slkinsey

I have found that with recipes, it is usually fairly easy to tell whether it is totally original or based on a published recipe. Most truly original home recipes look something like this: "Home" recipes that are really cookbook recipes look more like this: Anything that calls for precisely measured amounts (except for baking), especially if it tells you how many it serves, is unlikely to be "authentic" even if it has been in the family for years. Anything that calls for things to be added according to a number of "tomato cans" of a certain ingredient is much more likely to be real. Think about the way you usually cook when you are making dishes of your own invention... do you have any idea how many teaspoons of this and that are in it? I certainly don't.

Yea, I have often found it interesting that Americans confuse the different kinds of tea and somehow got to thinking that "high tea" is a dainty meal for the British upper classes when in fact the opposite is true. I doubt very much that the radish sandwich as described by Newman would be served at an authentic "high tea." Still... I'm going to be making some radish sandwiches as soon as I can get down to the Green Market.

There's an article and recipe for Orechiette Carbonara by Suzanne Goin in today's New York Times Food Section Yea... I saw that in the Times this morning. Maybe I'm a purist, but I have to admit that my first thought was, "I don't know what that is, but it's not Carbonara." In my world, a dish is a dish -- you can't go changing it to something else and continue to call it by the old name. Carbonara (leaving out for the time being that it is spaghetti alla carbonara) is pasta, pecorino/parmigiano (in order of preference), guanciale/pancetta/bacon (in order of preference), raw egg and cracked pepper. Period. Similarly, there is no such thing as a potato "lasagna" and that drink that contains not a drop of gin or vermouth is not a "martini." On the other hand, my second thought was "hmmmm.... that sounds pretty tasty." In a related tangent, although I have never been served spaghetti alla carbonara this way in Italy, I am rather fond of doing it the way Mario Batali does: separating the eggs, making the sauce with the whites and putting one raw yolk on top of each serving to be mixed in at the table. Anyone else try this?

One more response for me too! First, I'd like to point out that the science concerning the health risks associated with smoking and passive exposure to tobacco smoke is not exactly inconclusive, tobacco industry-sponsored studies notwithstanding. The scientific/medical community is pretty well lined up in the "it's bad for you" camp. The tobacco companies want to make it look like there is controversy, but really there isn't. To make a few examples, the author of the study you linked to is funded by the tobacco companies. It's also too bad that you didn't find your way to rebuttals and comments like this one. Among the author's comments are these telling sentences: "It is not being married to a smoker—the indicator of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke used in the paper by Enstrom and Kabat—that leads to disease; rather, it is the inhalation of environmental tobacco smoke. As an indicator of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke the smoking status of spouses is a highly approximate measure." You might also want to peruse the "rapid responses" posted to the bmj.com web site by readers of the Journal. Among the many critical comments was a link the the following letter from the American Medical Association to the author of your study explaining that it was declined for publication and saying that "[we] believe that this opinion piece is full of speculative assumptions of doubtful scientific value. We could not judge the merit of your criticisms because your own data and methods were so inadequately described. I should add that your article contains perjorative comments that should have no place in responsible scientific discourse." So, I agree that a lot of the debate is about big corporate dollars... but it is the tobacco companies that are stacking the deck on this one.

I think there are several things here. It does indeed get more complicated with human beings reporting behavior, and it is possible that the subjects are exposed to lung cancer risks other than secondhand smoke from their husbands. That said, just because the human element "could lead to erroneous or misleading results" does not necessarily mean one should throw the baby out with the bathwater and automatically discount all results from all studiesinvolving data of this kind. This is one reason why the cat study is a good one. These are indoor cats which have pretty much the same cancer risk as all other indoor cats except for the varying levels of exposure to secondhand smoke from their owners. The only way to get a tighter experiment would be to set up controlled groups of cats and have smokers breathe varying levels of secondhand smoke into their environments. As for public policy and secondhand smoke, I think one has to understand the variables and make some reasonable assumptions. We know that secondhand smoke is bad for you. Just how bad it is, we don't know, but studies have demonstrated that nonsmokers (both people and animals) who live with smokers are at increased risk for certain health problems. I think most of us would agree that this is the case. Now, think about the amount of smoke a nonsmoker living with a smoker is exposed to... What, maybe 20-40 cigarettes a day, maximum? A bartender could easily be exposed to 40 cigarettes an hour throughout the length of a shift. Given the foregoing, some public policy changes seem reasonable to me. Now, as other people have pointed out, any time changes are made there are going to be some losers. There were losers when the government stopped the use of asbestos. It is possible that Tony Bourdain's working class bar may never recover economically from the smoking ban. This is too bad, but strikes me as somewhat inevitable. My feeling is that most bar smoker/drinkers will adapt and learn to live with it, and most businesses will rebound. I also appreciate his somewhat romantic take on bars as a place where one goes to do bad things to one's health, and it is too bad that his archetype may die out altogether. This too is inevitable, and the same thing happened to other subcultures when refrigeration came in and the health standards for meat were raised, etc., etc., etc. To me, the fundamental difference between smoking and most other unhealthy pursuits is that I can sit next to an alcoholic and not be forced to suffer for their addiction (ok, discounting breath). And I for one am glad to be able to go out and destroy my liver without destroying my lungs at the same time.

