Showing posts with label You Gonna Eat That?. Show all posts
Showing posts with label You Gonna Eat That?. Show all posts

Wednesday, January 9

It Is The Height Of Idiocy To Insult The Cook

THIS, via Early Onset of Night:


Okay, so, several things, and you're probably way ahead of me. First, this is the courage of the Typical Gaultian, beginning with Ayn "Medicare" Rand herself. Second, it's the typical intelligence of the Typical Gaultian (beginning loc.cit.), who imagines his solipsism trumps everyone else's. One wonders just how large a town this bozo lives in; he'd best travel, because no town is that large, and traveling might grant him an extra week before he needs to hire both a personal chef and a taster, like a good little Jobs Creator.

Look, Dick--if I may call you Dick--in the first place the person you're ultimately fucking is the Randian superman who owns the joint, and who gets to pay (in most locations) half the minimum wage to tipped employees, one of whom now gets to pay taxes on 8% of your sale despite making nothing, thanks to your principles. If the server can show that he or she did not make the difference in tips the owner has to pony up. If you think this will spread--Rise!--keep it up (remember, a healthy adult can generally ward off even a large E. coli infestation) and see how long it takes a class of people already on the lookout for bums and cheapskates to ID you, and all your pals. Sad, but true, there are many more of them than there are Morally Superior Men such as yourself. Believe me, it'll take about three of these before the people you think you're screwing start keeping records that the Gestapo would envy.

Anyone who's worked in a retail or restaurant establishment long enough--say, one afternoon--knows there are five-hundred ways to screw over a deserving customer without ever being suspected. Go on. Test the theory.

Me? When I turned 21 my intellectual mentor in college got me a waiter's job at the place where he worked supplementing his T.A. "income". It was a college town, and this was quite possibly the only white tablecloth establishment, aside from the ones the university ran. So it attracted a species of local maroon known as High Schoolers On Prom Night. I was warned ahead of time.

The place did tableside service: Caesar salad, cherries jubilee, that sorta thing. Waiters were busy. The local agriculture progeny were unfamiliar with a food establishment where the food didn't wait on you.

In truth, I did not really have the personality necessary for a successful career in haute cuisine. I was the new guy. I got the shittiest stations. Usually including tables by the kitchen door, which were the least desirable from the customer's viewpoint. So I'd get loaded down with children, and I couldn't detour around the tables because I had to go through the kitchen.

Prime Prom Time. I get a four top. Two couples, whose formal wear had be applied with a pitchfork. They were okay to begin with, but something went wrong, or something. I don't honestly remember. They started demanding their food every time I walked by, which was every time, and grabbing my sleeve to speed it along. Then they hit on the plan of ordering refills for their unspeakable Nehis, or whatever it was, one at a time. Ha ha ha!

I took it for about ten minutes. Then I stopped at the table on my way back to the kitchen.

"I'm very sorry that we got off on the wrong foot here somehow, and I want you to know that I do hope it won't spoil this wonderful night you have ahead of you. I would like to explain something to you. I'm going to go back into the kitchen now and check on your entrees. If they're ready, just like the salads you just ate, and the drinks you've been consuming, I'm going to pick them up, put them on a tray, and carry them out to you. Most of this is going to occur behind that door, where you don't see it. I just wanted to make sure everybody understood one another."

I swear to God, before I was finished both of the girls were the color of winter lawns. Their food was up, I delivered it pronto, and never heard another peep out of any of them.

Left a 10% tip, too, which, for high schoolers, was Diamond Jim Brady territory.


Friday, March 30

Sure, Liberals Admire Native Americans For Using Every Part Of The Buffalo. But Beef Products, Inc. Is All Evil An' Stuff.



Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad, left, followed by Texas Gov. Rick Perry and South Dakota Lt. Gov. Matt Michels, toured Beef Products Inc.'s plant Wednesday in South Sioux City, Neb. The governors say the beef product known as lean finely textured beef, or pink slime, is safe. Associated Press photo via Winston-Salem Journal

A hundred thousand dollars says none of 'em saw the front end of the line. Or came back to give the night clean-up crews a hand.

Josh Funk, "Governors urge consumers to reconsider pink slime". March 29

OUR sermon, yet again, will be from the Book of No, Conservatives Aren't Any Crazier Than They Used To Be, It's Just That Lying Is More Popular Than Ever, Chapter 6.

And, again--you may be excused if you'd heard this the previous 168 times--it's not really that Lying is so popular, it's that caring about the difference has gone out of fashion.

Yesterday's example, which could come from anywhere, comes from this Tim Alberta piece in the National Journal:
And despite recent scrutiny of his family history (Rubio's parents left Cuba before, not after, Fidel Castro's rise to power)...

Of course the scrutiny hasn't been applied to the story so much as to Rubio's lying about it, then fudging when caught, and the resultant portrayal of the matter as if he'd momentarily confused a Clovis point with a Folsom point in dating some minor archaeological site, rather than obviously and fraudulently doctored his political resumé to pander to a group of Miami voters who accidentally hold the American electorate by one or two short hairs. Scrutiny is not a dirty word. Bald-faced liar is three.

Marco Rubio's Inspiring Biography is the approved way of saying "The Continuing Republican Pipe Dream That Electoral Tokenism Will Hoodwink Minorities", last seen wearing Sarah Palin's purloined wardrobe, and prior to that haunting left blogtopia comment boards with "Dick Cheney will step down and Condi Rice will run for veep, as no librul would vote against a black and a woman" from 2003-2004. The Press is now like the earnest and humorless brown-nosed high schooler who tailors his Current Events speech for maximum chance of winning a trophy from the Kiwanis.

So it's amusing, if you're that sort of person, to see this at work in one of those rare instances where it races off in the other direction: the joint Prairie Republican Sons of the Smallpox Immune statement that calling liquified ammoniated scavenger scrap ooze "pink slime" is just unfair, dammit.

Oh, sorry, Brownback was with 'em. Make that "dagnabbit".

For starters, this is the party of Revenue Enhancements and Death Taxes and Operation Enduring Bright Shining Eternal Righteousness complaining about how something is being mislabeled. It's the party of Holy Climate Change Denial and Evolution is Just a Theory, the one whose members don't trust science, assuring us that science says everything's okie-dokie, so eat up. The really amusing thing for someone of my limited remaining lifespan is that sausages and laws are the two things you don't want to see being made, and right here at their intersection is the Republican party.

Why the pronouncements of a bunch of prairie politicians is supposed to assure people I'm not sure. Or maybe I am. This:



looks for all the world like one of those times you walk into the Kroger meat department and find six suits blocking the aisle. And you know that a) some poor working stiff is gonna wind up taking it in the shorts for anything wrong; and b) come tomorrow the whole section will be rearranged, top to bottom, the better to justify the suits' per diems.

And, of course, this little photo op wouldn't have been complete without the dignitaries actually chowin' down on some slime, which scrutiny suggests is why Nebraska and South Dakota were wise enough to send their Lieutenant Governors. I was hoping that Rick Perry would still be resentful enough to say afterwards that while he didn't eat fast food as much as he'd like to, he had friends who sat on the Yum! board, but no such luck. Iowa Governor Terry Brandstad announced, "It's lean. It's good. It's nutritious," so I he call Michelle Obama with a personal apology.

Of course no such news report is complete without getting the same side of the story from a different perspective:
Russell Cross, who is a former administrator of the USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service, said this product is getting a bad rap from a food safety standpoint.

"I'm not saying it's perfectly safe. Nothing is perfectly safe. All food is going to have bacteria in it. But this product has never been in question for safety," he said.

