slkinsey

Yea, I think it really is taking off. One thing I've been thinking about... So many new places have opened in NYC lately (don't forget Gold Bar, Double Seven, and a few others I'm sure I'm forgetting) that I wonder if we aren't experiencing a momentary dropoff in average bar experience/expertise across the board as the talent is spread much more thinly than it was two years ago. This should ultimately be a good thing, as new bar talent is found, trained, encouraged and developed. But I'm beginning to feel like there is some dilution these days. It used to be that there were one or two places in town where I could go Isecure in the knowledge that every single night of the week every single person behind the bar was a cocktail expert with a thorough knowledge of the classics in memory and the ability to create new and interesting drinks for knowledgable and familiar customers all'improvviso. Those 'tenders are still around, but are now spread out among a double handfull of other bars. Now, I can't think of a single bar with that level of universal 7-days-a-week bar talent -- I've even had some not-so-great cocktails at exclusive single-bartender outfits -- which means that I have to try to go when so-and-so is there if I want to get a top experience. On more than one occasion in the past 6 months, I've had to explain a Martinez to a bartender in bars where this would previously have been unthinkable. Of course one hopes and assumes that with proper training, dedication and mentoring, a year's experience and mentoring will have changed that. Certainly I can remember when some of today's acknowledged experts were the "enthusiastic new guy" -- and it wasn't that long ago. Luckily, the cocktail designing talent is as strong as ever at most of the stalwarts (Bemelmans has fallen way off since Audrey left, and Angel's Share hasn't been good for quite some time). So you can always get something great from the menu.

Heh. No kidding. Me too. A recent "light" dinner at New Green Bo: - 1 cup of chicken broth with vegetables - 6 fried pork dumplings - 4 boiled pork and leek dumplings - 1.5 wedges of scallion pancake - 1.5 cups rice cakes with chicken - 1 piece fish fillet in wine sauce (hold the fungus) I feel like I must be forgetting something. The ironic thing is that this dinner was actually fairly light compared to other forays to NGB.

I'm curious as to what we think constitutes a "normal" Chinese restaurant meal in America. I'd hypothesize that a typical individual eating "family style" at a Chinese restaurant has something like this: - 2 fried pork dumplings - 1 egg roll - 1 wedge scallion pancake - 1/2 cup hot and sour soup - 1/2 cup deep fried chicken in thick sweet sauce - 1/2 cup moo shu pork - 1/2 cup beef with broccoli and garlic - 1/2 cup white rice That is a lot of fat right there.

Still, Chinese food dinners are usually full of oil. I think it would be hard to think of a typical Chinese restaurant dinner that could be considered "light on the fat." Yea, you can have the steamed broccoli and scallops, but most people are ordering moo shu pork and General Tso's chicken. And clearly many of them do so thinking it's "healthy because it's Chinese food." Someting like the (delicious) "stir-fried watercress with crispy pork" I had at Sripraphai the other day sounds superficialy "light and healthy" -- but the reality is that it was full of fat.

I think there is a thread around here somewhere about the ridiculousness of the current DOH crackdown. That said, I have to wonder whether the continued scrutiny of DiFara is due to perceived "defiance" on the part of the owner, who has been quoted saying things like, "they say I've gotta wear gloves now—and a hat . . . I'd only wear a hat if I were bald. I'd rather pay the fine than wear the hat."

Just ask Zachary Taylor.

I think it very much depends on one's experience, expertise and knowledge in knowing how distilling works, not to mention working with metals and what metals are appropriate to use, how to ventilate properly, etc. It's not nothing.

Eater reports that the DOH has shuttered DiFara again.