You never know - there are lots of people who don't eat pork, and not just Jews. And there are lots of Jews who don't keep strictly kosher (and would eat cookies in the office) but definitely won't eat pork (e.g. me) If I had eaten one of those cookies and you hadn't mentioned the lard, I would be really unhappy with you. Morale of the story: always mention ingredients people might have a problem with, unless you know (for sure). How is someone supposed to know what other people might have a problem eating? I mean, some people -- crazy people, I know -- don't eat butter. Some people don't eat products that come from certain parts of the world for political reasons. Some people don't eat refined sugar. If I make a bunch of chocolate chip cookies and take them to work, should I provide a list of ingredients for everyone? No, that just seems silly. In my opinion, if a person has certain dietary restrictions then it is incumbent upon him/her to inquire as to the ingredients before eating. This is pretty much standard practice among considerate vegetarians ("is there any meat broth in this onion soup?"), kosher or "kosher-lite" pork-free eaters ("is this a beef/kosher salami?") and people with food allergies ("was this cooked with peanut oil?"). If you have such a problem with pork that you would be seriously upset at eating a cookie prepared with lard, then my feeling is that you should ask before eating. I would also like to add that I know a number of pretty serious kosher and vegetarian types, and they all usually provide their own food or ask questions before trying any unfamiliar food. Similarly, in the few occasions when they discovered that they had eaten something they shouldn't have, they rolled with the punches and shook it off... they figured that neither YHWH nor the Big Vegetable in The Sky was going to hit them with a thunderbolt for eating a cookie with lard in it by mistake. That said, if I had prepared cookies containing lard and I knew you didn't eat pork, I'd try to tell you. If I didn't know, on the other hand, I don't think it's a requirement.

Ah... Well, I certainly don't believe that secondhand smoke is nearly as dangerous as firsthand, or that it is a surefire ticket to cancer and heart disease. I agree that some of the dangers of secondhand smoke have been exaggerated. But I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to figure out that secondhand smoke is bad for you, and most studies I have read seem to confirm that secondhand smoke negatively impacts one's health. Just how much of a negative impact it has is hard to quantify, especially as it is hard to properly gauge how much secondhand smoke a person is exposed to. Nevertheless, if you sit in a bar inhaling lots of secondhand smoke for an hour every day while you polish off a pint of Guinness, there is enough evidence to say it is an "absolute fact" that the smoke is a greater danger to your health than the alcohol... if for no other reason than the fact that the alcohol is supposed to be good for you and the smoke, regardless of how bad for you it may be, is still bad for you. One of the most interesting studies I read recently, and which recieved a fair amount of press, showed that cats living with owners who smoked (i.e., exposed to secondhand smoke) were far more likely to develop cancer than cats living with nonsmokers. Furthermore, "risk increased with both duration and quantity of exposure, with evidence of a linear trend." (Bertone ER, Snyder LA, Moore AS.; Environmental tobacco smoke and risk of malignant lymphoma in pet cats; Am J Epidemiol 2002 Aug 1;156(3):268-73). This, in my book, is pretty strong evidence that passive smoke inhalation and other kinds of exposure to secondhand smoke (skin contact, etc.) increase the risk of developing certain cancers, and that the more one is exposed to secondhand smoke the greater the risk factor. In light of that, it strikes me as reasonable to protect bar and restaurant employees from this risk. My apoligies if I overreacted earlier, as I am not used to seeing things I write characterized as a lie, although I understand now that your comment was more to the popular view of secondhand smoke than my post per se. Best regards to your ass as well.

"If repeated often enough, a lie will become the new truth." What?! Are you trying to suggest that this isn't true? Let's see.... All research points to the conclusion that moderate drinking to the tune of one drink a day is good for your health. Research also points out the health risks associated with inhaling second hand smoke. Hmmm... one thing is good for you, the other is bad for you. This, in my book, makes it a fact that the second hand smoke inhaled in a smoky bar is a greater danger to my health than the alcohol in the one drink I am consuming. So where is the lie exactly? Do you think all people who drink in bars are abusing alcohol? Or that all the health risks associated with tobacco smoke are somehow magically absorbed only by the smoker and that exhaled smoke is risk free? Or are you just talking out of your ass because you don't want to believe there's anything wrong with second hand smoke? Do you have anything to offer that contradicts the above?

