slkinsey

Where did you get this silly notion? No, he can't. Not if "renting to anyone he wishes to rent to" means unlawfully discriminating against the people to whom he does not wish to rent. I'm not up on Canadian law, but I would bet that denying a lease to someone based on whether or not they subscibe to a fairly extreme dietary philosophy would be unlawful discrimination. Now... this is not to say that there aren't ways to get around this (for example, forming a vegan co-op and making the "renters" buy-in).

Anchovies can be added to just about any braise, where they contribute a subtle flavor that is not identifiably fish-based. Anchovy butter is also awesome stuff. Useful in a million ways. Try a dab of anchovy butter over grilled asparagus, or a nice chunk of anchovy butter on a strip steak.

One of the effects of cooking food is that it greatly increases overall digestibility, which is to say that the body is able to absorb more of it. Most raw foods contain a substantial percentage that is not digestible by humans (and some raw foods, like spinach, actually contain "antinutrients" which inhibit digestion as a part of the plant's defense strategy). The bacteria living our guts, however, don't have that problem and happily munch away on whatever we cannot absorb. The inevitable result, especially when combined with a lot of fiber, is an "unsettled stomach."

It depends on what you mean by "sound arguments." I don't know what the laws are that govern what kinds of things a landlord in the UK may use to "choose" tenants, but I am fairly certain that "meat eater" is not one of them in the US. Suppose that, instead of "meat eaters" you substitute, say, "interracial couples," another voluntary life choice? How sound does the argument seem now?

All the "bounces" I've had in my day have been made with unaged corn whiskey, aka "white lightning." Since I'm in the North Carolina mountains right now, I should score a few Mason jars of the stuff and bring them back to the city for infusing with various things.

Are you saying "perfect martini" as in gin + dry vermouth + sweet vermouth like a perfect rob roy? That sounds 'orrible. Hold on, I'll go try one... ...well, it's not so bad, but it's no improvement on the standard either. Do you actually drink such a thing? i'm surprised more purists didn't jump on me for the mere suggestion of such a thing--must be because i'm so beloved around here. i can't say i ask for sweet vermouth in my martinis on a regular basis, but i have been known to. There was an interesting article in the NY Times not too long ago about a drink that was, essentially, a "classic ratio" (i.e., real) martini made with sweet red vermouth in place of dry white. Sounded good, although I must admit I haven't tried it yet.

As CDH points out abpve, there are different formulations of Rose's. Among the two most common in the US are Rose's Lime Juice, which is sold in grocery stores and the like, and there is Rose's Lime Cordial which is the only kind that seems to be sold in liquor stores, and is slightly alcoholic. It is entirely possible that the UK stuff is not the same as the NZ.

Being of Scottish extraction, we visited Scotland a time or two when I was growing up. As we traveled around, we often found ourselves in a pub of some kind for lunch. My grandfather McDowell always made a point of making friends with the locals and asking what, in their opinion, was the best scotch. This being the 70s, people weren't really drinking single malt scotch, so this question pertained to blended scotch. The interesting thing is that every single person he asked in every single pub recommended The Famous Grouse. And, ever since that trip, The Famous Grouse has been the house blended of the Kinsey family. Famous Grouse makes an excellent Rob Roy.

Landmarc @SQC Franny's Bianca

Crema = cream or, with egg, sugar, etc. it = custard. The "crema" on top of coffee is "crema" only in the poetic sense that it is the "coffee cream" rising to the top.

We've been hanging around Bemelmans Bar a bit lately to experience the great "old school" atmosphere, savor the wonderful cocktails and enjoy the delightful company of libation goddess Audrey Saunders. One of the great things about the cocktails she designed for the bar is that they're really not all that alcoholic compared to, say, a four ounce martini. This, as you may well imagine, is for me an open invitation to stay late and try several cocktails. It's been a little bit harder to get up in the morning, to say the least. I'm not hung over or headachey in the slightest, but definitely a little fuzzy and wishing it were Sunday morning instead of a weekday morning. Not an unusual thing to happen after I've spent an evening indulging my interest in cocktails. Oh well... the prices we pay for our passions.