One of the reasons most recipe books for homemade gelato include eggs is that the equipment is not optimal for making real gelato. Ice cream/gelato is technology-driven in much the same way as espresso. You can't make espresso without an espresso machine, and you can't make gelato without proper gelato machinery. Similarly, just as the quality of espresso is largely dependent on the quality of the machine, so is gelato dependent on the quality of the machinery. Similarly again, there is a fairly steep entry price point for the machinery required to make acceptable espresso and gelato. And still similarly, in their home country, both of these products are largely a professional's game. So... if you're going to be making and storing your "gelato" at home with technology in the sub-$1k price range, you're going to have to make nontraditional compromises and adjustments in order to approximate the real thing. paulraphael points out some storage temperature-based reasons for using egg yolks and other stabilizers. I'd also argue that, for the home enthusiast, egg yolks can be a way of getting something similar to the texture, density and mouthfeel of real gelato. If you can slow down the the speed of your home machine and raise the temperature a bit, that's probably a pretty good idea as well. I would also recommend eating it the same day it's made after only limited freezer hardening. A little booze might help in keeping a softer texture.

Well, the thing is that orange bitters are fairly subtle. They don't tend to make a huge difference in the taste of a drink the way, e.g., Angostura bitters do -- and if they do, it often means you used too much. If you really want to showcase the difference orange bitters can make, I'd suggest a Martini. Get a freshly-opened bottle of Noilly Prat and stir it with Tanqueray in equal parts, adding a few short dashes of orange bitters.

From what I understand, Pernod and Ricard tweaked the formula when they transitioned from absinthe to pastis. Pastis is sweeter, lower in proof and more anise-forward than the absinthes I've tried. So, yea, it's not the same thing as "absinthe without the wormwood" but it was developed as a replacement product after the ban. I was mostly responding to your questions as to whether Pernod currently makes absinthe and whether Pernod's (now) signature product is a pastis. The answer to both is "yes." I guess you must be talking about redistilling spirits in one of those little glass rigs you get in catalogs? Yes, I suppose it's true that there is less danger of things like methanol-induced blindness if one is redistilling a product that has already been distilled. I'd have to be convinced that the end product was worth all the cost and trouble, though. For entirely homemade rigs, there is always some risk that materials or contruction will lead to a dangerous result through contamination or fire hazard. I think it depends a lot on how much you're making, where you're making it and whether any of your neighbors decide to complain. Don't be so sure that the law doesn't care. Years ago my family was spending time in our house in the mountains of Western North Carolina and were burning a fire from logs that happened to be a little too wet. Marshals showed up to make sure we weren't 'shining. Also, you may think it's silly to suppose that the "kid" might get busted, but don't be so sure it won't happen. All it takes is for one person to get a stomach bug, decide that it was the cook's fault and complain to the wrong person. Or, all it takes is an environment with a reactionary and hypervigilant DOH -- like we have in New York City right now -- to get wind of it. There are plenty of things that seem like they're "no big deal -- the police can't be bothered" right up to the point where the police decide they can be bothered. For example, people have been smoking cannabis on the street in NYC for decades and the police largely couldnt' care less so long as the smokers are discreet (although I wouldn't recommend doing it if a copp is standing next to you). Nevertheless, I have a friend who spent the night in jail for doing it.

There's more to it than that. In order to cook effetively in a wok, you need a specialized burner. Cooking in a sauté pan, on the other hand, is done over a regular Western-style burner. In my opinion, if you want to "stir fry" on a regular home stove, you're better off with a sauté pan. Note, for example, that Ah Leung uses a sauté pan in his Chinese cooking pictorials. The two pans both work for more-or-less the same kind of cooking because of the differnet burners. In general, woks suck over traditional Western burners. I've done side-by side tests, and a heavy sauté pan always performed better. If you're unsure about what you want, I think the best way to approach it is to ask the question: what is it that I want to do on the stove that I can't do well enough right now? Then, once you know what you would like to do better/easier, you have a basis for choosing a cookware shape, design and material.

