slkinsey

One of my favorite stuffed cabbage stories is the time I was in the middle of cooking and realized that I had made enough for around 15 people instead of 3-4. What do to? I called Fat Guy for advice: "Dude, what am I going to do? I've made way too much stuffed cabbage. I don't think I'll be able to fit this in the refrigerator!" "Hold on a second." <Short pause with talking vaguely audible in the background> "We'll be over in ten minutes."

I think Robert's recipe is a little bit more than 3:1. French Quarter 2.5 oz : brandy .75 oz : Lillet blanc Stir with ice and strain; garnish with a thin quarter wheel of lemon I like the idea of rinsing the glass with Cointreau. Rinsing the glass -- something most people only think of doing with absinthe or an absinthe substitute -- is an underappreciated technique.

One of the great things about cognac drinks like the Sidecar is the luxuriousness of using good cognac. Courvoisier VS, Hennessy VS and Martell VS can usually be had for around $35 a liter, and are excellent in cocktails. For a brandy that has fine VSOP cognac characteristics but isn't too expensive, $35 will get you 750 ml of Germain-Robin Fine Alembic Brandy.

That's what I was thinking. Unless it came to fisticuffs (and perhaps not even then) I can't imagine a restaurant firing someone for slapping a runner's hand off the pass. Now, can I imagine that Psaltis was a bad fit for French Laundry, and that this caused some mutual dissatisfaction? Absolutely. Can I imagine that Psaltis' departure from French Laundry was mutually desired? Certainly. Can I imagine that the slapping incident was the beginning of the end, and a moment that led to this parting of the ways? Sure. Can I imagine that Psaltis had motivations for leaving this incident out of his book? Yes. But I can also imagine that people at French Laundry, people fiercely loyal to Keller and who have heavily bought into his unassailable sacred cow mystique, would spin the incident and Psaltis' departure in the opposite direction, and that the rumor mill would really get going. These are both natural and indeed expected reactions. I'm quite sure that if Keller feels that Psaltis' book -- and surely he is aware of it -- is unfair to him and French Laundry, and if he feels that it is connected to this incident, or that the story needs to be clarified with a description of this incident (or whatever the hell it is that Mssrs. Bourdan and Ruhlman are getting after), he is perfectly capable of saying, "Doug Psaltis slapped a runner at French Laundry and I shitcanned him" or "I thought Psaltis was a bad, cocaine-addicted chef, and when he punched a porter in the face it gave me the perfect excuse to fire him" or whatever. Having friends of the house and/or employees making insinuations and spreading rumors is sleazy, and beneath someone of Keller's stature. Frankly, I hope he wouldn't approve.

1:1 with a twist -- and a short dash of orange bitters, if you have any -- would be a good way to go. Sapphire is a good choice for this ratio, because it is 94 proof. Lower proof gins (say, Plymouth at 82.4 proof) may require a slightly greater amount of gin to make their presence felt. While I'm offering advice. . . make the drink small (maybe 1.5 ounces of each), stir briefly with cracked ice, strain into a pre-chilled glass and pinch a lemon twist over the surface.

ludja, I think that is just a sad result of the misconception that a Dry Martini is meant to only have a token amount of vermouth. Many bartenders say that their default Dry Martini contains no vermouth whartsoever, and yet they will still have a few drinks returned each night with an instruction for "less vermouth." Part of this is due to the popularization of "extra strong, low vermouth" Martinis from noted boozehounds who were really just trying to increase the alcoholic strength of their tipple. The rest is likely due to the popularity of tha vodka "Martini," because vodka doesn't play all that well with vermouth and most people prefer a mere whisper of vermouth at most in a "vodka Martini." These says I'm more likely to go 1:1 with Noilly Pratt and no more than 3:1 if I'm using a soft gin and a strong vermouth like Vya.

Good question. Step one would be making sure you're in a good cocktail bar. The UK has some spectacular cocktails, but cocktail culture does not pervade English culture the way it does American. This is to say that, whereas one can assume that most decent restaurants in the US will know what a Martini is and be able to make a reasonably similar facsimile, one cannot assume this in the UK. So, I'd make sure I was in a good cocktail bar and say that I wanted a Martini "American style" with gin and white vermouth, or I'd ask for "gin and white vermouth." Then I'd probably ask how they make it and settle on the ratio I wanted.

Actually, the first printed use of the word "cocktail" comes dates from May 13, 1806, in the magazine Balance and Columbian Repository of Hudson, New York. It was a response to a letter to the editor of asking about the meaning of the word: For sure New Orleans is important in the early history of bar culture. But I'm not positive we can call it "the birthplace of the cocktail." Especially as Antoine Peychaud wasn't doing his thing until the 1830s or so. Originally, the word "cocktail" was fairly narrowly defined and did not mean "all drinks made with mixed alcoholic beverages" as it does today. At its most narrow, it meant "base spirit, sugar and bitters." Other drinks were called Juleps and Fog Cutters and Slings and Flips and Cobblers and Corpse Revivers, etc. In Professor Jerry Thomas' epochal How to Mix Drinks or The Bon Vivant's Companion of 1862, the section on cocktails is the smallest parf of the book, comprising a dozen or less concoctions. Others are more qualified than I to comment on when the term "cocktail" came to have a meaning closer than the one we have today, but the books in my collection suggest that it happened around the turn of the 19th century into the 20th.