It will later be noted that Dr. Cross now heads the Department of Animal Science at Texas A&M University. It will not be noted that he worked for the USDA during the Bush I and Clinton administrations, that is, after the Reagan administration had gutted (pardon) the regulations, reduced the number of regulators by 2/3, and turned over the safety process to rancher and meatpacker industry groups, nor that he spent the interim working for, if I remember correctly, industry groups. (That's okay; Funk will balance the report by getting the opinion of the spokesman for the National Meat Association, just to make sure all our information is fully vetted.)

And, look, I don't disbelieve Cross. The product is unquestionably safe, within the limits of our scientifical plerophory; meatpacking profit margins are too thin to actively poison consumers, for one thing. How 'bout if somebody asks Cross about the general safety of "Federally inspected" ground beef? Preferably under oath.

We're not even going to mention the fact that, yet again, Republican allegiance to market forces is considerably less than Republican obeisance to Big Slime. And I can't understand it for the life of me. We sell corndogs! fer chrissakes. Wrapped in chocolate-chip pancakes! People eat at White Castle! Without duress. Don't your friends who own regional distributorships tell you this sort of thing? Put the damn stuff in a plastic tube, with a juice-box straw taped to it, and market it as Pink Slime. Layoffs? Hell, they'll be flocking to South Sioux City from the North Dakota shale fields.

Sunday, January 22

Crackers

Frank Bruni, "Of Mouselike Bites and Marathons". January 21

Jane Black, "What Paula Deen didn't bring to the table". January 20

FULL disclosure: George Eff Will's wife didn't do anything for Rick Perry, and my Poor Wife watches food porn. Two distinctions: my wife doesn't cook, and so inflicts those horrors on no one but herself, and her regular job actually benefits people, and society at large, if you'll pardon my outdated notions.

The Paula Deen pre-obituaries I happened to read were eye-openers for me. I suppose this is something of a disclosure as well, but I have no patience for that deep-fried, mushmouth-and-grits accent. I mean, if that happens to be your accent, fine; what I object to is hearing it from people who are being paid handsomely to communicate with English speakers, unless they are certified experts in some field and speaking to a national audience is not their main gig. Neither is true of Deen. Any time I walked into the room while that woman was on I wondered how she ever finished a recipe in just a half hour with two extra syllables wormed into every word. And I'm from Central Indiana, which, in terms of dialect, is Kentucky.

Plus I swear--this is on scant evidence--that it got thicker as time went on. At any rate, the thing obviously wasn't put on, but that doesn't mean it wasn't phony as NASCAR's good-ol'-moonshine-runners image. You don't have to speak like Edward R. Murrow--hell, you don't have to speak like Edward R. Murrow to read the news, anymore; thanks Roone!--but Indecipherable is schtick. ESPN uses subtitles on people who speak more plainly.

Paula Deen is not some sweet old Suh-thur-un lady who cooks "traditional" fare; she's the product of cable network brass and producers and agents hiding a reality-show on state fair cuisine from the rubes. Has this information not made it inside the Beltway?
The fooderati may brand Deen a menace to a healthy society and a culinary joke. But there’s a reason that her shows are in constant rotation on the Food Network, her 14 cookbooks have sold 8 million copies and her magazine, “Cooking With Paula Deen,” has a circulation of more than 1 million: Americans relate to this sassy, nonjudgmental former single mom. And they like her food.
Are we trapped in faux-balanced everything now like miniature marshmallows and Bac-O-Bits in lime Jell-O?

And this was the first of several things which struck me about the pre-obits: Deen and her deep-fried butter-on-a-doughnut cuisine were somehow accepted as authentic, and the mark of the seriously misguided way our simple-minded forebears did things (which does nothing so much as pat us on the back for the superiority of our herd. Bruni's piece is freaking awful):
The research that [Allison Adato] recounted to me and the book itself, “Smart Chefs Stay Slim,” to be published by New American Library in April, describe a populous crowd of food professionals who work out diligently to keep the ravages of foie gras at bay.

They have private trainers. They play tennis or soccer. They climb rocks or box or do yoga or bicycle or run. Adato’s book spotlights four chefs and restaurateurs who have run marathons, including Art Smith, who cooked for Oprah Winfrey for 10 years and was once more than 100 pounds above his current weight. It could also have name-checked Bobby Flay, who has run three.

Wealthy celebu-chefs have private trainers, and the leisure to work out. Let's emulate them.

Except--as Bruni gets around to mentioning, as really is the point of the piece--the food porn these people put out is just as salacious as Deen's, but grabs the other, more "accomplished", side of the schtick.

Isn't this the fucking point? If Deen's Type II is a message from God, or a piece of irony stuffed with bacon, and cheddar, and Canadian bacon, and Canadian cheddar, then so be it. But is her hypocrisy worse than Flay's because hers comes with a mushmouth and grandma's lack of New York fashionableness, and because Flay wisely doesn't eat his own cooking?

It's not. Classic cuisine is every bit as contraindicated, healthwise, as Deen's phony down-home concoctions, but with less use of potato chips as an ingredient. And dollars to deep-fried Kashi says that the masterworks of those other celebu-chefs--at least the ones prepared out of sight of the customer--owe more than a little to the knowledge that fat, sugar, and salt = flavor.

It's not that Paula Deen has diabetes. Millions do. Millions more have eaten like wealthy piglets and lived to be 95. It's the fact that she hid it until she had an endorsement deal, then--by virtue of being a "celebrity"--gets the opportunity to defend this behavior. It's the fact that no one ever gets called on this anymore provided they're "winning"--winning defined as "making money on th' teevee". The idea that Deen is excused because she moves a lot of magazines--the Lumpenproletariat has spoken, according to the guys in Market Research!--is a sad excuse for accepting a world in which one need not be knowledgeable, or honest, or forthright, to be authentic. Just fool some of the Demos some of the time.

Paula Deen isn't going to become a spokeswoman for healthier eating. That's already established. Th' fuck is someone hoping for that, anyway? Th' fuck do we put up with all the other phonies?

Thursday, June 24

Whatevs

Ross Douthat Blog™ "Did 'Jaws' and 'Star Wars' Ruin Hollywood?" And Does the Times Stylebook Really Call For Titles To Be Put In Quotes? June 22

I HAVE a cold, which is currently taking some Viral Baedeker of the charming but less-visited off-season attractions ("The mandible offers adventurous Picomaviridae an opportunity to view the rare Third Molar close up") its host has to offer. I don't think I've ever had a cold in the summer before. The novelty wears off quicker than you might imagine, and downing NyQuil shots in the heat is like drinking Port in the tropics.

Wingnuts haven't helped matters, not that they ever do. One is reminded, particularly reading that Brooks thing Tuesday, that they are never so obnoxious as when they imagine themselves in the ascendant, which they attribute to God and Middle America being resolutely behind them. (Nor did the fact that I'm presently too weak to grab the remote from my Poor Wife, nor run from the results as she switches to Channel 13 Eyewitness News for thirty seconds, just long enough for me to hear the male hairdo introduce the story of a threatened lawsuit over McDonald's Happy Meals by the Center for Science in the Public Interest thus:
The so-called Food Police...

"Excuse me? Could I get this with extra Blatant? And substitute Corporate Bukkake Whore for the Deep-Fried Crisco Sticks?" Sheesh, somebody wrote that, before the natural-born shill behind the desk read it sounded it out phonetically. Though it might be that 13 is Dennis Miller's last stop in showbiz.) You'll note, too, that the obnoxiousness and the delusion of ascendency are near simultaneous; that Ho ho! Back from the Dead! shit began when the Obama administration failed to get health care legislation before the 2009 summer recess, and it's continued with every Town Hall meeting gone viral, and every Teabagging event that drew 200. Compare just how long it took for any of 'em to admit they had a problem in Iraq, in New Orleans, or with Bush II in general, and just how much virtual ink was spilled confronting that.