Mussina, I'm curious as to the age of these customers. I ask because one thing I've noticed about my parents (now in their early 70s) is that they can't eat as much as they used to be able to, and often end up taking something home with them -- although I'm sure they would prefer simply having smaller portions. Combine a decreased capacity for food with the trend of increasing portion sizes and not wanting to push away a half-eaten portion, and splitting an entre per couple sometimes seems like a reasonable option.

A few things: - Yes, Pernod makes pastis. Pastis is, more or less, a lower alcohol, wormwood-free "absinthe-like" beverage that was developed by absinthe makers like Pernod after absinthe was banned in France. Pernod and Ricard are not only examples of pastis, but I would argue that they define the category. - Yes, Pernod was originally a producer of absinthe. And, yes, they are making absinthe once again. In addition, Jade makes a "replica" bottling of absinthe that attempts to recreate the original pre-ban Pernod Fils absinthe. - Most homemade "absinthe" is not distilled, and redistillation following infusion is necessary fo make real absinthe. Several European countries developed traditions of home-distilled absinthe during the ban years. That said, home distillation is no joke. You can hurt yourself and I wouldn't advise anyone to become involved in home distillation with a cavalier attitude or without taking the time to become properly educated and equipped. And, of course, it's against the law in significant quantities.

There is no difference. The difference between "stir fry" and "sauté" is that the former is tyically applied to cooking Asian foods (classically, in a wok) and the latter is typically applied to cooking Western foods. The term "stir fry" is a relatively modern addition to the English cooking lexicon (mid 20th century), and is generally credited to Buwei Yang Chao in the book "How to Cook and Eat in Chinese" where it was used to describe the chǎo technique -- although the complete chǎo technique involces a bit more specificity than what we have now come to think of as "stir frying" -- which generally now means "tossing around a bunch of Asian ingredients over high heat." More information stir-frying here on wikipedia.

Cool idea. Here's one thing that I've been thinking about: Most so-called "ethnic" restaurants in America tend to fall into the "cheap eats" category. This is certainly true of most Asian cuisines (with some notable upscale counter-examples as well as the exception of things like sushi and kaiseki). What I've noticed is that most cheap eats places tend to have a number of dishes they're good at doing, but will also often have a substantial section of the menu that is mediocre at best (this seems to be less true of restaurants in the middlebrow-and-higher strata). Often, with more familiar cuisines, it's relatively easy to figure out what to order: don't get the brisket at an Eastern Carolina barbecue joint. With Asian foods, it's sometimes less clear. A good example might be Grand Sichuan: They have a large number of outstanding (Sichuan) dishes on the menu, but also a shockingly large number of entirely mediocre (Chinese restaurt standard) dishes on the menu. Even that is a relatively easy one: order the Sichuan dishes (hey, its in the name stupid!). Sometimes it's less clear. For example, the dish you want to have at Great NY Noodletown is not the noodles, but rather the outstanding baby pig. So, clearly one has to have some way of finding out what are the correct things to order. Sometimes, it works out fine to simply ask the waitstaff. This has introduced me to many interesting dishes at Grand Sichuan. But the staff there was friendly and knew me well. I can't say that I've found the staff at, e.g., New Green Bo (another place I've been dozens of times) similarly friendly and approachable. So that won't always work. Clearly one has to develop some strategies for determining what are the best things to order. If it's a fairly busy place that I don't know, I like to order only a little to start and then see what other people are eating. "I want an order of what those guys are having" has often been a successful strategy. If you notice that half the people are having one dish, that's almost always what you want to have. Anyway, I hope and assume you'll offer ideas and strategies for making these kinds of decisions. A couple of other things it would be interesting to hear about: - When did it become commonplace to offer free sesame cold noodles with takeout orders? And, secondarily, is it true that Manhattan is linked with a secret network of subterranean pipes, pumping untold quantities of the exact same sesame cold noodles to all the Chinese restaurants on the island? - What about other methods that Chinese restaurants use to entice customers? There are several mediocre UWS Chinese places that offer free box-o-wine white wine to customers who are waiting in line. - Chinese/Cuban? Chinese/Peruvian? What's up with that? - Why are so many Chinese places adding sushi, and would anyone really want to eat that sushi? - Why don't fortune cookies give fortunes anymore?

