Alcuin

Facing Heaven Chilis are not Thai chilis and they're from the Sichuan region. The Tien Tsin chilis are what prsantrin linked to though, so they'd probably satisfy. That Ghost chili oil sounds dangerous--I imagine you'd only need a little bit. Regular chili oil is plenty hot for me. I think the goal for ma po tofu is a good balance of pretty intense heat and numbness from the peppercorns. As for using stinky tofu, I've never seen it, but I'm no authority anyway. I like regular ma po tofu so much though, that I don't think I'd want to mess with success.

In that wiki, there is this: implying that facing heaven chiles are different from Sichuan chiles. Of course, that doesn't mean they can't be used interchangeably, but they're not the same. ← Since facing heaven chilis are native to Sichuan province and are a chili associated with that region and its cookery, I think I'd say it's a "sichuan chili." Those other chilis you linked to through Penzey's look like a kind of Sichuan chili too, but I've never heard of them. They're probably much easier to find too. Facing heaven chilis are what I've seen referenced the most though when it comes to Sichuan chilis--perhaps because they cut such a nice figure. I think that the writer of that wikipedia article just meant that other chilis are usually ground up in Sichuan cooking whereas these are usually not, not that they are not Sichuan chilis.

I assume you're talking about the kinds of peppers here, not the peppercorns which produce a numbing sensation in the mouth and are not hot. I think the peppers you're looking for are facing heaven chilis which are native to Sichuan province. As for substitutions, I'm not sure, but I think I've heard that things like dried chiles de arbol or even dried New Mexico chiles would work. I often use a couple of dried thai peppers. In the final product, you can't really tell that much.

Here's an example of an influential leader: Michelle Obama and the White House garden. This is what she says in the NYT piece on the garden: She talks about leading by example and explicitly acknowledges the guilt people might have about not being able to follow it. She then suggests that there are lots of small steps one can take to improve this area of their lives. This is encouraging, whereas Alice Waters can seem discouraging when urging people to spend more money on food and give up things in order to do it. Michelle Obama is trying to meet people where they're at and this is the kind of figure we need to get people thinking about these issues. Here's an example of people thinking about these issues: it's a pictorial beginning with the White House garden and continuing with peoples' own efforts to grow. At the bottom of the page it says: If that's not raising awareness, I don't know what is. Obama leads by example and meets people where they're at. This is the antitype of Alice Waters' public persona. Obama goes out of her way to make people feel comfortable with what they can do, encouraging them to do more. Waters, like it or not, can sound discouraging when talking about super expensive grapes or dishing out hearth cooked eggs. This is why she's annoying to some people, as opposed to Obama who clearly senses that this could be a touchy issue and treads lightly, actively trying not to be annoying. edited to fix pronoun ambiguity

I like gruyere and and chard (including the stems, the most delicious part imo) for bread pudding. The cheese would definitely be a good addition and so would some chard if you think it would go with the amount of ramps you have. Sounds good--I love savory bread puddings and I love ramps too. I'll have to try the combo.

that's fine, but expecting AW to change just to please her critics is a little unrealistic. plus I prefer her just the way she is. ← And some of those critics are less than honest with their public or themselves. Like I said, touting a $26 hamburger, which isn't exactly food for the masses. And I'm wondering if Tony remembers this line, from the Les Halles cookbook: And, of course, Saint Tony had this to say as well... And... Oh, Tony, how we used to trust thy word. ← Sooooo...Bourdain, like many others, has complicated views. It's pretty easy to find somebody contradicting themselves, especially when you have access to their printed word over the course of a couple of years. The fact of the matter is that people's opinions are complicated and may seem/be contradictory sometimes. It's a fantasy to think that a person would have one consistent line of thought over the course of a couple of years or even days. It just doesn't work that way: things are complicated, people's views evolve. This doesn't give you license to lord their contradictions over them though as if to nullify the things they say. Perhaps we should comb over the archives and see how utterly consistent we all are: then we can decide who gets to post. I freely grant that AW has complex views. The problem is she has no sense of the larger context of what she's saying. Is she a visionary? Perhaps. But visionaries who can't see what's going on around them aren't that effective and can seem out of touch. I'll repeat this one more time: nobody is saying that AW's goals are not worthy. To say that simply because we criticize or are annoyed by her that we therefore cannot share her views at all is just too black and white a way of thinking. I eat local food for a lot of reasons and think that educating people about nutrition is vitally important. Alice Waters is, however, not. If you need her as a figure, then fine. But don't imply that unless I rally behind her, I don't care about the environment, natural and social, and equate me to some hack writer of a rag pumping out sensationalist articles to make a buck. That's a cheap trick and doesn't really get us anywhere. Like I said: there's no backlash as far as I'm concerned. AW is important as a restaurateur and in her community. Beyond that, I see no reason to think she's all that significant and this thread is confirming that.