Anyway, I had plenty of good reasons not to open the Times but I did anyway. McChrystal McKabuki? Seven stories, and three Opinions? Pass. Max Boot didn't think he should be fired. That alone is enough for every American to support, or at least consider, summary execution, of McChrystal and whomever books freelancers for the Op-Ed pages. Matt Bai, given space above the e-fold to demonstrate--unwittingly, apparently--that the supposedly smartest Bush Brother is a nitwit? Didn't we know this already? Are our lives not busy enough?

And a glance at the Opinion Corner catches a tease for Douthat's "blog", and in the Cherry Haze of an early-morning Dextromethorphan buzz I briefly hallucinate the possibility of an original thought from Linkmaster Ross.

Insert Reefer Madness laugh.

So far as I can tell, the impetus for all this is that the Summer Blockbuster Season has disappointed some middle-aged white guys (John Podhoretz and David Edelstein, to use the two examples Douthat links) who used to be the target audience for such shenanigans. Enough so that they've become retro-nostalgic for a Golden Age that was over before either could get into an R-rated movie. And they blame this on the concept of the Summer Blockbuster, as ushered in by Jaws (Podhoretz) and not-Jaws Star Wars (Edelstein).

It's a common-enough argument--I've used it plenty myself--though I have to question, yet again, how "conservatives" such as J-Pod manage at one and the same time to be Profit's harlot and Art's chaste handmaiden.


But I think there's something missed in not having lived through it, or not as an adult whose intelligence could be insulted. I'd say, for example, that Edelstein has to be watching Jaws through the eyes of a fourteen-year-old to call it the Best Anything ever made, but I'd agree with him that it didn't usher in the modern Summer Blockbuster. At the time it felt more like a one-off; popular movie made from a popular trash novel. So was Valley of the Dolls. It was when the damn thing started spawning sequels, and people flocked to those, that the real danger became clear, but by then it was Too Late. And, hey, I'd like to think that Podhoretz is onto something there, even if he's slightly off, but only the oldest Boomers were out of their teens when Bonnie and Clyde and The Graduate hit the screen. Italian neo-realism, the Nouvelle Vague, and post-war Japanese film all found an audience here before Boomers were out of grade school. It's the rise of the Blockbuster which is the aberration, or was before it went on for thirty-five years and no abatement in sight.

Nor did it happen in a vacuum. It coincides with the rise of Happy Talk news, People magazine, Good Morning America, of Disco and Anthem Rock. It heralds the coming of the New (Carter) Democrat and the already withered Reagan Republican, the transition from Elvis to Elvis impersonator. They dumbed down game shows, fer chrissakes, so that none a' your fancy book-larnin' got in the way. Astute moves, swing of the pendulum, faddishness run amok, or fiendish Straussian cabal; it happened.

And I spent ten years expecting it to swing back, particularly, say, for some bright-boy at the nets to counter-program Baba Wawturs Pweesents Suhlebwuty Gossip an' Headwines with someone reading real news in English. Never happened. At some point I decided you can only worry about your own reading list, anyway.

So I don't blame Jaws and Star Wars, or not really; they're just the pustules the thing broke out in. It would'a been something else otherwise. The bigger question, I think, is this: Podhoretz imagines the Golden Age as the result of executives recognizing the boomer insistence on more complex fare. How is it no one's decided to give that another whirl in two generations since?

Friday, April 23

What's That Smell?

Laura E. Huggins, "Earth Day: 40 Years of Imminent Catastrophe". April 22

OUR lesson today is the redemptive power of Love, and the pervasive odor of bullshit.

First, kids, supposing you are suffering from, not Writer's Block, as you're more Just A Guy With Persistent Logorrhea, but an attack of transient global editing, and the distinct suspicion that the World Herself, after a period of benignity, or disinterest, has decided to plot against you once more, as shown by everything you happen to touch turning to complete shit for a 72-hour period. And suppose that near the end of such a period your inexplicably loving spouse comes home, takes one look at you, and asks you what's wrong.

You haven't said a word about it before. She just reads it on you, which, I dunno, may be easier for people without undiagnosed borderline Asperger's than it is for me, but still. Do you want someone reading your thoughts? How much goddam larceny is in your heart, and how much could you risk exposing? And yet she manages to reply with just the right tone of leaving you the space to work on it yourself, and letting you know she's available if you need her to be. And then she leaves you a cute kitten picture, just so you'll laugh at yourself. It's worth the risk, kids. Really.

Now, into such a world, somehow--it's not as if Universal Love isn't supposed to be the fucking cornerstone of Western Civilization or anything--comes the sort of person who imagines this, and everything else, is for sale, that the Hoover Institution is paying top dollar, and that Shit Still Floats, and especially well in a gold commode, while we're at it. Someone, say, like Laura E. Huggins:
On this 40th anniversary of Earth Day, prepare to be bombarded with apocalyptic tales of disaster. But don't let the gloom-and-doom-fest get you down. Odds are the doomsters will be wrong.

Odds are, so's everybody else. In the long run we're all dead; in the short term we're all extended tubes with bullshit at one end and E. coli at the other. This is not a rhetorical Get Out of Jail Free card.
To help "celebrate" the first Earth Day in 1970, biologist Barry Commoner wrote, "We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation."

In a speech at Swarthmore College that year, ecologist Kenneth Watt said, "If present trends continue, the world will be about 4 degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but 11 degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age." And a New York Times editorial proclaimed: "Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction."

Time has not been gentle with these prophecies. Four decades later, the world hasn't come to an end. Most measures of human welfare show the Earth's population is better off today than at any other time in human history. Life expectancy is increasing, per-capita income is rising, and the air we breathe and the water we drink are cleaner. And, of course, concerns about climate change have shifted from cooling to warming.

Yeah, and back then they told us to put butter on a burn, that drinking water while exercising gave you cramps, and Watergate was a third-rate burglary. The first Earth Day came two years after Walt Rostow saw the Light at the End of the Tunnel in Vietnam; three years after LBJ saw it; five years after Joe Alsop saw it, seventeen years after Lt. General Henri-Eugene Navarre saw it, and eight years after Decca Records told Brian Epstein that guitar groups were on the way out. People are wrong about the stock market every second of the day; the Hoover Institution does not seem to imagine this constitutes an argument against Capitalism.

Ms Huggins' Hoover bio doesn't give her DOB, but we think it's safe to assume she wasn't passing out Ecology flag decals in 1970, and has no memory of just how awful things had become by the time the first Federal pollution controls went into effect, two years later. She's welcome to mix her cocktails with unfiltered Mississippi water from below Baton Rouge if she finds it all too error-filled to live with.

Th' fuck causes you to do this, for money or no? How much better can ya eat? Why do Poor Forlorn Corporations need so much of your love? Exxon Mobil made only $45 billion in 2008, and a mere $19 billion last year; a pittance compared to Big Environment (which doesn't even know if it's hot or cold!), I know.

And whaddya get? What do billions in Astroturf, non-profit fronts, and all the other shenanigans you mouthpieces profit from do for this sacred economy? Assuming Congress were a hot-bed of (ill-informed, natch) environmental radicals, what would we accomplish by turning it into a corrupt one? Perpetual demonization may have made for slightly increased profits, but it's sure made for a crappier society in which to spend 'em.