These are all made at home... Espresso: never any milk Cappuccino: 1:2 ratio of espresso to hot foamed milk French press: sometimes black, sometimes just a touch of heavy cream Drip: a touch of heavy cream Iced: espresso shaken with sweetened condensed milk, or extra-strong drip coffee with half and half

What I'm saying is that radio and television (not to mention post WW II social pressures for universal American sameness and conformity) are what made things like the hamburger and fried chicken ubiquitous in America. Mass media is what made it possible for a food like the hamburger to become universal "American food." And I think you'll find that things like hamburgers and hot dogs and fried chicken weren't well-known or popular all across America 100 years ago. In fact, I'm quite sure that the American ubiquity of the hamburger can be positively linked to Ray Kroc and the spread of McDonald's restaurants across the country, which started in the 1950s. Much the same could be said about your example of American menu items, which I also think you will find were not so universally the same across the country 100 or even 50 years ago. What made their sameness possible was, again, the American monoculture created by television, movies and radio; mass transportation; franchizing; and outfits like Sysco. I can say with little fear of contradition that if you walked into a diner or little restaurant in Tuscaloosa, Alabama or Deport, Texas or Neenah, Wisconsin in 1950, you would not find a lot of the things on your list of "universal American foods" on the menu. I'm not sure it makes sense to use America-wide culinary trends as an example to support the idea that "cuisine" is not grounded in location. First of all, most if not all foods we can reasonably think of as "American" began as regional foods that were tied to a specific location and culture within America. Second, whatever foods or culinary trends did become America-wide did so primarily as a result of modern mass media, franchizing, rapid transportation, government propaganda and advertising campaigns (this gave us the hamburger, the hot dog, fried chicken, chicken pot pie, the "American breakfast," roast turkey for Thanksgiving Dinner, etc, etc, etc.). Third, given the fact that these American foods became widespread only or mosty due to modern technology, I'm not sure it makes sense to apply these same criteria to foods which grew up hundreds of years ago when the world was a much more regional/local place (especially in Eastern Europe). Certainly one may decide to define a "cuisine" as a collection of dishes. But this doesn't make much sense to me. Is "American strip mall" a cuisine? How about "fried straight from the frozen Sysco bag cuisine"? "Megacorporation fast food cuisine"? I would argue that none of these things is a "cuisine" and I would also argue that neither "general-menu American" nor "pan-European French brasserie" is a "cuisine." However, I suppose one might reasonably put all of these things into a separate and distinct category of "professional restaurant cuisines." But no, "general-menu American" is not a "cuisine" the same way that French home cooking is a "cuisine." According to your argument, Ashkenazi Jewish cooking might seek to be labeled a "cuisine" that is distinct and separate from Eastern European cuisine, rather than a subcategory of the same, under the criteria of "look at list of dishes and draw various conclusions about the purpose and development of the food." That would put it under the same definition that makes "megacorporation fast food" a "cuisine" -- or, for that matter, that might make "vegan cooking" a "cuisine." I think this shortchanges Ashkenazi Jewish cooking. But, more to the point, this is not the same definition that makes French, Chinese, Indian, etc. food a "cuisine." I think that, if one steps back and tries to look at it dispassionately, it makes the most sense to think of Ashkenazi Jewish cooking as an interesting, largely derivative subset of Eastern European cuisine that includes many wonderful dishes. This is illustrated by the difficulty in modifying any of these recipes and still keeping them "Ashkenazi Jewish" instead of "Eastern European." Let's return to the dumpling soup again. If you start with Grießnockerl and change out the semolina for ground up stale bread, or any other coarse grain, you still have an "Eastern European dish." If you start with matzoh ball soup, first of all you're starting with something that already seems both "Ashkenazi Jewish" and "Eastern European," and if you change out the matzoh for anything else the dish is no longer "Ashkenazi Jewish" and joins "Eastern European." This sort of thing strongly suggests that the most logical way to think of Ashkenazi Jewish cooking is as a subcategory of Eastern European cuisine.