The problem here is that the thread's title is no good. It's similar to that old chestnut that asks, "have you stopped beating your wife yet?" Yes or no, you're screwed and the conversation goes nowhere. The real question is "why is there an Alice Waters backlash?" I'd guess that most people visiting this thread are aware of the issues and probably agree to some extent with a lot of what Alice Waters believes. What she says though is another story: I think she's just not a very good figurehead right now. I would even say there is no backlash: that would assume that everybody's been on board with her and that they've suddenly turned on her. This is not true either. She's been the same: her restaurant is good, her cookbooks are good, her ideas are good, her understanding of the larger context of these issues--not so good--and probably never has been. There's no backlash, it's just that the problems with her as a media figure stand in stark relief right now. The problem is not that everybody's marginalizing her--she marginalizes herself by seeming to have little understanding outside of the context of her small community, her kitchen, and her own backyard. If she wants to make an impact, she's got to think outside of that context and I don't think she can. That's my criticism of her--she should stick to her own backyard because she doesn't seem to be able to act in other peoples' sometimes.

The authenticity question's interesting because since there is a continuous tradition, the drink has really developed on it's own almost out here in isolation. I've tried to talk to people about the OF and they freaked out when I said I didn't muddle any fruit--that's the thing that makes it an OF for them. These two drinks have different objectives (one to highlight the character of the whiskey that we'd call "authentic" and the fruit salad one). There's actually a place here called The Old Fashioned that has five different kinds of WI OF made with different base spirits (brandy, bourbon, Clement creole shrubb, applejack, and gin). I'd be interested to see a cocktail place here, but you'd have to make some serious inroads into beer culture. You can go anywhere and get really good beer here so that's what most people drink.

When I first moved here to Madison WI, I had no idea what that meant until someone told me it's the choice between soda water or Sprite to fill up the glass. I used to drink a lot of these before I really got into mixing drinks myself. It's cool though that there's still the vestiges of a cocktail culture surrounding this drink here even if the advances of the past few years haven't quite made their way this far yet, leaving us in the dark ages for the most part.

This looks like fighting fire with fire. No one said 3 and 4. I said that kids do need to learn how to eat right but that Alice Waters is not the one to teach the very inner-city kids you yourself brought up as an example of the benefits of her ideas. As for everyone that loves good local food being a pompous ass: no one has said that but you. I agree with many of the things AW has said. I share her position on many things. I support local famers. But, she is a polarizing figure: look at what has happened with this group of like-minded people. That's evidence enough that this Waters backlash or what have you is not productive for her own project. Does the media create straw-men (and -women)? Of course they do. But that didn't end up being the issue in this thread. Why? Because Waters touches a nerve with many people. She divides: people rose stridently against her and others to defend her. Is this really the sign of an uncontroversial figure that is simply being singled out for no reason? Methinks not. Is this the figure you want to hold up as the origin and figurehead of a vitally important movement that affects everyone?

One person doesn't make a movement. I'm not exactly sure what "movement" we're talking about here, but the organic and local foods movement has roots in a pre-WWII response to the mechanization of agriculture and it only increased post-WWII as the technology ramped up. Alice Waters stepped into the ready flow of a movement. She didn't make history, she was just a part of it (like the rest of us). ← Wow, I'd like to see some sort of research that shows the organic "movement" started pre-WWII. Not referring, of course, to backyard gardeners, who have always been the backbone of the local, organic movement. ← OK, so the ideas are there, people have talked about them, the response to mechanization of agriculture is there, people are talking about the importance of local food, but until it's christened a movement by your hero, Alice Waters, the movement is invented yet? Alice Waters is a restaurateur, not the creator of a "movement" out of the void. So, when do you begin the "organic farming movement" (or whatever) if you don't accept that it has early 20th century roots? At the opening of Chez Panisse? Really? Perhaps Alice Waters is the first figure you can recall for the beginning of a "movement," but that doesn't make her the beginning of it in anyone's mind but yours. Why don't we say the organic movement began with the publication of _Organic Farming_ edited by Wendell Berry then? Because that publication is not beginning a movement, it's just publicizing it and, yes, perhaps opening it up into a wider audience, but not beginning it because it was already there to be talked about (just like it was already there to be turned into a restaurant).