And, okay, granted that this is how things are going to work so long as people are able to band together to commit crimes they'd go to jail for as individuals, with or without the cooperation of Laura E. Huggins. But, y'know, that doesn't mean this We're Right By Virtue of Pointing Out the Other Side's Mistakes routine is makin' any more sense, or getting anything done. Same with the Science Progresses, Therefore Progress Is Inevitable and Tomorrow Will Always Solve Today's Problems schtick. The question isn't whether it fools the Rubes; the question is whether it actually fools you.

Wednesday, April 21

Next Week On "Doghouse Riley's Build Your Own Doggone Good Bomb Shelter" Blog

Allen Salkin "Newcomer to Food Television Tries for a Little Grit". April 20

MIND you, this is the country which continues unabated its forty-year discussion on just how much carpet bombing is necessary to turn the rest of the world into cut-rate versions of itself:
The people who brought the brassy calorie-pusher Paula Deen, the energetic spice-sprinkler Emeril Lagasse and dozens of other stars to a mass audience are furiously preparing to start a spinoff network on May 31.

Called the Cooking Channel, it is lining up low-key programs targeted at a hipper crowd interested in the grass roots of food culture….

“The feel and style we’re going for is a little grittier, a little edgier, a little hipper,” said Bruce Seidel, the senior vice president for programming and production for the Cooking Channel.

Over/Under on "First Breakout Gritty, Edgy, Hipper Cooking Channel 'Star' Putting His Face on the Same Goddam Cheap-ass Aluminum Cookware Endorsed, in Sequence, by Emeril Lagasse, Rachael Ray, Paula Deen, and Giada De Laurentiis": 16 months. I'm guessing Mr. Seidel sees that as an endorsement.

There is, of course, no reason whatsoever to imagine that anything short of Apocalypse will ever free us from the sort of society where Senior Vice Presidents for Programming, Marketing, or Butt Rape say things like "a little edgier, a little hipper" and aren't immediately stomped into a puddle. And listen, last Saturday afternoon I went shopping at the Bloatville Mall. You cannot underestimate the American consumer. Full stop. And it's not for lack of a goddam conveyor belt of Trying.

I just wanna know how, in the most Bronze-Aged-Superstitious country still left on the planet, the Obviously Soul Dead get away with running things right out in the open. Look, when flailing your arms, scrunching your nose, showing more cleavage every season, or drawling like the hammiest Edmund Pettus impersonator in the entire Civil War Reenactment Biz comes to be taken as Classic Food Show Host Behavior, and too stodgy for the choice Hipster demo, you missed a wakeup call or exit ramp about ten years back.

I was talking to my neighbor last weekend while we were both engaging in garden cleanup, and she mentioned some trick she'd learned on HGTV. "They have gardening shows on HGTV?" I said.

Food Network is concerned about falling ratings. or aging "personalities", or staling concepts? What's the fucking problem? Fer chrissakes, when was the last decade in which Music Television had the remotest thing to do with music? Check with The Learning Channel, Arts and Entertainment, Bravo (the Performing Arts Channel), History Channel, Biography Channel, Discover, or the National Geographic, let alone whatever turned into or became of Spike, G4, Versus, The Nashville Network, and a couple dozen I've forgotten. Why not just do what they did, and turn your programming over to hunky carpenters, tank-topped interior designers, and endless reruns of Jesus/Noah's Ark/Nostradamus infotainment? You don't even need a name change, though you might resort to acronym; the rest of today's viewing day's pleasure on CMT (Country Music Television): The World's Strictest Parents, followed by The World's Strictest Parents; two episodes of Extreme Makeover: Home Edition, then two of Trading Spouses: Meet Your New Mommy, then two more Extremes (or the same two again, I didn't bother checking); Are You Smarter Than a Fifth Grader, and we ask you again, and you can close out your viewing pleasure with four shots of The Singing Bee. Fer chrissakes, that's more colons than have appeared in the eighty-five years of the Grand Ole Opry, just for starters.

And, look, it's bad enough that Vice Presidents of Programming have about as much dedication to honesty, propriety, and reality as former Vice Presidents of the United States Under Bush Administrations; it has to take the same abject unconcern with real world consequences--hell, let's just make that The Very Foundations of Meaning Itself--to say "edgier, grittier, hipper" as to connect Saddam Hussein to 9/11. What's much worse is that we keep rewarding them. How much fucking expertise does it take to say "appeal to a hipper, edgier demographic"? How much did it take to say, "appeal to an ill-informed bunch of Xenophobic nationalists and their desire to bomb the living shit out of someone from 30,000 feet--so long as they don't personally have to leave their living rooms--while the blood is still in their ears?" And how much different do the results usually turn out to be?

Food's one of the lively arts. I sure don't think we have to be stodgy about it, but I do think it'd be nice if something called The Food Network took it semi-seriously as a tradition, as a part of life, as something where real knowledge, not trendy eyewear, is rewarded, rather than as just another vehicle for selling ad time to miracle wipes. And I think it'd be nice if, say once in the next twenty-five years, unlike the last, someone in a similar position said something like, "You know, maybe we could try cutting out the schtick altogether and doing the job right for once."

Thursday, December 10

Today On Doghouse Riley's Dog-Gone Good Food Blog



YESTERDAY'S comments were interesting, which is my way of telling you I'm out of ideas, a condition exacerbated--far too early in the season--by a lack of sunlight, itself assisted by the new mixer, which has kept me inside turning out bread. On the plus side, properly amortized, I've reduced the cost to $47.80 per loaf.

Let's jump right in. Li'l Innocent?
I'm unwilling to hold those 2 little kids responsible for what their repulsively silly mother is making of them.

Once again: having been congenitally consigned a mind which refuses to move in straight lines, coupled with the inability to sit still long enough to rectify that with diligent editing, and--what cannot be blamed on genetics--the sorry results of a life spent in the thrall of self-medication, throbbing Negro music, and PBS, I aim for humor to caulk the deficit. So to anyone who imagined I was really threatening the well-being of those captives, well, you're damned straight I was. Bring 'em on. That's exactly how Jonah Goldberg started.

Seriously, okay, at nine you get a provisional pass. If you're still allowing Mater to dress you like Young Winston Churchill at eleven, let alone lining you up for photo-ops, without protesting at a level which would require visible evidence of physical coercion before you relented, thus ruining the shot, then I'm getting you the World's Most Expensive Toaster for your bath.
Also, the article rightfully faulted the notion that kids will only eat chicken mcnuggets etc. (an idea that probably also got its start during the Reagan Administration). This business of fixing 2 dinners - one for adults and one of kid-slop - was AFAIK nonexistent in the 50s and 60s. Sure, we ate a lot of slop, but everybody ate the same slop.

Agreed, whole-heartedly, with but two reservations: one, the child's palate is geared toward sweetness, said to have the survival benefit that, in the wild, sweet things are edible and bitter things (often) poisonous. Today, as typified by the case of McDonald's, we have turned the natural order on its head, but this does not relieve us of our heritage, or our appendixes. Feeding children fast-food slop is even more inexcusable than eating it yourself, but a pic of two brats dining on huîtres froides and prawns the size of their biceps, from a laughable photo-op spread costing what the average family of four spends on provender in a month, is not, in my humble opinion, likely to prevent any further episodes of culinary child abuse.

Expose children to anything, but adjust for the kid's palate they way you would adjust for a vegetarian's sensibilities.

Two, I wasn't going to commend an article for a bit of commonplace wisdom, however overlooked today--nor the much later suggestion that this continues the substitution of food celebrity for good cooking and smart eating--when it raised the issue to begin with, and illustrated it with the tale of pint-sized gastronomes.