I'm not sure you've really established that for American cuisine, nor am I sure it's true in general. I think it's safe to say that all regional cuisines are tied to location, but how is a hamburger tied to location? Any dish that enjoys popularity all over America can't possibly be tied to location because America is too big to be considered a location for these purposes. No, it's not too big. The America that made the hamburger into an "American food" is the America of a mass-media induced monoculture. I should point out that there is considerable dispute as to whether there truly is such a thing as "American cuisine." Again, we may be running into the issue where we can identify a few "American dishes" but they may not add up to any kind of meaningful "American cuisine." This observation actually supports my thought about cuisine and location. Yes, it's true that one can't necessarily say that "this food is French" on one side of the border and "this food is Italian" on the other side. This is because the geography, ingredients, etc. are largely the same on either side of the border. Whether there is something that ties together all of French cooking is another question. More geographical diversity means that there will be more uniquely diversified cooking and culinary culture in a smaller area.

I still don't see how it's possible to have the discussion without a standard for determining the uniqueness of dishes. What's the standard for determining, for example, whether the Russian svatovska juha (vegetable soup with semolina dumplings) is or isn't the same dish as the German/Austrian Grießnockerl in broth. There are semolina dumplings in many European cuisines, including the variety of gnocchi made from semolina. Are they all the same thing? The answer, I think, is that they're not terribly different (although it would appear that svatovska juha is more different from Grießnockerl in broth than matzoh ball soup). But what makes Russian cuisine different from Bavarian cuisine is a wide range of ingredients, characteristic approaches to ingredients and signature dishes. The point is that we're not going to distinguish Bavarian cuisine from Russian cuisine based on dishes with similarities as close as svatovska juha and Grießnockerl in broth. Also, I think it's reasonable that one could observe that there is a sufficient commonality among the cooking of the Slavic peoples to make the argument that there is "Slavic cuisine" and that Russian, Polish, Ukrainian, etc. represent regional variations similar to the regional variations in Italian cooking (which may actually be more varied). So, I'm curious if you can forward support for the idea of a unique "Jewish cuisine" that is distinct from "Eastern European" cuisine in any meaningful way other than the fact that it is/was kosher? What ties it together in a culinary sense? I agree that the "different dish" theory is not essential, but your point doesn't necessarily support the idea of "Jewish food" as a distinct cuisine. Because, for example, one could certainly say: "Yea, I agree that matzo ball soup is a different dish. So what? According to any culinary criteria, it's entirely within the scope of non-Jewish Eastern European cooking. How does matzoh ball soup deserve to be considered 'from a different cuisine' when dumplings made by the gentile down the street with old rye bread don't?" I guess what I'd like to see is a list of distinct dishes/treatments and an cuisine-based way of setting them apart from other traditions as well as tying them together into a culinary tradition of their own. I think it's certainly possible to say "this dish and this dish and this dish are Jewish" but that doesn't necessarily equal a "cuisine." There are some parallels, to be sure. But the main difference is that all the things you're talking about that make "American food" into "American food" have to do with the fact that they're taking place here, in America. Barbecue evolved into the American classic that it is precisely because of the new and unique culture, ingredients and cooking styles that grew out of living together in a new location. What makes the idea of "Jewish cuisine" different from all other cuisines, is that all the other cuisines are tied to location.