I don't think it misses the mark at all. If one goes into a bar every day and has a pint or a glass of wine or shot or a cocktail, research is telling us that this is actually good for your health. So, no, prolonged alcohol use will not kill you. Prolonged alcohol abuse will kill you. These are two different things. And I think I can say without fear of contradiction that occasional smoking -- be that first-hand or second-hand -- will kill you faster than prolonged moderate alcohol consumption. As for second hand smoke in the bars... again, if I visit a smoke-filled bar every day and have a drink, it is an absolute fact that the second hand smoke is a far greater danger to my health than the alcohol consumption -- probably right in line after those bikers shooting pool who keep looking at my girlfriend. That said, the laws against smoking in bars aren't really meant to protect the customers anyway, they are meant to protect the employees. And, contrary to your assertion, it is, in fact, the government's business to protect employees in the workplace from as many ills as possible. I do think the smoking ban will affect business at many NYC bars, at least temporarily, and anectotal evidence tends to support this. This is because a lot of alcohol addicts are also nicotine addicts, and because of "social smokers."

Sounds like spaghetti cacio e pepe to me -- a Roman dish. It should be made only with sheep's milk cheese, IMO. Delicious and simple.

Although coal = carbone and charcoal = carbone di legna, the only dictionary reference I can find for the word carbonaro/a is for members of a quasi-secret society similar to Freemasonry, the Carbonari. A coal miner is simply a minatore di carbone. That said, "-aro" endings are indicative of an activity or profession, so clearly someone in the family had something to do with coal or charcoal. The materials I have seen on the Carbonari give carbonaro as "charcoal burner" (burner = maker) and this seems a reasonable assumption (it is odd that this meaning doesn't appear in the Zingarelli dictionary, though). Whether or not this is a dish that was associated with people who made charcoal, or whether the name is a more poetic allusion to the cracked pepper representing flakes of coal or ashes is a question for the philosophers... I am rather inclined towards the latter interpretation, which is why pepper is such an important part of the dish for me. I am not so sure whether I believe that many of these dishes were actually associated with the professions or activities after which they are named. Call me crazy, but I have a hard time imagining a common prostitute stirring anchovies in olive oil until they break down, adding tomato, capers, olives, etc... It is also interesting to note that most dishes so named are named after the woman in the case of dishes like penne all'arribbiata ("angry woman's penne" or "penne in the style of the angry woman") or the wife of the working man in the case of dishes like pollo alla cacciatora (hunter's wife's chicken -- strangely changed to "hunter's chicken" in America where it is known as "chicken cacciatore). Shows you who was doing all the cooking...

Dolsot bibimbap: scallions, julienned carrots, shitake mushrooms, spinach, mung bean sprouts (all prepared slightly differently), raw egg and rice -- all crisped up in my new stone bowls and drizzled with Korean chili paste diluted down to a sauce consistency. There are other things I probably would have thrown in, but that's what I had lying around the house. Anyone know of a good Korean cookbook they can recommend?

There was an article in Saveur about leaf lard not long ago.

I bet you could hide it in a cool spot in the basement and Mrs. Varmint would never know... Slap a label on that baby that says something like "organic tile caulk." Can you imagine deep frying chicken in pure lard? :droooooooooool:

Um... what he said. Seriously. I was pretty much thinking exactly the same thing. Second place would be raviolo di uova al tartufo bianco.

The quality of the lard can make a big difference. I can't imagine using those greasy, mealy bricks from the supermarket. I always get mine at Faicco's Pork Shop on Bleeker Street... keeps well in ther freezer.

No web site of which I am aware. If you'd ever been there... they don't exactly seem like a "web site" kind of place. Anyway, they do have a telephone number... and since they supply a lot of NYC restaurants with salumi, I am betting you could get them to fax you a price list and ship you some stuff. Besides their wonderful guanciale, and among many other things, they also have culatello, speck, cotechino and my favorite: zampone. I mean, how can you possibly go wrong with a sausage stuffed into a pig's foreleg?

I get mine at Salumeria Biellese, and it is quite good if not the best I have ever had. Guanciale is by far my favorite salume in the bacon/pancetta family. AFAIK, it is not widely known nor appreciated in the US. Wouldn't surprise me if it were unavailable by mail order. Beyond Carbonara, it is great in Bucatini all'Amatriciana and I like to use it when I make spaghetti with sauteed baby artichokes... Also wonderful sauteed with brussels sprouts.

I love kalbi tang because it is so simple. Other favorites include korigomtang and yook gejang. I am sure the spellings are all way off.