JB, you're up:
the whole Reagan/Republican thing is a crock of shit and diminishes your post. If anything, the 1990s were even more rife with consumerism and greed. Though I will agree that the 1980s are should be notable for the children of the '60s selling-out. But that's on them, not Reagan.

Well, as Christian Doppler once said, I guess it depends on where you're standing, which, with me, is: the Midwest, late middle age, and hermetically cocooned.

I merely point out that Parker's (and the Spectator's) popularity resulted from the conferral of instant connoisseurship on anyone who could identify "97" as being higher than "88" and who could pay the rapidly escalating prices for whatever their masters anointed, and that the coincidence of this and the Reagan administration is hardly surprising.

God knows neither they nor Reagan invented wretched excess; but God knows all three profited from it without apparent loss of sleep.

Now, this blog has spent quite a bit of time rejecting the "children of the 60s" bit, in no small part because, being one myself, I know for a fact that my generation was as shallow, fatuous, self-serving and hypocritical as the one previous, or the next; half the people I went to high school with in the early 70s were auditioning for walk-ons in some imaginary Blackboard Jungle remake, and half the people I went to college with were, it was obvious, smoking as much dope as they could scrounge before it was time to go to law school or sell real estate. The political rallying points--Civil Rights and Vietnam--were primarily the work of pre-Boomers, and were comfortably abandoned once the issues were "resolved" (on the Left; the Right's been fighting them ever since). Reagan won in two landslides; I've never figured out how he is presumed to have done so without the votes of large numbers of Boomers.

That said, stripped of the notion that an entire generation marched from Woodstock to its local BMW dealer, burning copies of Das Kapital en route, I think there's something to be said for that: the food and wine boom in this country dates--clearly--to the mid-to-late 70s, following the historic Paris wine tasting of 1976, and the importation of nouvelle cuisine. This corresponds to the first big chunk of Boomer consumers being out on their own. Similarly, I'm sure that from some perspectives it may seem that the 90s are when this sort of thing fully ripened, or began decomposing. I wasn't offering a history. Let's say that, to me, the leading edge topped the dam in the 70s, the damn thing burst in the 80s, and by the 90s it had gathered up people who were screaming at the tops of their lungs without having a clue how they got there. Not to mention, of course, the ones who don't care if they get rich off haute cuisine, talk radio, or robot hamsters covered in lead paint.

By the way, it took until the late 80s/early 90s for this attitude to really begin to ruin global wine production, but that's not from a sudden lack of concern.

Bi-lingual subversive Bondon Culé:
Although reverse snobbery is no more justified than snobbery itself, a good bottle or two of Pisse-Dru can make it all seem less than noticeable.

I just wanted to define this a little better, since the aphorism about reverse snobbery was aimed specifically at Easterbrook: snobbery is the elevation of commonly-acknowledged paragons of Good Taste and the rejection of anything else as unworthy of one's attention. The person who says, "I adore Bach, and hate The Beatles" is no snob, just someone practicing discernment. The person who says, "The only music worth listening to is serious music," and means the works of acknowledged genius, but has never actually listened to The Beatles, Cole Porter, or Robert Johnson, is a snob. Still, we can at least admit that this requires enough familiarity with a serious topic to grasp a sizable chunk of it, the way reading the first 100 pages of Proust can pretty much help you fake it through 85% of conversations you're ever likely to enter on the subject. Reverse snobbery--not "I don't like classical music" but "everyone who claims to love classical music is faking it just to play the big shot"--what Easterbrook said about wine appreciation, in other words--requires no knowledge at all, and is generally in the service of the same. (This is where I'd draw a distinction with Philistinism, which simply doesn't know and doesn't care.)

And what those Parker numbers do is give people a shortcut to sounding like snobs--awful in itself--while avoiding the minimum amount of effort required to reach that point honestly.

I don't shop for wine much anymore, but when I do the closest place, apart from the grocer's, is the biggest wine store in the state. Parker and Spectator ratings everywhere, of course. And more than once I've heard someone reject a clerk's suggestion with, "Oh, I couldn't give my guests a $15 dollar bottle of wine!" Such a person will happily go home with the $75 bottle that got a 99 on the test, open it, and be convinced they're having a sublime experience based on savvy wine purchasing, even if the wine's five years too young to drink, is being served 15º too warm, and overpowers the dish it's matched with, while the too humble bottle would have been just right. It's morally wrong for a so-called expert to encourage this sort of behavior for money.

Sue me if you want, but I can't divorce the attitude from the movement "conservatism" of the past thirty years, with its pre-solution to questions no one is supposed to raise, and the declaration that every result is Good provided it says so.
Can you offer your perspective on what the balsamic vinegar thing was all about?

Somewhere in this happy home to two bipolar pack-rats I've got a cartoon from the New Yorker of early 80s vintage. Couple seated at a Bistro table, and the husband says to the waiter, "Well, if pesto is Out, bring us what's In".

At any rate, never underestimate the amount of effort somebody will be willing to put into plugging a product which is easily counterfeited, in a country where any trash fish can be sold as North Atlantic cod, and yesterday's squeezings of Thompson's seedless, injected with CO2, can be sold as "Champagne" tomorrow morning.

Designer grappa. Explain that to me.

Mr. Masson?
It's taken this long to simply take the time to try to remember the names of the type (and, if I'm ambitious, the maker) of wines where I find myself enjoying the taste.

Ask for the label. Write your impressions on it. Then don't expect the exact same item to taste quite the same or be just as pleasurable the next time.

Beer's like baking; if the producer knows what he's doing he can make a remarkably similar product time in time out. Wine is Herelitcus' river.

Wednesday, December 9

Baby. Bathwater. Please Dispose Of Separately.



G
REGG Easterbrook, whose ESPN football column now contains 40% less football and 250% more shilling his latest book, tips us to Robert "The Emperor Has No Nose" Parker, the man who Americanized wine appreciation the way Dow Chemical Americanized Vietnamese pruning methods, supposedly tripping all over himself at a blind tasting of 2005 Bordeaux. This was followed by my unfortunate failure to resist the temptation to 1) click a Wonkette link despite the fact that it took me to the New York Post, which, just to begin with, is like checking someone else's clothes hamper for telltale washday stains, and then clicking on the entire unrelated story about half-pint "gourmets" (a word which, by the way, most emphatically does not mean what you, Mr. Headline Writer, or you, Ms Spokeswoman for a Chef, and why th' fuck does a chef have a spokeswoman, let alone one who uses "gourmet" incorrectly? seem to imagine it does), the the parents who are willing to let them be used as props in the tabloid trash wrap, and the people who sell those people cookbooks.

Upon further reflection I realized I'd clicked that link solely as a substitute for slapping that kid and his trendy sweater-and-tie set hard enough to make the photo-proffered oyster land atop some other trendoid's bouillabaisse three booths down. I'm a monster, you say? Look at that picture again, and search your heart. You wanna do worse, right?

Serendipity, as it turns out, because the woman who put that cokehead-in-training next to him in pearls is someone called Karine Bakhoum, who, among other atrocities, helps perpetrate Iron Chef America, and who, we are told, has insured her palate with Lloyd's of London for a million dollars over its assessed value.

