Mjx

Ageed. Plus, just setting eyes on 'salt tincture' made me reflexively hit myself on the forehead rather forcefully, so, I now hate the term twice as much. 'Brine' makes a hell of a lot more sense, but I imagine that somebody thinks the word 'tincture' lends an upmarket tone to the stuff. Yeesh. I also now think this would be an excellent addition to the hypothetical 'Iphigenia', which, if everything that I'm thinking of ends up in it, would be a quite revolting drink. And probably indicates that it's a good thing my work week has been abruptly cut off.

Hm... that calls for one called 'Iphigenia', which could be described as 'What to drink when you're hiding from dad'. No idea what would go into it, but I think it's have to be a bit blue, so maybe some Creme de Violette.

Baby rucola, cherry tomatoes still warm from the sun (split), tiny whole basil leaves, thread of olive oil, pinch of salt, grind of coarse pepper. Perfect.

At what point did you add the heart, liver, and kidneys, and how did you prep them before adding them to the braise? This looks delicious, and has inspired me to bite the bullet and shell out for a bunny (wish the ones they sold here were as robust as yours).

This is my recommendation as well. I always ride the bike on highway 1 on my way up to my friend's farm in Point Arena. The trip is 2 days and I always stop in Tomales bay and stay the night! Crab will be in full swing on your visit and you must get it while you're over here! It sounds great... but for now this is just a tempting note in my 'Trip plan' document, because it's going to be a while before I can make the trip 1/3 of the way around the world again, probably a year or so. And, I'm hoping that next time, I won't be dying by inches, and can eat a lot more.

I appreciate tea (although I was told that I have peasant's tastes, because I favour smoky lapsang souchong and gunpowder), but I LOVE coffee. Half the time, it's all I have between waking up and eating dinner.

I've heard a lot of people mispronounce 'tarallucci' in 'Tarallucci e Vino' as 'tara-lucky' or 'tara-luksi', which would be painful, if it weren't for the fact that I'm fairly certain I mispronounce the names of most Asian places. 'Sfoglia' is actually pronounced 'sfol-ya', unless this is some special dialect-related pronunciation, since Italian doesn't run to silent lone esses (plus, if the 's' is silent, it turns it into the word for 'leaf' (plant part), while 'sfoglia' is a thin layer).

I wanted to thank everybody (belatedly) for their great suggestions: We ended up eating at Novak's, Local Ocean, Larrupin Cafe, and Samoa Cookhouse. We didn't make it to New Sammy's, because at the point in our route that we could have managed it, I was just starting antibiotic treatment for a strep throat, and wasn't up to anything like swallowing solids. Next time, I guess. We ate at several other places, including lunch at Crater Lake Lodge, and at Marché, in Eugene (and would definitely return to both), and dinner at Frascati, in San Francisco, which has blown us away both times we ate there. Already looking forward to our next trip out there

At the risk of sounding obvious, how would your failed marshmallows be as a topping for, say, a very dark, dense chocolate/spiced cake or similar dessert, such as bread pudding? The bourbon sounds like it might just make it perfect for the job, and you could tweak it, if you feel it isn't quite dimensional enough as is.

Unless it's a question of rising to the technical challenge (in which case, I think rotuts has it right), using pasteurized eggs would give more predictable results.

Ducks don't breathe with their tongues (see any reliable source regarding avian respiration, e.g. , S. Girling 2003 Veterinary nursing of exotic pets p. 11), but since the tube isn't inserted into the trachea (which would be pointless, since the food would go into the lungs, killing them instantly the first time round), this isn't relevant. I deliberately used 'inserted' rather than 'shoved', by the way, since I have no idea of how much force is used in the proces, and was trying to stick with neutral terms. You know, I'm with Jenni, and I'm folding after this, too, for the simple reason that no matter what we say, those of us who are simply questioning the production foie gras, and suggesting that there might be grounds for concern, are being lumped with those who are demanding it be banned. There aren't just two sides. Between the extremes of 'I have the right to eat what I want, sod the consequences', and 'If you consume products derived from our precious fellow non-humans, you are exploitive, and must be stopped from so doing by any means necessary' there is a huge middle ground comprising plenty of reasonable people who find certain food production methods ethically questionable, but do not believe that bans are the way to go. Several have participated in this discussion, in fact. But even raising the question of the ethics of foie gras production seems to be regarded as evidence, or at least support of animal-rights extremism. It isn't possible to have a discussion, when one side is asking 'Shouldn't we be looking into the ethics of foie gras production?', while the other is responding with 'You're stripping me of my right eat foie gras, and will soon be taking my steak and ham, too'. This isn't even the same discussion. Well, that personal decision is being made for us by people who think they know better. I understood that this ban was put to a vote, correct me if I'm wrong. It's really unlikely that there are enough extremists in California to make for enough votes to carry this; most who voted were almost certainly opposed, but not extreme. They voted as much for what they believed right for them, as for anyone else. Same as any vote. And yeh, it's a fairly pointless bill, which anyone capable of looking ahead would have to seen is not going to improve foie gras production standards over the long term. ('Us'? I thought you live in Nevada.)