Anything with fava beans... Like Jim, I like to pulse them in the food processor with mint, evoo and a little garlic for spreading on crostini. But, really, you can hardly go wrong with simple blanched "peel and eat" fresh fava beans with a little sea salt and top quality evoo for dipping. Gotta watch out for that Glucose-6-Phosphate Dehydrogenase enzyme deficiency, though...

My understanding of supertasters is that they actually prefer fairly bland food because the flavors are so much stronger to them -- especially bitter flavors. This is because supertasters have a much higher concentration of taste buds than normal tasters. Supertasters often find relatively benign foods unbearably bitter, and for this and a variety of other reasons would not tend to appreciate foods most of us would consider appealing to a "sophisticated palate." My first take on "sophistated palate" is that it has rather to do with class distinctions, which we all like to pretend don't exist. One with "sophisticated tastes" is able to appreciate those things that are normally consumed and appreciated by people of means. This goes along with the presumption of old that the "higher classes" attain a higher level of education, intellectual development and cultural refinement, which is more central to the question in modern times when these characteristics are not necessarily indicative of one's socioeconomic class. Most "high art," and certainly high art in the classical tradition, tends to be more complex and to require a certain level of exposure and education to fully appreciate. As others have remarked, "sophistication" has certain connotations that imply "complexity" or "the ability to appreciate complex things." It is undeniably more difficult to fully appreciate complex things -- typically requiring some kind of education, although not necessarily formal. Most anyone in the Western World can immediately appreciate just about everything there is to appreciate about a pop song. Not everyone can immediately appreciate a staged performance of Rossini's "La Donna del Lago" with period instruments and vocal embelishments according to early 19th century Italian performance practice. The latter requires a greater level of sophistication in one's appreciation of music (and, to appreciate fully, further sophistication in one's understanding of early 19th century opera). This may smack of snobbery to some, and indeed it is a 20th century ideal that we are not allowed to say that one kind of art (or cooking) is "higher" or "better" than another -- but there it is. At some point one comes up against the wall of making a value judgement. So, really, IMO it is not the case that the difference between the sophistication of two "palates" is simply a matter of individual taste. It is a matter of understanding and education and appreciation of complexity. A person who appreciates an anchovy/olive pizza over a corn/pineapple pizza demonstrates that they understand the Italian tradition of pizza making, that they appreciate complexity of flavor that goes beyond a blast of sweetness, and that they have learned to appreciate flavors that are not instantly appealing. I would challenge the idea that one can have a "universally sophisticated palate" as well. I have a very sophisticated palate with it comes to regional Italian or French cooking but would have to say that, while I am a great admirer of Japanese cooking, I am not exactly a sophisticate when it comes to that kind of cooking. If I take the time to learn and understand and develop my Japanese palate... that might change. In this way, "sophisticated palate" should not be confused with "refined palate," "discerning palate," "delicate palate," "sensitive palate" and so forth.

As it so happens, I just picked up a bunch of stone bowls for the express purpose of making dolsot bibimbap at home...

I like to grind my own chuck (very coarse grind) at home and add around 5-10% ground pancetta. I have also been known to mix in a some beef fat trimmings I have stashed in the freezer for just such an occasion.

Pasta con le Sarde is 100% a Sicilian classic. Other interesting and classical possibilities I enjoy include: Insalatata di arance (cross-sectional "wagon wheel" slices of peeled orange with red onion, parsley, evoo and salt), Spaghetti al nero di seppia, Maccu e finocchietto (broth with spaghettini, dried fava beans, wild fennel or fennel fronds, tomato and onion), Minestra di tenerumi (broth with zucchini leaves, taglierini, onion and basil), Pitaggio (veal sausages with fresh fava beans, fresh peas and artichokes), Farsu magru (a thin beef steak wrapped around a filling of prosciutto, sausage, pancetta, pecorino, hard cooked eggs and other good things), Pollo alla messiness (boiled chicken with a mayonnaise sauce of tuna, capers, anchovies, etc.), and Sanceli (Sicilian blood sausage).

The thing that I find so interesting about Sicilian food is that is has many elements that seem less Italian and more North African. Lots of lamb, pine nuts, saffron, currants, mint, fennel, preserved lemons, etc. For a primo you could make Mario's "Two Minute Calamari Sicilan Lifeguard Style" which includes Israeli couscous, calamari, pine nuts, currants, chili flakes and other good things. A real Sicilian classic is "Pasta con le sarde" which has bucatini, sardines, fennel, anchovies, saffron, raisins or currants and pine nuts. For the secondo, there are many interesting lamb dishes, or you could make "Farsu magru" which is sort of like an interesting Sicilian meatloaf.