Let's deal with Parker (and Easterbrook) first, as this will buttress our later argument for capital punishment for first degree pretension of expertise. Parker is a wine writer who, almost single-handedly, made the world safe for yuppie-scum "connoisseurship" by giving wines--hands down the most complex agricultural product on earth--big, public-school-grammar-test-type grades on a hundred-point scale. This practice, also adopted by the glossy specialty-rag The Wine Spectator, is, simply put, a joke. There is no such thing as the expertise required to reduce such a demonstrably subjective experience with such precision, and, if there were, it would only serve to record the impressions of an individual whose palate is markedly different physiologically from wide swaths of his audience. (The Spectator ratings are panel averages, if memory serves. So was the Iraq war.) Not to mention the fact that the historical record, and that of these gray eminences, is chock-a-block with reconsiderations and backtracks as different vintages mature in different, sometimes unexpected ways.

This is not to say that Parker is an unperceptive wine writer (he does have a marked taste for power over finesse and overripe, high alcohol wines I personally find both unfortunate and boring, but, hey, tastes differ). But confronted for thirty years now over those essay-question numerical grades, he's made a lukewarm defense, blamed the public and the corrupt wine-production and distribution system, and gone on happily milking consumer gullibility in the name of consumer education. (I once stood in a wine-store aisle opposite a woman who was asking for a clerk's recommendation for California cabernet. Upon receiving it she said, "But that only got an 88! I want something 92 or above!")

And it's no coincidence that this takes root smack dab in Reagan's America, where buying labels became a helluva lot more important than knowing what th' fuck you were talking about.

So last October Parker goes to a public blind tasting and fails, roundly, to live up to the laughably grandiose powers of perception he'd claimed all these years. This is an important lesson about buying into hype, or buying anything from natural-born self-promoters. Easterbrook, fittingly, I suppose, over-eggs the custard:
"I Liked This Wine, But Not That Wine" Doesn't Sound Impressive Enough: "Redolent of cherry, pears, apples, cinnamon, vanilla, oranges and oak, with a finish of raspberries, almond, honeysuckle, Earth notes and chocolate." Have you ever thought wine descriptions are total nonsense? This Wall Street Journal story provides the evidence that wine critics are simply making things up, or claiming abilities the palate does not possess. Research shows the human tongue can detect no more than four flavors at a time.

1) People who pile on descriptors like that don't know what they're doing. 2) The tongue is largely immaterial (and I thought it could detect only four flavors in toto?); tasting is primarily olfactory, and practiced tasters learn to distinguish at least as much from the nose as from the mouth, not to mention that they're not limited by that "one" time.

But, mostly, 3) stop for a minute a think about it, willya? Describe the taste of a fucking hamburger, for chrissakes, without saying it tastes like beef. The language of tasting is of necessity poetic, evocative, and part of getting involved in wine appreciation--if one chooses to do so; there's nothing "wrong" about a purely hedonistic approach--is learning to recognize what the language means. "Saddle", "cigar", "cat's piss", and "barnyard" are recognized parts of the lexicon. In his monograph on Burgundy Anthony Hanson writes "Great Burgundy smells of shit. It is most surprising, but something the French recognized long ago, Ça sent la merde and Ça sent le purin being common expressions on the Côte." This is hardly the same thing as saying, "This tastes like liquified cow dung."
Wine critics want to mystify themselves by making us think they have astonishing incredible prowess.

The good ones don't. Most of the great wine writers--Hugh Johnson, Michael Broadbent, Hanson, Jancis Robinson, to name four of my favorites--are remarkably humble. (Consider that, like classical musicians, they spend their lives surrounded by works of genius.) It's the goddam libertarians who put successful marketing, including self-marketing, above all else, Mr. Easterbrook. As you know.
Plus, how would any wine critic know what oak tastes like? I doubt they have shaved bark off a tree and chewed it.

Why not? If you want to start on your own journey you can pick up kits that allow you to add concentrated amounts of a couple dozen basic elements to a glass of wine, or water, and train yourself to recognize them.

Which is somewhat beside the point, since this is pure bullshit, and not the good, Burgundy rouge kind. Wines intended for keeping have traditionally--at the winemaker's discretion--been aged in new oak barrels, the most famous being the French limousin oak. This adds tannins to the wine; tannin acts as a preservative. It's expensive--you cannot reuse barrels and get the same effect--and since 98% of all wine produced is meant to be drunk once it reaches the grocer's shelves--at least, 98% will not improve beyond that--oak was traditionally one mark of a quality wine. Tannin is about the easiest element for the novice to detect (and therein hangs a tale); brew a cup of tea and hold your tongue in it for a minute. That's tannic acid. And since wines aged in oak make up a high percentage of the wines a serious taster would be interested in, it doesn't take long before one is familiar with the effects of oak aging from bottling through to mellow maturity.

The tale: during the Reagan Conspicuous Consumption years, oak--easily identified, often prevalent in young wines of high caliber and/or cost--became a sought-after characteristic in and of itself, despite the fact that wine is not supposed to taste like oak, and its presence means you're drinking the wine when it is too young (which ought to be recognized as the nadir of connoisseurship), and while its finest elements are buried underneath. Some winemakers--like Republicans, no level so low has yet been discovered that some member of the breed cannot crawl under with room to spare--took to adding wood chips to cheap white wines to appease the fashion, and god knows how many forests were denuded so that wines with no bottle-aging potential could be "oaked".

Reverse snobbery is no more justified than snobbery itself. It feeds the endless appetite for self-aggrandizement and profit above all by denying there's anything of real value one is obligated to shut up long enough to learn about. Just dress your nine-year-old up like Alistair Cooke and he, too, can pontificate on matters of taste and aesthetics, despite the fact that no one in his right mind would ask his opinion of anything. Why not give him a pocket protector and a hardhat and have him design bridges? And somehow it doesn't occur to these people that they're giving their own game away.

Thursday, September 3

Whine Selection

Regina Schrambling, "Don't Buy Julia Child's Mastering the Art of French Cooking: You will never cook from it". August 28

ONE: I did, a lot; still do on occasion, though I don't often cook from anything much anymore. I spent a couple years cooking several times a week from Julia's book (what? Simone Beck is chopped foie gras?), as well as Louis Diat's and Henri-Paul Pellaprat's. I didn't come out the other side a cuisinier, but I did come out knowing how to cook.

TWO: this piece, like the movie and the Blogging Event which inspired it, are not for me. Just so's we all understand one another. Had it occurred to me, in 1978, to write a book about the "experience", or Ur-blog it by calling ten people and telling them about it, utilizing up-to-the-minute, NASA-developed touch tone dialing, I would have sat down with a cold cloth until the idea passed. When I first heard about the Julie character blogging her way through Mastering the Art I thought, oh, great idea! Then I dialed up a connection and read some. End of great idea. I am not the audience for this sort of thing. I do not care if that audience is hoodwinked repeatedly because of its devotion to quotidian pop-culture manias, unless they are perpetrated by Politics, Commerce, or come through my walls and disturb my reading.

THREE: I don't understand why it should require much experience of the culture before one simply throws up one's hands, preparatory to meeting each and every media-driven mass trampling of what was once a perfectly fine flower bed, bothering no one and giving pleasure to the few who knew it well, with a fittingly Gallic shrug. Don't Buy "Mastering the Art"! Sheesh, lady, the people who have to be told that are never going to learn the lesson. The people who peddle books are never going to stop putting movie stars or muppets or Whatever Sells on whatever stack of wood pulp they have in stock. Can you get a Passion of the Christ Bible at Half-Price Books? Wouldn't particularly surprise me. I think we ought to be thankful there's no Burger King Limited Time Only Chicken Cordon Bleu sandwich and special Julie & Julia commemorative cup deal going on.

