JAZ

Rosle. I guess it counts as a "safety" version since neither the lid nor the edge of the can is sharp, but it crimps the edge of the lid, not the can, so you could use the cans for ring molds. It removes the entire lid in such a way that the lid doesn't fall into the can and you can place it back on the can for storage (very handy for cat food). Because the cutting wheel never touches the food, it doesn't get dirty. Also, because it cuts at the seam, it doesn't have to be clamped onto the can, so your hand doesn't get tired. It's not cheap, but it's not way overpriced like some of Rosle's products. I think it's around $30. Since I do open cans frequently (for the cats), I rank it up there with my microplane in the pantheon of cool tools. You can see it here: Rosle can opener

Seems to me that the texture might be affected. In general, some of the substitutions sound better than others. In particular, I'd really hate to taste a dish in which apple juice was substituted for wine.

Could be. But from personal experience, I've found that beets don't do well unwrapped in the oven. They always seem to become tough.

They also heat up if you need to hold onto the pan for any length of time, as when you're removing cookies from a baking sheet.

How odd. I almost always add cream to tomato sauces and have never had any trouble. I started doing this when I tried a recipe for linguine with shrimp out of one of Biba Gaggiano's books. Her method was to saute shrimp and garlic, add some brandy and stir until the shrimp is done and the brandy has amost all evaporated. Remove the shrimp, add canned tomatoes (I usually used crushed or sometimes diced -- not sauce). Cook for five minutes or so and then add your cream. Cook just til heated through. Although I vary the ingredients quite a bit, one thing I've always done is to add the cream only at the very end. Cream has a tendency to separate out when cooked for too long. Maybe that's where you're going wrong?

I've only just begun to read the Nero Wolfe novels (I have read several short stories and seen a few of the A&E adaptations), and being the sort of person that I am, I'm beginning with the earliest ones I can find. These don't dwell much on the actual dishes consumed by Wolfe and Archie, except for the chicken fricassee with dumplings in Some Buried Caesar (Archie's first meal with Lily, incidentally -- do I get extra credit for that?). On the other hand, I'm always thirsting for beer as I read these books.

"I don't care what they say -- this Friskies Helper is the best thing since sliced bread."

Rough forms of distilled wine, the forerunners to brandy, were made as early as the 14th century. True, double-distilled, brandies came on the scene in the 16th century; gin was first formulated in 16th century Holland. Rum appeared in the early 17th century. Whiskies were being made in Scotland and Ireland by the 1500's and even in the US, whiskey production began in 1700. So in what sense is vodka the forerunner to every spirit on the planet? The fact is that people have learned to distill into alcohol whatever source of sugar they have available.

Over one billion served.

Maybe I'm just a little slow today, but I simply don't understand what your point is. Or to be more precise, the point seems to have changed, or you're making more than one point (which is fine; I'm just trying for some clarification here. I hate feeling confused.). It seems to me you're saying at first that professionals and amateurs should be trained in separate programs; but then you seem to attach a corollary to that first point to say that either amateurs being in these schools somehow lowers their effectiveness for the would-be pros, or that the amateurs in these schools take up places better reserved for the future chefs, or that the amateurs drive up the price of the schools to the point that less wealthy future pros can't afford them. Or maybe all three. Well, it could very well be true that professional chefs need to learn a different set of skills (business as well as cooking skills) than amateurs. And it may be that different schools or separate programs might be the most effective way to teach the two groups. But the other three corollaries don't necessarily follow from that, and even if they did, I think we have to treat culinary school the same way we treat any other privately funded school. And the fact is, in the US at least, we don't keep people out of schools or disciplines because of their professional intent. That is, if a person can afford a school and meets the requirements for admission, it doesn't make a difference what he or she intends to do with the education. Period. Now, it might well be that virtually no one goes to medical school who doesn't intend to become a doctor, but if someone did, she would certainly be allowed to. Why should culinary school be any different? Wait a minute -- anyone who wants to be a chef should be sent to school at the public's expense? What about other professions? If I said, "I want to be a ____ (fill in the blank -- accountant, attorney, graphic designer, doctor, architect, musician, brick-layer, painter -- whatever), so I think the public should fund my schooling," would you agree with that statement? In the best of all possible worlds, perhaps, but not in this one. Certainly going to culinary school is not a prerequisite for being a chef, correct? Not in the same way that going to medical school is a prerequisite for being a doctor. There are many avenues to becoming a chef, so even if we decided that training chefs was in the public interest and began devoting money to that end, it doesn't entail that we send them to culinary school, or that we deny admission to culinary school to amateurs.