I eat meat, if that even matters, and I too have rights, but I believe that any given right is bound to a responsibility: The right to eat animals seems bound to the responsibility to treat them humanely up to and including when they're slaughtered. It is by no means clear that the prevailing process of producing foie gras is not abusive, so I don't see that those who disagree with you (i.e. question or oppose the production of foie gras) can be fairly dismissed as 'liars, propagandists, deceivers, etc.' (but thanks for giving the sceptics among us a pass on being terrorists ). Wondering whether force-feeding to an extent that causes the occasional gastric rupture is needlessly abusive is neither dishonest nor extreme, but is the central question in this discussion; all reasonable participants will want to fully examine it, regardless of their position.

I don't expect to convince anyone whose view of this matter is fundamentally different from mine (i.e. 'Yes, I have the right to eat what I please, but if my choice is responsible for unnecessary suffering or loss, then I'll pass'), and I don't trot out my views unless I'm directly asked, or there is an open discussion on the matter. However, in an open discussion, I don't see why someone questioning or opposing the production of foie gras is 'telling someone what to', whereas someone supporting its production is simply 'defending their rights'. Nor do I get the 'sides' thing: This isn't a simple, two-sided debate between peaceful, tolerant meat eaters and violent, intolerant vegetarians (seriously, re-read the topic, and tell me which perspective is expressed most vehemently and uncompromisingly). An array of perspectives has been presented, most of which are not extreme. I really don't see the slippery slope thing, even though various 'sides' seem to fear (or hope) that this is the start of one. Stripped of squishy anthropomorphising and sanctimonious dribble (which hasn't been present in the current discussion), the argument against the production of foie gras is that there is apparently no humane way of producing it. The same doesn't hold true for producing other meat products. Cuteness? This doesn't seem to have anything to do with the foie gras issue, unless I've missed something (and given Americans' loss of enthusiasm for rabbit, it seems pretty clear that you don't need an animal rights group to change a population's tastes; sentimentality can do that on its own). To produce foie gras, ducks and geese must be force-fed; force-feeding is accomplished by inserting a tube in the the birds' throats, to deliver the food. These the objective points, not speculation. Since there is no direct way to understand what the experience may be like for the birds raised for foie gras, one can only rely on observation, research, and morbidity/mortality data to hypothesize. Such observation, even when carried out by groups such as the European Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare, suggest that the process of force-feeding, at least as it is currently carried out, is somewhere between moderately and severely distressing to the ducks and geese (e.g. the report I mentioned previously, Welfare Aspects of the Production of Foie Gras in Ducks and Geese). Conclusions based on observation and research do not extend past reasonable speculation. From this point on, however, any discussion moves into pure speculation ('How distressing is it for a bird to have a tube inserted into its throat and be routinely fed an amount that is capable of causing intestinal rupture?') and the philosophical ('Should I care whether or not a bird is feeling distressed?'; 'What are the relative values of my right [as a human] to eat what I want and a food species' right to have a reasonably un-distressing existence, if I have any voice in this matter?', etc.) The speculative questions are probably not answerable, and the philosophical ones are personal. Evidently, at this time, enough Californians are uncomfortable enough with their understanding of foie gras production to wish to oppose it. As someone pointed out upthread, that's democracy. Given the scale, resources and impact of the of the various meat and poultry lobbies, I just can't find it in me to start sobbing about the impact of animal rights groups, which have been pushing for all sorts of changes (from the perfectly reasonable to the bewilderingly idiotic), and have had relatively little effect. We both agreed that banning foie gras was easy, for various reasons. No satisfactory conclusion will ever be reached, unless the objective aspect is kept in sight. And there is at least one remaining objective question: If the current process of force-feeding is distressing to the birds, is it possible to develop an approach that give the same results, but is not distressing, or at least only very mildly so? Has this been seriously investigated? It seems worth the trouble of looking into, and I find it difficult to imagine that even the greatest appreciator of foie gras would object to its being produced under humane conditions!

I'm curious: How many of you keep your first aid kits in the kitchen? I actually keep (well, kept) mine just outside the kitchen, in the hall closet, where it seemed less likely to be knocked about, or have muck spilled on it.

I've never asked to have my leftovers packed up to take away, but I've been in situations where I was asked whether I'd like to take home what I hadn't eaten; is this never done in the UK?

I'd hack it up quite small, simmer it briefly in some sort of sauce, and turn it into empanada filling (which is what I'm toying with doing with some 'rubber turkey' I've just been sort of made a 'gift' of).

