slkinsey

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. . .

You mean applejack and calvados together? I like the Apple Blow Fizz, but made with Laird's bonded instrad of calvados -- it seems a little less sweet and a little rougher than most cocktail-quality calvados.

Thanks. I really do think deconstruction/different treatment is the best way to get the most out of a turkey. It's just too much meat with too widely-divergent properties to cook in one piece with good success on both dark and white meats. This year I'm going to refine it a step further by stripping out the turkey tenderloins, making a mousse out of the tenderloins that I will use to "glue" the two breasts together, and doing the resulting more-or-less cylindrical result sous vide with black truffles. Should make dinner execution even more simple, as timing will be les critical on the turkey breasts and I'll free up oven time/space by not cooking any turkey in the oven.

Still having fun playing with genever. It really is amazing the way you open the bottle, smell the aroma, taste the spirit straight. . . everything says "juniper" and the malty quality is hardly noticable. Yet when mixed, the juniper quality largely retreats into the background and the malt character comes to the fore.

Thanksgiving is my favorite holiday, because it's all about the food as far as I am concerned. I come from a very small extended family. Both my parents are only children, I had only onre surviving granparent on each side for most of my childhood, and we lived very far away (Boston) from any relatives of the second cousin variety (Texas). So, when I was growing up, Thanksgiving dinner was always a group affair organized with other small families at our Episcopal church. Perhaps this is why I don't feel like Thanksgiving dinner "has" to include anything other than turkey and dressing -- and even with that, I have been known to play fast and loose with the format. I think it all started when I decided to make a turducken for Thanksgiving one year. After a while, it had turned into something else entirely. This is what we did last year: A detailed recounting and discussion of the design, planning and execution of this dinner may be found here.

I don't see too many people speaking of muddling the limes. Am I the only one?

I gather that most everyone is simply building their mojitos in the glass? I find that I get too many bits of stuff floating around that way, and I am not fond of straining lime pulp through my teeth. I like muddling lime halves; adding sugar, rum, and mint; shaking hard with a few big pieces of ice; double straining into the glass; adding a lime shell, fizz water and plenty of crushed ice; then sliding a few mint leaves down the sides, maybe adding a sprig on top.

Three things here: First, as interesting as the ethics of mouse trapping may be, let's keep this discussion about food, shall we? Which is to say, unless you're planning to eat the mouse. . . Second, I do think that it gives one an added appreciation that the meat you are about to eat was once a living animal if you hunt or attend/assist with the slaughter and breakdown of an animal at least once. That said, most people living in urban centers simply do not have that option. Third, don't for a moment think that the only way animals are killed for food is when they are raised and slaughtered for consumption. More animals probably lose their lives as a result of vegetable farming, they just aren't cute doe-eyed cows.

Boomsma Jonge has hit the City. I scored a couple of bottles this afternoon, and had to give the Improved Holland Gin Cock-Tail a try. Deliciously malty. I'll have to bring a bottle down to some friends who have a few bottled of Bols salted away for a direct comparison. One thing I noticed is that my IHGC was a good bit pinker in color than others I've had. Could it be that they're making it with Angostura instead of Peychaud's?

I don't know the specifics. What I've been told is that prices increased by various percentages, some more than 20%/some less than 20%. These increases might even be different from bottle to bottle or drink to drink. What I get out of this is that the whole "service charge" idea is a red herring. There is no service charge. They salaried their waitstaff, raised prices to account for this expense, and put the words "service included" on the menu to let patrons know that the waitstaff is not working for tips. The raise in prices was so that they could include these salaries in the budget, and while I think it's easier to explain to the public that way, I don't think it's accurate to call the price increase a "service charge." Let us assume for a moment that the ball boys at the US Open had historically been unpaid volunteers who this year had to be compensated. If the price of a US Open ticket were increased to account for this new expense, would it be useful to refer to it as a "ball boy charge?" Similarly, when the price of groceries goes up due to increased transportation costs associated with the rising price of gasoline, do we call that increase a "gasoline charge?" Based on how Per Se does their bookkeeping, it may very well be impossible to determine how much "extra" or "less" money they are bringing in through the various price increases under the new system balanced against the new salaries. More to the point, there may be little reason for them to do so. It will become only more complicated as time goes by and the overall compensation picture evolves due to raises, new hires, etc. I'm sure they will proceed to balance income from sales against their expenses -- including compensation, rent, raw materials, electricity, etc. -- to make a profit. Just like any other business. If they aren't making enough money, they will make adjustments somewhere (raise prices, cut staff or reduce salaries, change suppliers, reduce food costs, etc.). Just like any other business. Needless to say, a place like Per Se is more likely to raise prices in this scenario than resort to most other solutions. I have no idea, but I assume they get to keep these small amounts, as they are real gratuities.

I was lucky enough to be able to get some information directly from the source at Per Se, so I hopefully can clear some things up and contribute some new information. Althouth they call it a "service charge system," there is in fact no "service charge" per se at Per Se (pun inevitable). This is to say that there is no item on the menu saying that "prices are subject to a service charge of X%." Rather, prices have been raised -- some by more than 20%, some by less -- and the menu now indicates that service is included. The $175 menu is now being sold for $210, which is a 20% increase. Contrary to reports, there has not been greater-than-expected or greater-than-usual turnover at Per Se with the rollout of the new structure. In fact, turnover was much greater when the change was made at French Laundry, perhaps because there is a significantly smaller talent pool from which to draw at Yountville. Per Se is also not dividing up the "extra" take every night and doling it out to various members of the staff based on some formula. Under the new system, everyone in the house is paid an individual salary commensurate with his or her performance, experience, expertise, seniority and position -- just like a "real job." This means that some servers are making less than before, some are making more, and the kitchen all received a nice raise. There are several things worth expanding upon. Keller's team doesn't view the staff as divided between FOH and BOH, but rather as one unified team. As such, it is important to them that everyone have an opportunity to excel and advance. It is a sad fact that most four star restaurants don't pay the cooks a living wage. Whereas before servers were being paid equally out of a tip pool, they are now salaried according to performance and experience. This presumably means that servers will be rewarded solely for providing good service, as defined and determined by Per Se's management, and not for upselling and other tip-increasing gimmicks that are not necessarily related to good service. Servers who were "riding out the tip pool" or who resorted to tricks of the trade. . . yea, they are likely to see a reduction in compensation. But, on the other hand, if they get with the program and stick with Per Se, they have an opportunity to make a lot more. This strikes me as the kind of person they would rather have around at Per Se. It is also noteworthy that the new system gives Per Se's management much greater ability to manage service at the restaurant, and it was pointed out to me that French Laundry did not win the James Beard Service Award until after they changed to the new system.