I think what people have been saying is that, in America anyway, "Jewish food" is seen as something different from "kosher food." Most Americans would see your kosher Moroccan food as "kosher Moroccan food" and not necessarily as "Jewish food." This certainly seems to be the sense in which savethedeli and others have been using "Jewish food." I think the original premise of this thread is that fewer and fewer people are eating these foods (especially outside of the holidays). Most people seem to think it's because they are increasingly viewed as bland, old fashioned, unhealthy and out of step with current culinary trends.

Make new Jewish food that's consistent with the times and the lifestyles/preferences of modern-day American Jews. It's unclear to me that one can update or reinterpret Jewish adaptations based on 200 year-old Eastern European cooking without loosing whatever it was that made these foods seem "Jewish" to American Jews. This will be difficult, however, because most modern-day American Jews aren't kosher, and Jewish dietary law is precisely the thing that produced adaptations like matzoh ball soup. Without the dietary laws, how can new Jewish food be created? I'm interested: do you have any ideas how to update/reinterpret/reinvigorate/lighten/modernize matzoh ball soup, kreplach, kugel, cholent, knishes, etc. and still keep them "Jewish"? One of the major issues is going to be that people today want to eat lighter, healther, less starchy/fatty food that, as Fat Guy put it "emphasizes fresh ingredients and bright flavors."

coquus, the acid in lemon juice is primarily citric acid. I'm not sure what effect that has on gluten. The effect of acetic acid on gluten is easily observable. Just make up a dough of flour and vinegar. You'll notice that the dough won't hold together, and you can see the gluten sheets ripping apart like an overfermented sourdough. You may have something there with respect to yeast inhibition, though. Acetic acid (and a low pH in general) does inhibit growth and activity of bread yeast.

Well, I'd say this: Grießnockerl are dumplings made with fat (butter) and a fairly granular, golden-colored grain (semolina), served in meat broth. Beef broth is common, but I've had lots of Grießnockerl in chicken broth. Juniper and nutmeg are not standard or required. Knadlach are dumplings made with fat (schmaltz, a kosher substitution for butter) and a fairly granular, golden-colored grain-substitute (matzoh meal), served in meat broth. Chicken seems standard in the United States (I don't know if this is true in Eastern Europe). Some people use seltzer to lighten the dumplings, but this is by no means universal. So... yea, I'd say that the evidence trends towards Knadlach being a kosher adaptation of Grießnockerl. That said, Grießnockerl in broth isn't consumed much in the United States, so most people are unfamiliar with it. Matzoh ball soup, on the other hand, is common among American Jews and is fairly unique among foods familiar to Americans. Therefore, it is popularly identified as "Jewish food" here. If, on the other hand, Grießnockerl in broth was ubiquitous here, this would not be the case and Knadlach in broth would be considered a Jewish variant much like the coq au vin variation described by Swisskaese. Also, if I were to make matzoh balls using matzoh meal, butter and a touch of nutmeg, and put those matzoh balls in beef broth, would it no longer be "matzoh ball soup"? (Also, isn't markk's post above showing Knadlach with beef?) Of course Knadlach in broth can also be considered a dish that is separate from Grießnockerl in broth. But the questions are how different and whether this can be seen as the basis for proclaiming a distinct and unique "cuisine" as opposed to a religion-based practice of adaptation that has resulted in some different derivative dishes.

cakewalk, see the last paragraph you quoted for reasons this is true with respect to some dishes. Also, we of course don't have much of a population of French-derived Jews and their cooking in America (or elsewhere around the world) whereas we do have a sizeable population of Eastern European-derived Jews and their cooking. I would suggest that matzoh balls are only considered "Jewish food" because they are made with matzoh, a uniquely Jewish ingredient. If you sat down a bowl of matzoh ball soup in front of someone in who is used to eating Grießnockerl soup every day, it's likely they wouldn't tell much difference. Just because matzoh ball soup has made it into the "Jewish food cannon" for most American Ashkenazi Jews doesn't mean much. Chicken parm heros have made it into the "Italian food canon" for most Italian-Americans, but it's still not really Italian food.