Okay, so, it's Slate, and so the perpetual pretense that one is commenting on something real, rather than spinning the same old cog in the Perpetual Zeitgeist Machine, has to be maintained. But look, supposing you dissuade some poor-impulse-control buyer from ponying up $25 here. What happens? The money's gonna be spent on the next gimcrack down the block, which, odds say, will probably be absolutely worthless, not just practically so. Whereas all those Volume Ones are going to wind up at garage sales across this great land, probably within the next twelvemonth, and possibly inspire some kid someday to do some real cooking.

So, before we start (sadly, yes), Ms Schrambling, if you really have a problem with people buying a cook book so far over their heads, and so beyond the minimal amount of effort they are likely willing to put into the practice, I suggest you take it up with Ms Powell, who used the thing as a prop.
Thanks to my consort, I have owned the two-volume set of Mastering the Art since 1984, the year after I graduated from restaurant school, but even I have never cooked from it. My copy of Volume 1 is tattered, but only because I've used it for reference over the decades—it is infallible as a sourcebook. I would think the problem is my short attention span, given that I grew up cooking from my mom's 1950s Betty Crocker cookbook and was trained professionally using recipes that had been distilled to their essence so that technique could be taught fast. But Julia's recipes were written for a rigorous cook with endless patience for serious detail.

I wish this flabbergasted me more than it does. It's not for want of trying on Ms Schrambling's part. I'm hoping that "recipes distilled to their essence so that technique could be taught fast" is merely the product of a tin ear--hers, or her instructor's--but I fear the worst.

Recipes aren't distilled because they're teaching "technique". They're distilled because they're teaching restaurant cooking, which is a form of fast food. I do hope your instructors understood that. It must be finished to order. Depending on the establishment, and the clientele, a one- or two-hour lag might be acceptable, but what has really happened is that a complex (if desired) series of events has taken place, utilizing a division of labor, in order to simplify the final preparation. You do not walk into a fine dining establishment, order the Poulet rôti, and wait while the captain relays the message to the guy who takes the chicken out of the locker, trusses it, and bastes it for the next 2-1/2 hours. Or not many.

Neither can I understand the "don't cook from it, but use it as a reference" routine. That's what Larousse is for. Mastering the Art isn't a compendium. It's a collection of recipes for the home.

Okay, so if you know how to cook every cookbook is a reference work, and if you've got The Girls on the shelf, and damn am I tired of coming up with ways to avoid pasting the full title in again and again, you might use it that way. But this is all from The Repertoire. If you've never followed a recipe, what do you need it as a reference of?

Listen, I'll admit I have about ten bones to pick with the whiz-bang American food culture since 1975 for every morsel I find savory, but this is a big one: the idea that the World of Betty Crocker and the Go-Go American lifestyle exempt us from putting in the time and effort required to learn something of great worth. Americans give themselves a free pass on this sort of thing, and then turn around and ask why anyone would go to such bother. How th' fuck are you supposed to know?
Consider the boeuf bourguignon depicted so romantically in the movie, which has had restaurant chefs and amateurs alike breaking out their "9- or 10-inch fireproof casseroles" in the hottest month of the year. The ingredients and instructions for its recipe span three pages, and that is before you hit the fine print: The beef stock, braised pearl onions, and sautéed mushrooms all require separate procedures. Step 1 involves making lardons and simmering them for 10 minutes in a precise amount of water; seven steps later, the fat is finally skimmed off the sauce, which is either boiled down to thicken or adjusted with liquid if it's too thick.

First: Americans are excused for having short attention spans and no patience, but they aren't presumed to live in air-conditioned bubbles during the hot months? Sure. Two: I've got a 1977 printing. The recipe runs across three pages, but would come pretty close to fitting on two, with its introductory paragraph and wine and vegetable accompaniments intact. You slam into the onion braising and mushroom frying just after the casserole hits the oven, what would probably end page one of a dedicated pamphlet, and the horrible ordeal of stock skimming assaults you soon after. In other words, it's listed in the actual order in which you actually do actual things in the actual recipe. (And fer chrissakes, you don't need a "precise" amount [it's an exacting "1.5 quarts", by the way, not "10 to the third mole at 25º C.") of water; you need an ample amount so the lardons don't stick together when simmering.)

I mean, I crank out a lot of good lo' Fanny Farmeresque beef stew and pot roasts during the winter. How many steps are they, and how much mess? Even tossing the latter in a crock pot requires prepping onions, carrots, potatoes, turnips, garlic, and green beans, and even using one of the reasonably good shelf stocks available now (but not then) you're still advised to strain and deglaze before serving. How much less do you want to do? Toss everything into a pot and pray Betty sorts it out? Maybe cooking isn't for you at all, let alone trying to knock out haute cuisine.
And this is considered an entry-level recipe. Everything in the tome looks complicated, which of course guarantees the results will work but also makes cooking feel like brain surgery. Even simple sautéed veal scallops with mushrooms involve 18 ingredients and implements and two pages of instruction.

This is a fabrication. Seriously. And aided by the horrible American convention that one identify dishes by naming however many ingredients one cares to. This is, after all, the country when someone savoring the precious nectar of a '61 Chateau Petrus can be said to be "drinking a Merlot".

There is a recipe for Escalopes de Veau à la Crème which involves: veal, butter, shallots, white wine, brown stock, cream, and mushrooms. How much less work do you want? There are two, a Provençal dish with brown sauce, and Blanquette de Veau à L'Ancienne, which are more complicated. So what? Someone making a classic Blanquette de Veau is not sautéing veal and mushrooms, except in the sense that Joe Dimaggio was playing a kid's game. Throw veal and mushrooms in a pan and turn on the heat if you want. Perfectly acceptable, perhaps quite good, but not an excuse, in a food writer, for missing the distinction between true gastronomie and the production of ballast for a Stevedore, as Rex Stout once said.
If after 26 years of cooking for a living, I am worn out just reading those recipes, I can only imagine how a newbie who can barely identify a whisk will do,

Maybe he'll be less unwarrantedly jaded about it. Maybe she won't have been held prisoner by Betty Crocker in her youth.
let alone how someone who has never seen Dover sole in his supermarket could cook sole meunière, the other iconic Julia dish that restaurants and home cooks have been reflexively celebrating since ogling it in the film. It's a plot point, and the recipe is not in the book, although others for sole are, helpfully indexed under "poisson.")

Ah, well, you can always buy Volume II, with the complete index in comforting English. Lady, why shouldn't someone trying to master the art of French cooking learn some simple French culinary words and phrases? Do you gripe if you sit down at the piano and the instructions are in Italian?

Ms Powell's work can stand on its own merits, if any. But the infestation of food writing and broadcasting over the past three decades, dedicated to the idea that knowing this month's magazine-approved Trend trumps the requirement of doing any real work, is, well, un-fucking-palatable.

Saturday, March 7

Tip: Periodically Have Someone Check Your Plastic Bubble's Air Intake Hose For Kinks

Kim Severson, "Turning to Cube Steak, and Back to Childhood":
Although pounding tough pieces of beef to make them more tender has a long history in the Southern and Western United States...

...less primitive Americans in tonier regions developed corning and stocks.

Y'KNOW canning food only began to be perfected about 150 years ago. The first city in America wired for electric light was Wabash, Indiana in 1880. The rural South was electrified thanks to The Socialist and Class Traitor FDR. Home refrigeration dates to the 1930s; the icebox, its predecessor, pretty much required that one live near enough to a source of ice (seasonal or altitudinal) for it to be transported to one's location while remaining frozen. Corning, salting, smoking, pickling, fermenting, drying--actions we now take largely for the flavor they impart--were once matters of life and death for some Americans still living today. They did actually know more about preserving food, and increasing its palatability, than is suggested by their pounding it with their crude eating-slash-digging sticks. And this generally involved more than knowing the location of the nearest grain-fed boutique butcher's.

