That sounds like a new topic, doesn't it?

Does it have to be in SF proper? Anyone tried Le Cheval in Oakland? Probably not the most "authentic" depending on whether you include the French colonial influences in authenticity, but I like it. Too bad for you if you don't! Vo's is supposed to be good too, though I haven't made it there yet.

I was thinking of starting a thread about this! I'm in a mixed-taste relationship too. She calls me a food snob, but I'm willing to eat far more things than she is. And I too have to cook around her dislikes and aversions. No onions, not because of the taste, but the texture (ugh), mushrooms, most vegetables except for raw spinach, bland lettuce, corn, some peas, lima and butter beans, and no Chinese food. Very few strong or distinctive flavors. She is coming around though, at least she can do Mexican, Indian, and Japanese food now.

Stone Age sweet tooth led to beer's invention By Roger Highfield and David Derbyshire (Filed: 14/09/2002) A Stone Age sweet tooth rather than a hunger for grain may have driven the agricultural revolution behind the rise of civilisation and led to the invention of beer, according to archaeological evidence presented yesterday. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/connected/main....%2Fecnba114.xml Hey, cool, it automatically does links.

Yeah, they don't suck, but if you bring in a photo of a celebrity, make sure you tell them you took it.

no no, it's: what-eveeeeerrrrrr.

I wish I were joining you, but I have to work tonight. And besides, it's way too hot to cook anything today. This weekend for sure though, heat wave or no. . . . I even like that Manwich stuff. One of my housemates after college would make that at least once a week. I think it was all she could cook.

Defintely do some comparison shopping there. Gourmet selection at supermarket prices. TJ's sells this mineral water for $0.99 a bottle where the market next to work in Marin charges $1.59. King Arthur flour (which I've found is hard to find anywhere else here in the Bay Area) is almost $2 a bag less too as compared to the store in Marin.

yeah, I always cut the pepper in half in all his recipes. . . .

Paul Prudhomme's Cajun sheperd's pie is pretty good (from Chef Paul Prudhomme's Louisiana Kitchen). It calls for beef and pork, garlic, onions, celery, and bell pepper in the meatloaf and a layer of sauteed onion, carrots, zucchini and yellow squash between the meat and potato layers.