One person doesn't make a movement. I'm not exactly sure what "movement" we're talking about here, but the organic and local foods movement has roots in a pre-WWII response to the mechanization of agriculture and it only increased post-WWII as the technology ramped up. Alice Waters stepped into the ready flow of a movement. She didn't make history, she was just a part of it (like the rest of us).

Alice Waters is the public face of a movement that is, it's true, trying to get people to change their behavior (something not so unpopular now that "green" is the thing). My problem is that she's not that good at it--she can and does come off as elitist, as too many people to dismiss have felt. It's not the message, it's the messager that's the problem. In that infamous 60 Minutes piece, the Mayor of San Fransisco was a thousand times better at conveying the message than she was. Michelle Obama is better at it in those photos of her digging and planting in the Whitehouse garden. Alice Waters comes off, sadly, as out of touch to many people. If you are interested in helping inner-city, poverty-stricken people, do you really think that Alice Waters is the best emissary for better nutrition for them? I work with a program that in fact does try to teach better nutrition to people of low socioeconomic status: as long as we're busting out our anecdotal evidence, I can tell you that she would be laughed out of the church basement. I don't have a problem with pie in the sky idealists--I am one sometimes. What I'm saying is that Alice Waters puts a bad face sometimes on some important issues and that's a problem. She should stick to doing what she does best--running her kitchens and being a part of her community. Let someone who doesn't piss people off be the public figure.

Why ice water? Does this just retard the rise? Jmahl ← This sounds similar to the Pain a l'ancienne bread recipe from Peter Reinhart's Bread Baker's Apprentice. The idea there at least is to make sure that all the fermentation is done in the refrigerator for maximum retardation. There is only mixing, no kneading, with Reinhart's method in this recipe as well. Sorry I don't have more to say about this particular book, though. If you want to see the results of a (possibly) similar method, check out the Bread Baker's Apprentice thread and compare.

Young punk that I am, I'd say there's nothing wrong with a little revisionist drinkery. Right the wrongs.

There's the appropriately named "Flower Power Martini" by Simon Difford. You can get the details on it here.

I thought this was because rye wasn't available during prohibition and Canada produced the closest substitute that had some rye in it, but not 100%.

New Glarus is good. If you like IPAs, though, you should definitely try Ale Asylum's Ballistic and if you get a chance to go to the Great Dane, check out their Speed bump IPA--it's really bitter and citrusy. They also have a stout that has amazing vanilla notes and I like their Scotch ale too. Lake Louie beer is really good too--give that a try if you haven't had it. For beer, many places around town have good lists. The Old Fashioned has a good one and you can soak up the WI ambiance. The Dane I've already mentioned too for their own beers. All in all though, you'd be hard pressed to go to a place that doesn't have something interesting on tap. If you can make it and it's nice out, go to the Terrace of Memorial Union for beer. It might be a bit chilly, but in the warmer months there's maybe no better place in the world (that's right, I said it) to drink beer than on the terrace. It might still be worth checking out even if the weather isn't cooperating for the charm of the Rathskeller which is painted with German murals, has a nice fireplace and a decent collection of steins. I like to get Spaten's Optimator or Bell's Two Hearted Ale when I'm there. Beware though, it is a union so anything could be happening there (from students just eating lunch to a bluegrass concert).

Word that there's a cocktail renaissance occurring hasn't quite made it to Madison. You can't go into a bar and ask for something like an Aviation and get one and if you ask for a martini or a manhattan you're likely to get a glass of cold booze with very little vermouth and no bitters, shaken. Even if you specify ratios, it doesn't matter. There are very few (I've not discovered any, but I guess it's possible...) bartenders who are students of the cocktail here. If you ask for an Old Fashioned, you'll get a double OF glass with plenty of muddled fruit, some bitters, brandy, and topped with soda or Sprite. These have their charm, but sophisticated drinks they are not. If you want a good one of these, go to the Old Fashioned (two doors down from L'Etoile) or the Tornado Room (diagonally across the square on Hamilton St). If you are looking for something like The Violet Hour or anything in the same galaxy, you won't find it. I would actually suggest beer personally, since there is a good beer culture here: try the Great Dane or the Old Fashioned--both are close to L'Etoile and have good beer lists (the Great Dane makes their own and they are quite good--otherwise check out Ale Asylum or Lake Louie, two outstanding WI beer makers). If you really have to have a cocktail, there's a tiny bar in L'Etoile--you might be able to guide the bartender there to making your drink. Otherwise, the scene's pretty much the same all over. The best candidates for you would be Maduro's (they have plenty of bitters and a decent selection of liqueurs, but don't be fooled, in my experience they don't know how to use them) and the Tornado Room.

You're not crazy. It's worth it.