Let's not allow this interesting conversation to turn into another debate on the star system. I guess the point I was making is that I'd like to see more serious reviews of places like @SQC. They're perhaps not doing things quite as "important" as Landmarc with their wine program, etc. But the chef has legitimate chops, they take food and the dining experience seriously, and they have had a fair amount of press coverage. One can eat there very well for around 60 dollars. In short, @SQC is a restaurant worth knowing about -- and it's the kind of place I'd like to know about if I didn't already. Despite this, there has been no NYT review of @SQC of which I am aware. It's really too expensive and upscale for a <$25 review, and perhaps it is the case that there simply wasn't room in the schedule of places costing 3 times as much for an @SQC "big review" around the time it opened. So... no review of @SQC and how many other places just like it? These are places that interest me. I love fine dining, and I love cheap eats -- but fundamentally I am a "middle dining" person and I feel like my demographic is underserved with reviews.

I think we should just be happy that attention is coming to a bunch of quality barbecue places.

Whether the Times has two, three, or eight reviewers, inevitably there will be some tough-to-classify restaurants that don't obviously fall in one critic's turf. Oh, I agree. But, when you have one reviewer whose job is fundamentally to define and describe the higher end of the spectrum in terms of "fancyness" and price, and another whose job is to do the same at the lower end of the spectrum. What this means is that there is a big hole in the middle where "$120 - $150 a couple" restaurants live. The expensive places we know are going to get a review. But I sometimes wonder if it isn't easier for a falafel shop to get a Times review than a good bistro/trattoria type place.

I wouldn't mind actually seeing a three-tier reviewing system: highbrow, middlebrow and lowbrow, if you will. All with star ratings. As it is right now, we have a "highbrow plus a little middlebrow" reviewer and a "lowbrow plus a little middlebrow" reviewer. In both cases, the reviewers are delving into somewhat inappropriate territory when they reach into the middle. Also, every time a middlebrow neighborhood place is reviewed by the high end guy, we're missing out on a potential review or re-review of a haute place. Likwise, we're missing out on a potential review or re-review of a cheap eats place every time the <$25 guys review a middlebrow neighborhood restaurant. There is also somewhat of an inequity as to which middlebrow restaurants are reviewed by which reviewer. There is no denying the fact that a review by the high end guy, even if some faults are mentioned, is more prestigious and beneficial to the restaurant than a glowing review by the <$25 guy. The inevitable result is that quality middlebrow neighborhood places are underrepresented with reviews. What we're left with is a situation where certain middlebrow places are raised above their peers with a big review (e.g., Ici), others are given a <$25 review that doesn't devote the kind and depth of scrutiny they deserve (e.g., Franny's), and most of them are simply never reviewed (e.g., @SQC). I'd like to see a system whereby all thee of these places would have an informed, well-written review that was made by a reviewer who was familiar with middle-level dining, and that could be viewed against the history of other such reviews. This is a particular shame considering that middlebrow dining is one of the largest segments of NY dining. Anyway... I'm not going to hold my breath until the Times hires a third full time critic for middle-level dining.

The lack of warping is not all that much of a surprise, since the diameter of the pan is only 8.375 inches in diameter and stability is provided by the sides which, at 3 inches, are quite tall in proportion to the diameter (35%). One is also not likely to fire a small saucepan to high heat as one would with a saute or fry pan. It's the large diameter/low sided/high heat Calphalon pans that most commonly exhibit this defect. That said, I used to have a large Calphalon sauce pan we used to pop popcorn in, and the bottom did eventually warp.

There has been extensive discussion and debate in this thread on Teflon Health and Safety. I'm sure there is more to say on the subject, however, and invite anyone so inclined to further the discussion in the Teflon thread.

Right. Not only is this a complete crock in practice, but it's also the case that anodized aluminum is one of the most difficult materials to keep perfectly clean.

Do the noodles taste "gamey" compared to regular domesticated noodles?

Okay, now that just doesn't make any sense. Isn't the whole point of their "infused anodized aluminum" deal supposed to be that it's already nonstick? Calphalon says that "Calphalon One Infused Anodized Nonstick is engineered with four interlocking nonstick layers for superior durability." Sounds an awful lot like the old Calphalon Commercial Nonstick for a whole lot more money to me. Or does it have one more layer of (presumably) PTFE than Calphalon Commercial Nonstick? Here is the product page for Calphalon One Infused Anodized Nonstick. I still wish they'd do something about the warping.

