slkinsey
-
Posts
11,151 -
Joined
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
Help Articles
Posts posted by slkinsey
-
-
My guess is that they charge more for cold because they can. They figure that, if it's all that important to you that the beer is cold right away, it's worth the extra 33 cents a bottle.
IIRC, it's not atypical to charge a little more for already-cold beer.
-
As for a gin-and-white-sweet-vermouth (viz. Cinzano Bianco, Martini & Rossi Bianco,etc.) cocktail... that strikes me as a martini. Even though these brands of vermouth are sweeter than, say, Noilly Prat, they're still fundamentally "dry" vermouths compared to their "Rosso" counterparts. Really, I think the distinction between "red" and "white" makes more sense than between "sweet" and "dry" or "French" and "Italian."
How so Sam?
Sweet vermouth can be either red or white (generally 15-16 percent alcohol/30-32 proof with about 15 percent residual sugar).
Then there's dry vermouth that is white (generally 18 percent alcohol/36 proof containing about 5 percent sugar).
Because I think that, for the purposes of mixing, the taste difference between a red and a white vermouth by far trumps any effects of the sugar percentage -- and I think the color difference (or rather the flavor difference that goes along with the color difference) is where the fundamental break lies. A sweeter or dryer white vermouth is still a white vermouth. Intra-vermouth sweetness differences provide a distinctly different and separate drinking experience primarily when one is drinking vermouth by itself. I don't feel that these differences are important enough to make a formula into a different cocktail if, for example, one uses sweet white vermouth instead of dry white vermouth.
For example, a martini will still taste like a martini whether or not it is made with (dry) Noilly Pratt or (sweet) Cinzano Bianco -- both white vermouths. On the other hand, switch colors to red vermouth and the resultant cocktail won't taste at all like a martini (and, indeed, it wouldn't be a martini).
-
I think it's noteworthy that actually liking the food they choose to eat is not a particularly high priority for most Western vegetarians, and this is clearly reflected in the overall poor gustatory quality of Western vegetarian cuisine.
I think you're coming to this conclusion with absolutely nothing to back it up. It's an assumption on your part (and one I disagree with), not a conclusion of any sort. You're assuming that if a person doesn't actually say "I'm a vegetarian because I love vegetables," then it means he doesn't really like vegetables, or doesn't really care about how they taste one way or the other; that his philosophy, whatever it may be, overrides matters of taste or likes and dislikes. I think it's much more likely that, if asked, a vegetarian won't say it because he'll assume it's a given that he likes vegetables, and then get on to his other reasons, whatever they may be, because those reasons are not "givens."
And yes, I agree with mongo_jones, evangelism is a terrible bore, isn't it.
Think about it this way: Vegetarians are given a questionnaire about vegetarianism. Among the questions is something like this:
Please examine the following list of potential reasons why you are a vegetarian and select the top 5 reasons, ranking them 1-5 according to how important these reasons are to your choice, with 5 being the most important:
- Political reasons
- Health concerns
- Ethical considerations
- I don't know
- Religion
- Don't like the taste of meat
- Love to eat vegetables
- Blah
- Blah
- Blah
Okay... now, suppose that they give this questionnaire to some large sample of Western vegetarians and the results show that health considerations is the huge #1 reason, followed by ethical considerations, followed by political reasons, etc. with "love to eat vegetables" way down on the list. What does this tell us? It tells us that a gustatory preference for and appreciation of vegetarian cooking is not particularly important to most vegetarians in making this dietary choice.
As Mongo correctly points out, perhaps this is due to the fact that Western vegetarian cuisine is so young. In contrast to most Western vegetarian cuisine (and I hope no one is arguing that the state of Western vegetarian cuisine is particularly good from a gustatory standpoint compared to Western omniverous cuisine, because this seems false on its face), Indian vegetarian cuisine is varied and delicious. Why? Well, because it isn't really a choice for most of these people -- or, if it is, it is only a choice insofar as one's religion is a choice (and for plenty, if not most people in the world, one's religion is not percieved a choice). What this means is that they didn't decide to eat a vegetarian diet, they started out with a vegetarian diet as a given and worked from there to make it a delicious one.
Now, for me, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that if there is one group of cooks that starts out with vegetarian ingredients and approches those ingredients with the primary goal of making those ingredients taste good, the end result is going to taste better than most of the stuff made by another group who starts out with an even broader palette which is then deliberately narrowed down, and where the primary consideration is the (supposed) health benefits or ethical considerations or political implications associated with what they are eating.
- Political reasons
-
so, all you people who occasionally dabble in martinis with sweet vermouth: red vermouth or the sweet "bianco" vermouth?