A quick braise in orange juice is also good. Slice the fennel, or peel it apart and cut it into similarly sized pieces. Brown it as best as you can in a hot pan, then add fresh oj to it and cover over low heat. Come back in about 10 minutes give or take and test it to see if it's cooked to your liking. The juice should be reduced almost to a glaze when it's done--if it isn't, reduce it. Give it salt and pepper then top with plenty of roughly chopped flat leaf parsley. Delicious.

You only get three pizzas out of that? That's going to be roughly (I didn't do the math, so...) 16-20 oz per pie. I usually do about 6-9oz per pie. Perhaps you have a gigantic oven or I'm missing something.

No no, there is no textural problem for a whole leg or even a part. There is no problem with texture and the duck certainly does not end up stringy! Remember virtually any description of confit you will have ever read in the printed media would have been prepared under the traditional method i.e. 2-3 hours in the fat. Now in theory the shrinkage in the meat would be more than under sous vide, but it really doesn't make that much difference. There is also probably lower margin for error in overcooking, particularly on the stove top (I prefer to use a low oven rather than a stove top nowadays). Personally I worry that slow cooking for a very long time would lose flavour from the meat to the fat (remember fat is a very good carrier of flavour molecules), although adding aromatics to the fat or using sous vide to reduce the amount of fat would ameliorate the situation. Remember sous vide / low temp is one method but it is not the answer to everything. I've had more than enough pappy flavourless 56c beef to teach me that! To be honest badly done or stringy duck confit is generally the fault of the chef rather than the method. Tough or dry confit is generally either due to way too aggressive cooking temperatures, or leaving it too long in the frying pan when you reheat. J ← Long term cooking doesn't compromise the flavor of the meat. I've done it in an oven and a water bath with excellent results, cooking it for a long time (aprox 10 hours--usually a little less). I've never done it for a short amount of time--I'm not doubting that it works, but I am saying I don't think it would be as good. The point is this: choose your method according to what you want the result to be. Whole leg: I'd go low and slow. Shredded or otherwise heavily manipulated: maybe a little quicker would work. Ultimately though, I'm making lots of duck confit and letting something slowly bathe in its own fat so that I get the texture I like (and a nice rosy interior with the myoglobin intact I associate with duck confit) is not a big deal. Plus, as Slkinsey notes, it keeps--hence the term "confit." In fact, it gets better with age.

Not convinced confit duck takes that long. Quick round-up from my bookshelf: Larousse (Goose): 2 hours. James Peterson: 2-3 hours. Michel Roux Jr: 2 hours or until tender. Harold McGee: Several hours. Robuchon: 1hr 40 for duck, 2 1/2 hr for goose. Marco Pierre White: 1 1/4 hours. Nico Ladenis: 1-3 hours. Gordon Ramsay: 1 1/2 -2 hours. The Roux Brothers: 1 hr 20 mins. Alice Waters: 1 1/2 hours. Jeremiah Tower: 1 1/2 hours. Now that is not to say sous vide-ing for half a day isn't a superior or more consistent method of preparing goose-fat-poached-duck-leg-sous-vide. But that's not confit in the garbure-on-the-side-with-pomme-sarlardaise-to-go sense. Generally a traditional confit is prepared in a much briefer time, and over a higher temperature (either just bubbling fat on the stovetop of a oven in the 120-150c range). Or to put it another way the traditional method has worked perfectly well for hundreds of years. It fits easily into your time budget. Why not try it? J ← Interesting. I'm certainly no authority when it comes to duck confit, but I do wonder how the texture of the duck is going to be with 1 1/2-2 hours cooking. It seems to take a pretty long time to achieve the texture I associate with duck confit. McGee says that a low and slow cooking time allows the cook to keep meat at temperatures that break down collagen (but have the side effect of drying meat out) for less time, making for a tender but still succulent product. Higher heat and more time at the required temp (70-80C) might then lead to a drier, possibly stringy result. I guess it would depend on how you want to use the confit--if you're talking about serving an entire leg, the possible texture issues will be apparent. If the confit will be a small element of a larger dish, it might not be so apparent.

but duck confit cooks normally in two or three hours. its the salting/brining that takes forever - hard to accelerate that no? ← Umm, duck confit takes a lot longer than that to cook. It's more like 10-12 hours of slow cooking because you want the duck to be just about falling apart but to retain enough definition to hold together. See this thread for an excellent pictorial of the method: Confit Duck. I don't see how sous vide could speed up this process, but I'd be interested to see if its possible. Ideally though, you'd want to age your confit a bit in the refrigerator to make it extra special too--duck confit is the polar opposite of a quick preparation.