This is, I believe, exactly what one will get in most UK bars. It's simply a regional difference, much the same way that an order for a "milkshake" in Boston will get you a glass of whipped milk with syrup (the drink with ice cream is called a "frappe"). I believe this UK understanding of "Martini" comes from the popularity of Martini & Rossi vermouth, and that many UK bartenders interpret an order for a "Martini" to simply be shorthand for "Martini & Rossi" (i.e., a glass of white vermouth).

I think people have been mixing alcoholic beverages with other ingredients for as long as there have been alcoholic beverages. Not sure that equals "cocktail" though.

Yep. Navan has wide availability these days. Not nearly as versatile from a cocktail standpoint as Grand Marnier, I'm afraid.

Pappardelle with what? Somewhat wide fresh strand pasta is an awfully broad category.

I'm not sure what you mean that your roux "broke." Could you explain what happened? "Breaking" is a cooking term that is usually associated with an emulsion that has gone out of emulsification (usually due to an overabundance of the dispersed phase) or egg-based sauces in which the egg has coagulated (usually due to overcooking). I don't see how it would apply to a starch-and-fat mixture like a roux. You actually answer this one yourself when you note that you didn't get your roux as dark as usual. Browning the roux reduces its thickening power. The darker the roux, the less thickening you will get. Conversely, the lighter the roux, the more thickening you will get.

More info on the Kentucky Bourbon Trail at the Kentucky Distillers' Association web site.

Because I've talked to them about when they fire the oven. Every time you put a pizza in the oven, some of that stored heat is transferred from the oven to the pizza. And, of course, some of it goes into the air, etc. You have an oven temperature of X degrees, then subtract heat in the amount of Y pizzas plus Z other heat losses over time, and you end up with X = X - (Y + Z) after a few hours.

Boy, that has not been my experience! And I daresay it hasn't been the experience of most longtime Grimaldi's patrons who have reported in these forums. I've had some of the very best pizza of my life at Grimaldi's (generally just after they open for lunch), with an etherially light crust and open cornicione. But I've also had extremely disappointing pizza there as well, with leaden crust that simply does not excite. Of course, whether one detects or cares about the wide variations in the crust at Grimaldi's will depend on one's preferences and priorities. For people who accord the toppings a large percentage of their attention, Grimaldi's will hardly ever disappoint. The toppings at Grimaldi's (especially the sausage and roasted red peppers) are absolutely first rate. And, if one wants a pizza with premium toppings and a better-than-average coal oven crust, and doesn't mind the variations in the crust, then I can see how Grimaldi's would seem consistently perfect. For me, only Grimaldi's crust at its best truly excites me. Due to this reason, my recommendation is the exact opposite of yours: I do not think that one should visit Grimaldi's during off-peak hours, as that is the time when the oven is most likely to be insufficiently heated. Rather, the best time to go is to show up maybe 15 minutes before they open for lunch and stand in line. A pizza fresh out of the blazing-hot Grimaldi's oven at 12:05 is simply far superior to one that comes out of the same oven, now not blazing-hot, at 3:00.

I am also reliably informed that shoe fly pie makes a suitable accompaniment for apple pan dowdy. Guaranteed to make your eyes light up and your stomach say "howdy." Sorry . . . couldn't resist.

Joe, did you lunch in the main dining room or at Nougatine?

Well, this maybe isn't entirely correct. Most of the "crusaders" -- which is to say, the small number of activists who put their agenda before the media and try to influence opinions and push for legislation -- are people who object equally to the other practices we decry. Indeed, most of them are vegans and don't think humans should be using animals for anything. It's the uninformed, knee-jerk types like the Chicago aldermen who are the true hypocrites in these situations. How much do you want to bet that Joe Moore eats factory chicken?