Is it really, really, really too much to ask that a nominally well-educated person have some broad sense of his place on a timeline that doesn't fucking begin with the dawn of Readily Available Premium Cable Channels? It's certainly possible that Ms Severson just wrote a really horrible sentence there--which would be sin enough--but the evidence says it's a transcript from whatever her grain-fed butcher was feeding her, seeing as how it links the actual, official, popularity of cube steak to steel-plated professional meat pounding.

And all of this being at the service of the semi-dredful Comfort Food meme, which is apparently being kept alive just to demonstrate how lazy food culture can become, and remain, and why the rest of the world is wise not to entrust it to English speakers. Not to mention the trendy update to Depression-Era chic. Listen: I'm 55 years old. The last time I got a home-cooked meal, cooked by someone else, on a non-holiday, that involved meat loaf, mashed potatoes that began the day as, well, potatoes, macaroni and cheese that began the day in separate packages, or anything else from that checklist, or began the morning with a bowl of oatmeal that wasn't ready to serve the moment oats met boiling water, was in 1965. Without question there are some people in America fortunate enough to have had real food served to them in their youth despite having been born after the general acceptance of the home microwave, the instant potato flake, and the invention of the term "Fresh Frozen"; but for most the whole business is a manufactured sham memory, the "comfort" they received (directly) from that sort of menu having been largely the radiated warmth leftover from a controlled nuclear reaction, and the "food" being, at best, moot.

The numbers of people who grew up eating actual "comfort food" and are still young enough to be able to calculate a tip must be so tiny that the Comfort Food Industry would today be vying with the Used Betamax Cult if it weren't for the incessant cheerleading of those professional food shills who deserve to be called "Foodies" except the word turns my stomach. But not as much as this professional quaintification of foodstuffs so the easily satisfied can dig into a bowl of something that doesn't look like it was designed by a Japanese florist and still feel superior.

Wednesday, December 3

Caucasians

Steven Kurutz, "White Russians Arise, This Time at a Bowling Alley". December 2

IT'S a jackpot, of sorts, as a little side trip unexpectedly takes us to the corner of Food Fadism Boulevard and Boy, The World Sure Was Stupid Before I Came Along Avenue, and all thanks to the Coens. Martin Doudoroff of cocktaildb.com, who describes himself as "a cocktail enthusiast and technology consultant":
Lebowski adherents may have vaulted the White Russian to icon status, but serious cocktail enthusiasts still deride it for being simplistic and overly sweet — a confection designed to appeal to unserious drinkers.

“It’s hard to think of a more boring drink, except, perhaps, when it’s spraying from the Dude’s mouth...."

Believed to date to the 1950s or early 1960s, the White Russian has no great origin story; its culinary precursor is the Alexander. Having been popular in the disco ’70s, the cocktail is, in the words of Mr. Doudoroff, “a relic of an era that was the absolute nadir of the American bar.”

Okay, first: we find it imperative that the modern American old enough to drive, smart enough to read, and emotionally stable and hormonally-balanced enough not to try to turn everything he learns into a pick-up line, refrain as much as possible from throwing the word "nadir" around indiscriminately. Perhaps this is in part because in the 20th century we used to describe the Reagan administration that way.

Second: this is not my milieu by any means, and I freely grant Tequila Sunrise, Harvey Wallbanger (both pre-Disco), and Piña Colada (definitely Disco, though in fairness you needed something to cut the bitterness of all that blow, I suppose), the iconic White Russian and alcohol-poisoning-in-a-glass Jelly Bean or Long Island Ice Tea. But nadir? From a guy who allows himself to be described as "an historian" in print? (I'm sorry, "a" historian. Does the Times even have a style book anymore?) Forget the Tiki monstrosities of moribund Fifties and Sixties Ring-a-ding-Dingdom; how about the intervening Eighties, with their penchant for junior-high smuttiness (Give me a Blowjob! Gimme a Screaming Orgasm! Har, har, har.) humping mechanically in a ménage à trois with boring sweetness and instant Rohypnolesque intoxication (both the above mix Kahlua and Bailey's; the Blowjob adds whipped cream, while an Orgasm requires vodka). How about the following decade of Jello shots, body shots, drinks mixed right in your mouth, and Frozen Margaritas? Who you callin' nadir? For that matter, adding vodka to Red Bull, or every conceivable cordial to vodka and calling the result an Xtini does not exactly strike me as having transformed the Naughts into the height of cafe society, let alone Paris between the Wars.

Only the rarest of palates achieves expertise before middle age! We suppose this to be doubly difficult at minimum if one confines oneself to a field such as Mixology or The Western, where classical standards are non-existent and the odds of actually learning something useful before the subject renders you unconscious are long. You, sir, have mastered the art of knowing what's popular in your own time. Congratulations. If you have not yet received your Cultural Gold Star for having found the Austin Powers series delightfully anachronistic, I promise to look into it, if you promise to leave.

Now, then. Full disclosure: my drink is coffee, where I approach Voltaire in daily consumption. My alcoholic consumption tends to good wine, good bourbon, or first-rate Scotch, taken as God intended. On occasions when reduced speed is desirable it's bourbon, brandy, or apple brandy with gingerale. I can handle, on occasion, a Bloody Mary early or an X.O. Armagnac late. Coffee drinks in cold weather, vodka and lemonade in hot, splash of grape juice if you've got it. The latter is my Poor Wife's regular drink, but she's a public school teacher and can be excused anything.

And I've got no objection to the occasional Bailey's rocks or, yes, White Russian taken as a dessert. What I do object to is the sort of unqualified snobbery (and basic fraudulence) which sneers at anything "sweet" and puts sugar in its tea. The palate changes around age 25 from the infant's desire for sweetness (sweet things, in the wild, are not poisonous) toward the complex and the bitter and the longer-lasting. This does not simultaneously make you a genius, and sneering at "sweet" amounts to an unpleasant combination of the reformed alcoholic's agressive teetotalling and the second grader's abuse of the kindergartner.

Anyway, let's go to the tape, specifically, the CocktailDB.com list of Top 25 Drink Choices:

1. the Vesper Martini, which owes more to the connoisseurship of action movies than gourmandise.

2. French 75. A fine old name, and 2 teaspoons of fine sugar.

3. Alabama Slammer. Aside from the refined imagery of the name, Southern Comfort, Amaretto, and sloe gin. Not exactly for diabetics.

4. Brandy Flip. Cream. Egg. Sugar. Clarified butter optional.

5. Smith and Kerns. A boring White Russian, minus vodka, topped with soda.

6. Cuba Libre. Rum and coke, plus lime. Not at all boring.

7. Apple Martini. Look, first, it's vodka and schnapps, which is what Nabokov might have called a parody of a cocktail. If you like 'em, fine, but the simple fact that "cocktail purists" did not scream loud, long, and sufficiently until this whole "X Martini" thing was eliminated is an indelible black mark.

8. Whiskey sour, which adds some sour to its sugar, and which the CocktailDB would have you make with straight lemon juice instead of learning to make a proper sour mix. Pikers.

9. Manhattan. Finally a real cocktail.

10. Alaska cocktail. Gin, orange bitters, and Yellow Chartreuse, which is the sweeter version of Green Chartreuse.

Et. seq. People talk dry; people drink sweet, and no one ever went broke sneaking some sugar into his Chardonnay (eh, Mr. Kendall? How's that, Mr. Jackson?). I certainly don't accuse Mr. Doudoroff of actually drinking these things, but a dash of perspective never ruined any recipe I'm familiar with.