Okay, so I've made my own lime syrup. Really easy. Nothing to it. Very tasty. I'm probably never going back to Rose's. When mixed with fresh lime juice, it's actually surprising how much it tastes like a much better version of Rose's -- just without that funky "extra" flavor. Made some (gin, of course) gimlets last might to try it out. Worked beautifully. Now I have to think of other uses. Any ideas?

Caffè macchiato : It. "Stained coffee" (macchiare : "to stain"). Single serving of espresso with a few drops of steamed milk to "stain" the coffee. In America, usually includes substantially more milk. Latte macchiato : It. "Stained milk" (macchiare : "to stain"). Steamed milk with a few drops of espresso to "stain" the milk. In America, usually includes substantially more coffee. Macchiato : Am. from It. Largely known/understood as a Starbucks menu item, as in "caramel macchiato." Contrary to the Starbucks menu, macchiato does not mean "marked." Unclear as to how Starbucks differentiates between a "latte" and a "macchiato." Latte : Am. from It. (literally translated as "milk") American version of latte macchiato, containing substantially more coffee than its Italian counterpart, or perhaps derrived from caffè latte. Largely known/understood as a Starbucks menu item. Caffè latte/caffè-latte It. "coffee milk." a. In Italy, often made in the home with strong coffee (moka) and warmed milk in an approximately 1:2 or 1:3 ratio of coffee to milk. b. In America, another name for the American-defined "latte."

I too have recently settled on a mixture of high gluten and pastry flours, with optional semolina and a longish ferment. Wondering, though, about 00 flour, which I never use. Are the 00 flours available in the US labelled as to protein content or suitability for bread making? I wonder because Jeffrey Steingartens's bit on Italian bread in It Must Have Been Something I Ate made me realize that I shared in what may be a widespread confusion: that 00 is both soft and low protein. It really just refers to how finely the flour is milled and not the protein content, which can vary widely within each grade. Semolina and high gluten flour will definitely not give you an Italianate crust. This is not to say that it will be bad, but it won't be like they are in Italy. 00 flour doesn't necessarily refer to the protein content so much as it does the level of refinement (more refined than American unbleached AP). One can buy "tipo 00 per pizza" in Italy, and I have used it here. The resultant dough strikes me as somewhat weaker than an American AP dough, and definitely much weaker than a high gluten or semolina (aka strong duram flour) dough. In my experience, a pliable dough made with "00 for pizza" is too weak to be twirled or stretched in the air. Almost all the stretching of the dough happens on the bench. This accords with what I have observed in Italian pizzerie. As a result, I came up with the idea of using around 25% (highly refined and low in gluten) cake or pastry flour to mimic the "00 for pizza" dough and have been happy with the results. With high gluten and semolina, you have to use fat to cut the dough and make it tender. With "00 for pizza" or the mixture I have described above, you get a tender crust without using fat in the dough. 100% AP with no fat is probably a good compromise for those who want a chewier dough.

A few nights ago I got together with bergerka, JosephB and a few other friends to make several Thai currys from scratch using a mortar and pestle, etc. There was much pounding of fresh galangal and the like, and all in all it was quite a labor-intensive undertaking. The reward was great, however, as the flavors couldn't have been fresher of more vibrant. This got us to wondering about how restaurants do it, though. Our feeling was that the wonderful fresh flavors (especially in the green curry) probably wouldn't last all that long, and certainly wouldn't be as good a day later. And yet, it seems impossible that restaurants are pounding (or even food processor-ing) curry pastes to order. Do they perhaps make up gigantic batches of every curry paste they have and use it all up on a daily basis?

Hmmm... that could have been a function of the dishes they ordered (chocolate spare ribs, fish cakes, fried jasmine rice cakes, sea bass, short rib green curry, pineapple fried rice). Needless to say, not every Thai dish is mouth-burningly hot, and the only one of those listed that I would expect to be particularly spicy-hot would be the green curry. Interestingly, ewindels tells us that the green curry "had just the right amount of heat." It is possible his concluding remark that he "would have preferred a little more heat" is more reflective of the dishes they chose than the restaurant's aproach to spice overall. Or, perhaps it's the case that this high-end hotel restaurant style of Thai cooking isn't as firey as the more peasant/street-food inspired dishes with which most of us are more familiar. That said, I am sure they do make some necessary concessions to Western tolerances for spicy heat, just as restaurants in Thailand no doubt make similar adjustments when serving Westerners.