Exactly. It's about the hypocrisy of people who are anti-foie gras but eat regular supermarket chicken -- a group which includes about 95% of the non-vegans who are against foie gras, I would estimate. derricks, I'm not sure that the example of Redwood Hills Farm goats versus Hudson Valley Foie Gras ducks is a particularly useful one, because the goats aren't being raised for slaughter. Also interesting to hear that the "quip about preferring to be a foie gras duck over a Tyson chicken" has become standard -- since it was born right in these forums. What hasn't been proven to my satisfaction is that raising ducks for foie gras, given the best modern methods and techniques such as are in use at Hudson Valley (the largest foie gras producer in the US), is inherently inhumane. Especially not when compared to the majority of other things we do every day to get food (dragging a fish through the water by a hook stuck through its mouth and then drowning it in the air, finishing cattle on grain, etc.). One can, of course, take the position that anything we do to animals for our own gain, including domesticating them and raising them for slaughter, is inherently inhumane. But that position doesn't particularly have a place in a discussion just about foie gras. The fact is that the average person who is against foie gras might be characterized as someone who a) doesn't understand duck physiology and psychology or the actual gavage process, b) who has bought in to some of the more extreme propaganda, and c) who thinks of foie gras as "rich people's food" and therefore doesn't mind getting rid of it. You can bet that most of these people would be dead set against applying similar thinking and legal regulation to the production of chickens if it meant a jump from sixty-nine cents a pound to $2.69 a pound at the local grocery store.

Here is a brief quote from the Times: This statement, in my opinion, reflects the outlook of someone who either a) doesn't know the first thing about how ducks are raised for foie gras, or b) doesn't think humans should be eating other animals.

This post perfectly illustrates the two most common anti-foioe arguments that come up in the foie gras debate: 1. "I've never enjoyed fois gras for the same reason I've never enjoyed veal: I keep thinking of how it was created." Most people making this kind of statement don't understand enough about how foie gras and veal (etc.) are created to understand whether it is cruel or not. There is a ton of bad information and outright propaganda out there about how both foie gras and veal are created, and I can almost guarantee that whatever you think about how these products are made does not reflect a) current industry practices, and b) an informed understanding of animal physiology/psychology. Many people still think that ducks and geese have their feet nailed to the floor and run screaming when it is time for gavage, etc. This is simply not true. Most people making this statement also don't have any real understanding about how other animal foods we eat are "made." Take a look inside a factory farm for pigs or chickens some time. Then take a look at a place like Hudson Valley Foie Gras. I can guarantee that anyone who does this will come away thinking the same as I: that if they had to choose, they would rather spend their lives as a Hudson Valley duck than a Tyson chicken. And yet, we seldom hear people saying "I've never enjoyed chicken or pork: I keep thinking of how it was created." 2. "Maybe those people can spend their fois gras budget on some food for hurricane refugees." In other words, "that foie gras stuff is only for rich people anyway." As Ronnie points out, eating foie gras and being charitable are mutually exclusive. Just because foie gras is considered a luxury ingredient doesn't necessarily mean that we should do away with it or that arguments in support of foie gras aren't valid. The fact is that there are places in the world where eating foie gras is considered part of everyone's diet on an occasional basis, and foie gras is slowly finding its way into the middlebrow consumer's diet as well. Any time you can find a cryovaced foie gras at Costco or Stew Leonard's, it's not the exclusive domain of rich folks any more.

Look, here's the fact about serious dieting and going out to restaurants: You have to think of the restaurant experience as a big splurge -- as "breaking your diet -- and adjust your consumption for the next few days. As I posted some time ago, it is not the restaurant's responsibility to make food that is low in calories, fat, salt, carbohydrates, whatever. . . except for the few rare cases where that's part of the restaurant's schtick. It's the restaurant's job to make food that tastes good. So if someone is trying to lose a lot of weight but loves dining out. . . well, them's the breaks. When you're dieting, you have to give some things up. And going out to dinner with much frequency is one of those things. I really like cocktails, and yet I cut way back when I'm trying to lose weight. Someone else may really like pound cake, etc. I guess the point is that it's both naive to think that restaurants aren't making food that's full of fat and calories, and it's unrealistic to expect them to make big adjustments to accommodate dieters. I don't offer the foregoing as a gloating thin person, by the way. I have been watching my weight and wanting to lose weight for many years now. And I've been in situations where I've been on an out-of-town gig for an extended period of time where the only eating options available to me were restaurants. So I know what it's like. Not for nothing do most opera singers begin to struggle with weight gain issues when their careers begin to take off and they find themselves away from home for an increasing percentage of the year. The solution in these situations, by the way, seems to be twofold: portion control (i.e., not finishing your plate) and making sure that daily exercise is a priority (i.e., make sure that wherever you are staying has access to a nearby gym or bring along "travel weights," etc.).

It definitely adds an order of magnitude to the coordination of a tasting menu if the kitchen is trying to execute two different tasting menus for the same table. Some restaurants do it, like Per Se, but I can understand why restaurants at a lower pricepoint and level of service would balk at the task.

Yea. The moral of this story is that not al HFCS is created equal. The HFCS that soda manufacturers use contains only 42-55% fructose. It's called "high fructose" because the normal fructose content would be more like 10% or less. I have a hard time believing that anyone could get away with selling this product as "fructose." There are intensive methods that can be used to incrase the fructose content to more like 90%, however, and it would not be inappropriate to market this as "fructose." FWIW, most of the fearmongering about HFCS has to do with people thinking that the fructose is the bad part, not the glucose. Not saying that I agree, but that's the general rap. . .