Tower Market in San Francisco also carries Fee Bros. Orange Bitters. (By the way, there is another brand out there -- Collins. It's not as good as Fee Bros. but it's better than nothing.)

Oh, yes, Lamb is a truly great book. "Bacon." (if you've read this, you'll know.) I like all of Christopher Moore's novels -- even Bloodsucking Fiends, which is a great book, but with a totally lame ending. And you have to love The Lust Lizard of Melancholy Cove, even if it's just for the title, but the book is good too. And plus, my sister reviewed Lamb on a web site she writes for (a favorable review) and Mr. Moore wrote a very nice note to her thanking her. I like that.

I finished Bobby Gold the day after I purchased it. I was disappointed in it for the first three quarters of the way through, but it ended up being strangely moving and somehow more complex than it should have been, given its brevity. My latest find (fiction but full of food) was The Book of Salt by Monique Truong. Anyone else read this? It's the story of a fictional Vietnamese cook working in Paris in the 30's for Gertrude Stein and Alice B. -- really wonderful lyrical passages about food, And I'm currently reading Bacchus and Me by Jay McInerney, who is a surprisingly good wine writer. Really enjoying this one. (Oh, and I too am reading some Nero Wolfe -- for the first time.)

I have Wusthof's scissors, and although they're fine, I really prefer my Messermeisters, which come apart for easy cleaning, have a longer blade and are just as strong.

I like Lagunitas IPA when I'm in the mood for lots o' hops. Bridgeport is good, and I also enjoy Anderson Valley's IPA (Hoppin' Otter).

I love Demeyere. I have several pieces of their higher end, copper-core line, Sirocco. The Apollo is great too, but I like the way the Sirocco looks (yes, I know, serious cooks don't care about the looks of their cookware, but I do). It's very expensive, though -- since I work in a cookware store, I'm able to get a discount. I'm not sure if I'd spend the money otherwise. The Apollo line, though, is a pretty good deal considering the quality. One thing that I like about both lines is that the handles to the pots and lids are not riveted, so you don't have to clean crud out of the rivets as you do on, for instance, All Clad.

The Wishing Well was purchased and is now Fireside, and although the bartenders there are nice, they are among the worst I've encountered. Plus the owners always have their dogs in the bar, which I don't like. Some newer places in San Francisco that show promise are Rolling Rock (RR) in Glen Park (took the place of the old dive bar "New Lodge"); Bliss Bar on 24th; and the Orbit Room on Market at Laguna. Absinthe in Hayes Valley is supposed to have great cocktails, but I haven't been there so I can't say. In the East Bay, the best place for a well made and perfectly served cocktail used to be Nizza La Bella in Albany, but as I haven't been there in a few years, I can't attest to the current state of the bar. My guess is that it's still good, though.

I have both a Peugeot and a Magnum and like them both. My Peugeot is old enough that it has the center core that makes it very difficult to fill, which is my only real complaint about it. Also, since the top know controls the grind, when you refill it you have to play around to find the grind you want. It does a great fine grind but doesn't seem to do so well on the coarser grinds. The Magnum, on the other hand, is a breeze to fill. It can grind pepper so coarse it's practically just cracked, which can be nice in some applications (steak au poivre, for example), but it doesn't seem to be able to achieve a really fine grind like the Peugeot does. It produces a lot of pepper with each twist, which is good. It also has a little tray to catch the pepper dust, so it's a bit neater. I use the Peugeot for white peppercorns and the Magnum for black.