Sorry, but apart from being an inaccurate generalization, it's an argument in the category of, 'Well, you lost only one finger in the sink disposal, it could've been two or more!'; yeah, but the existing situation isn't great, either. There isn't any good reason to consume meat every day. For most people, it's completely fine, but there's no point in suggesting that not eating meat on a daily basis is some sort of screwball idea. Eating the amount of meat (or any protein) we currently average isn't necessary, to say the least; we eat too much of everything, and meat is no exception (I can, and have, happily eaten a 0.75kg bistecca fiorentina on my own, but there is no way I would make that an everyday, or even every month occurrence, my body wouldn't stand it). There isn't anything daft about eating less meat than most people do, and it's hardly a shift towards vegetarianism to cut back a bit! Erm... right. So, you've never met a large animal vet who's vegetarian?!

I'm familiar with the various groups' agendas, and frankly, they can wish for the moon and a gold hat, too: They're as likely to get one as the other. They are both outnumbered and out-funded by the the various meat industry lobbies. Foie gras was easy because the number of US producers is relatively small, the number of Americans who consume it is also relatively small, the mode of production is not what anyone accurate would describe as humane, and there is no way to make it so. The bill is unlikely to stick for very long either; it certainly didn't last long in Chicago. I don't see any rational reason to believe that this bill represents anything like the thin end of a wedge. ETA: Frankly, I find extremism of any stripe tedious, and whenever people start with the equivalent of shrieking 'The sky is falling, the sky I falling!!!' I'm bored. Possibly disturbed, too, but mostly bored. The whole discussion about 'rights', regardless of whether it is in reference to one's appetites or another species is valid and worthy of serious discussion, but degenerates so quickly into squealing and foot-stamping, that it becomes impossible to take anyone seriously.

Hang on, care to elaborate on the reason you think those particular things ('beef tenderloin, chicken tenders, fish eyes, pork trotters') are particularly likely to be next in line? I'm not seeing this at all. I have serious doubts that the animal rights lobbies exceed the magnitude of the beef and poultry industries' lobbies. (Just to be clear, I'm not particularly extreme in my views, but have thought about this subject a lot, I've had to: I was raised a vegetarian, by parents who made this choice for ethical reasons. I eat meat: I have no cogent argument to support my decision, and if you ask me whether I believe this to be justifiable on rational grounds, I have to say that I don't. I've also assisted in the slaughter of chickens, which left me shaking for quite a while, and not just because I was a little concerned that my friend might hack off part of my hand, along with the chicken's head, with the not-exactly-super-sharp hatchet. Doing the job humanely would have been less dangerous, as well as kinder. And yes, I think they deserved a baseline of humane slaughter, even though they're gross cannibals, and generally ill-tempered)

Brillat-Savarin, Dumas (père), and McGee. It would make for fascinating conversation, answers to lots of my questions, and possibly a stupendous argument, which should help take my mind off the fact that this was my last meal.

I don't get the impression that extremist animal rights activists are numerous enough in California to have been able to get this bill passed, without plenty of others agreeing with them; a lot of people are simply disturbed by the process involved in the production of foie gras. The difference between the production of foie gras and slaughtering animals is that there is no humane way to do the former. So, it comes down to 'Is my right to eat foie gras more important than the right of another species to have a reasonably comfortable existence until I eat it/portions of it?' Evidently, a lot of Californians think not, but I doubt that most had extremist views on this. Just consciences.

Not old hat, but the question of sustainability has been raised repeatedly over the last century, so it can't be described as 'new'. If it were truly a trend, rather than a lot of marketing talk, we'd be seeing far more extensive results. Point taken, this is a cooking forum, but all the so-called trends... sorry, they still strike me as marketing more than anything else, and honestly, not new, either.

What brand do you use? I've tried these, and although they did the job nicely, they came loose once much was done with the hands, even with a bandage/finger cot/glove over it. Duct tape might hold them in place, haven't tried that.

I'd add a couple of rubber bands (quick, temporary tourniquet for when a finger is bleeding like crazy, but you don't really have the option of walking about swearing and hand-clamping proximal to your wound for five minutes until clotting starts/you can bandage without it being sort of pointless), and New-Skin or similar to seal small cuts and scrapes, especially if keeping a plaster in place is not going to really work out, and some surgical gloves (powder-free) for when you've done something truly spectacular to your hand in the wound department. I also keep alcohol on hand, since I rely on hydrogen peroxide mostly for puncture wounds. Have you actually had any luck at all with finger-tip plasters? So far, the only time I've gone to the emergency room for a kitchen injury was when I severed an artery (you could tell straight off, since it was spurting rhythmically), which isn't something to mess about with (although I did take out the stitches myself). A bad burn (sort of hard to define, but location and size would determine it) would send me to ER, too.

I really like the sound of this! Much as I like macarons, I find the butter-cream to be a real drawback, since it almost invariably leaves me feeling a bit queasy, sometimes even if I eat just one.