I think the idea is that a gin-and-red-sweet-vermouth cocktail isn't a "martini" but rather something else. I have a recipe for a cocktail made with gin, sweet red vermouth and several raspberries, all shaken together. It isn't a martini.
As for a gin-and-white-sweet-vermouth (viz. Cinzano Bianco, Martini & Rossi Bianco,etc.) cocktail... that strikes me as a martini. Even though these brands of vermouth are sweeter than, say, Noilly Prat, they're still fundamentally "dry" vermouths compared to their "Rosso" counterparts. Really, I think the distinction between "red" and "white" makes more sense than between "sweet" and "dry" or "French" and "Italian."
-
I think you're missing something pretty basic here. "I love vegetables" is not a reason to become a vegetarian because, well, you can be an omnivore and *still* love vegetables and eat as many as you want. Loving vegetables has nothing to do with omitting meat from one's diet.
These aren't categories that represent sole answers to the question of why one has chosen to be a vegetarian. Rather they are answers that might be among one's motivations to pursue vegetarianism. I think it's noteworthy that actually liking the food they choose to eat is not a particularly high priority for most Western vegetarians, and this is clearly reflected in the overall poor gustatory quality of Western vegetarian cuisine.
For someone to say, "I'm a vegetarian because I love vegetables" borders on the inane.I don't know... no more than it is to say, "I'm an omnivore because I love meat and vegetables." Where I think you have a point is that Western vegetarianism does not represent so much a choice to eat certain foods, but rather a choice to not eat certain foods -- and there are certain philosophies behind those choices. This, I agree, tends to lead to evangelism. And, for what it's worth, if you're one of those people who really belives that eating animals is murder or eating raw food will make you live 150 years or whatever, how could you not share that with the people around you?
-
I personally believe that in some ways vegans can be a lot more, shall we say, feisty than the normal population. I base this on having met a whole bunch *bunch, not herd, right?* who evidently believe their way is the only way, and are willing to scream at you to prove it.
This is something Steingarten discusses in his books, I think. If you look at most of the vegetarians in the world who are vegetarians in a predominately omniverious society rather than places like India where vegetarianism is quite common and complex vegetarian cuisines have evolved over centuries due to religious reasons, almost all of them in the Western world are in the US and UK. An interesting fact is that, while French and Italian omniverous diets include lots of vegetables because people from these cultures love vegetables, most American and British vegetarians pursue their dietary philosophy for reasons other than a love of vegetables. When Western vegetarians are asked why they are vegetarians, health considerations is far and away the top answer, followed by ethical/political reasons. "I love vegetables" is fairly low on the list, somewhere after "I don't know."
What this means is that most vegetarians in the US and UK tend on average to be evangelical about vegetarianism, because their dietary choice is founded in strong beliefs of one kind or another. This is another reason why, on average, US and UK vegetarian cuisine lags so far behind others around the world in quality, with the food tending to get worse as the dietary philosophy becomes more dogmatic. This makes sense, when one considers that the gustatory quality of the food that is consumed becomes less and less important as the dietary philosophy diverges more from the mainstream and becomes more rigid. It is only with extreme care, considerable expertise and creative talent (e.g., at NYC's Pure Food & Wine) that something as extreme as raw vegan food is made enjoyable and non-monotonous from a purely gustatory standpoint.
-
I suppose the guy can rent to anyone he wishes to rent to. . .
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.
-
In retrospect, I've decided that the key to raw food is moderation. An entire meal left my stomach feeling a bit, um, unsettled thoughout the rest of the evening. But I'd gladly go to PF&W's takeaway for a quick bite, or to the restaurant for dessert or drinks & appetizers. Just not perhaps an entire dinner again. The food was lovely but too much roughage for my system to take all at once.
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?
-
Cherry bounce, as cherry infused whiskies tend to be called, has a long and wonderful history. It's good stuff and you should check it out. Something that has been around and lasted since before the birth of the nation must have something going for it, right? I like making it with Maker's Mark.
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.
-
can't imagine red vermouth in a perfect martini, however.
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.
-
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.
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.
-
My only piece of Calphalon, besides the three bargain Commercial non-stick skillets, is the Commercial 2.5 quart low saucepan, purchased for $18. The side walls are about 3/8" thick, it weighs a ton, and it has yet to warp. I gather this to be an exception.
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.
-
What about the Teflon - dead canary - inhalation / ingestion of carcinogenic vapour issue?
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.
-
[Calphalon has] always claimed that anodized aluminum, when perfectly clean, is practically non-stick.
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.
In search of: Vegemite
in New York: Cooking & Baking
Posted
They have both Vegemite and Marmite at Fairway. In fact, the last time we were at the Uptown Fairway I challenged Fat Guy to do a comparitive tasting of the two... no dice.