I really don't like to be lectured about etiquette (or anything else) either, and my first reaction to such articles is often the same as yours. BUT I truly was appalled at the original article, and it really did bring to mind all sorts of egregious behavior by past guests. And when discussing it here on the original thread and with friends, I realized that among the "foodie crowd" sometimes our passion for good food and drink makes us do and say ungracious things -- often (I hope) unintentionally. And maybe it doesn't hurt to get a little refresher course. AND I'm sure you understand that hyberbole is a big element of my writing. I was serious in my intent, but somewhat facetious in my delivery.

In response to the questions about whether one really has to eat everything, my opinion, despite what I wrote (I was rather overstating my actual sentiments), is that one doesn't. It depends entirely on the circumstances and how one handles not eating a dish. If, as Marlene suggested, you just quietly avoid eating it, or if as Elizabeth did, you eat most of what's served and skip one dish, that's fine. Usually. In my friend's case, the banquet was given in her honor, and the crickets were a big specialty, so yes, she really did the right thing in eating them. In the case when I ate the pasta with gorgonzola, the hostess was a really good friend of mine who was just venturing out in her cooking and she was really proud of the dish. She actually knew about my thing with blue cheese, but it just didn't occur to her that gorgonzola counted as blue. I just felt that it was better to eat a little bit (and blue cheese makes me gag, so it wasn't easy. My advice in this situation is not to breathe while you're eating.). But in other situations, I've skipped salads with blue cheese when they were part of a family style dinner. Like Elizabeth with her tomato thing, I take care in those cases to eat everything else and compliment the host on what I do eat. It's a little different when someone serves something that's just bad or badly made, like the lasagne with cottage cheese, but I actually think those are the times you should just eat some. I remember a dinner at a friend's where she made hamburger helper with a side of Betty Crocker blueberry muffins. Maybe because I had all that practice with my college roommate, I don't have a problem eating that sort of thing if it means not hurting the cook's feelings. Because that, really, was my point -- just be nice to your host. And of course the host has obligations as well, as several people have noted, which I'm tackling in my next column. A host should never draw attention to a guest's not eating something, and never call them on it. But that's for next week.

As dawn approached, the blackness of the night was breached by a lightish purple glow at the horizon, something like the color of blueberry ice cream, but darker -- blueberry gelato, perhaps; after several minutes, while the entire sky grew marginally less inky, the glow changed to more of a reddish orange, reminiscent of the chili oil often served with potstickers at mediocre Chinese restaurants, yet it wasn't until much later, when the sun peeked over the hills in the distance and began to shine with the intense yellow glare of ballpark mustard that Daphne pulled her lips from Theo's and whispered breathlessly, "But you can't leave Margot until you've coaxed from her the secret of her aebelskivers provencal."

They're good added to a salad of beets and oranges.

Well, no grain can ferment without some method of breaking down the starches into fermentable sugars. That's why barley is "malted" -- sprouted just enough to do that, then dried to stop the germination process -- and then boiled. For sake, bacteria is used with rice to get the grain to a stage where the yeast can work. By contrast, yeast can and does ferment fruit in its natural state. I do agree, however, that despite the technical category, sake does stand alone.

Fine Cooking publishes every other month (as does CI) but for the past couple of years has added a special holiday baking issue. That's the 7th.

Jeez, for me Cook's doesn't even rate in the top food magazines... Why? Because it's dull. Boring. Tedious. Regardless of the actual author, every article has the same voice, the same approach, the same predictable results. It's eerie how similar they all are. And who picks the subjects they tackle? The best tuna salad? The best nachos? Come on -- are they serious? Oh, and I hate Christopher Kimball's smarmy little essays. Plus, with the exception of their macaroni and cheese recipe (which they usurped from John Thorne -- with attribution), I've never been crazy about any of their recipes. (Although I did get a great tip from Cook's for pressing/rolling out pizza dough on parchment paper.) Okay, so their product reviews are reliable, but so are the ones in Fine Cooking, which is head and shoulders above Cooks. And, yes, I realize that many people here like it, but I'm sorry. It's boring.