Chef Mojo

They Can Have My Garlic When They Pry It From My Cold, Dead Fingers

Italian chefs crusade against garlic

(...)

There's a garlic debate raging among chefs and eaters in Italy, and it's not about freshness. It's about eliminating garlic from Italian cooking entirely. Sicilian chef Filippo La Mantia, who has a hot restaurant in Rome, declared that he'll never use it. Like others in his camp, he feels that garlic smells terrible and overwhelms delicate flavors. The antigarlic contigency has a powerful ally in former Premier Silvio Berlusconi whose has a well-known aversion to the stinking rose. Carlo Rossella, a news director for Berlusconi's Mediaset has even started a list of garlic-free restaurants and is pushing for places that serve garlic to have separate, garlic-free menus.

Cooking purists tend to chap my ass. I've been having the garlic argument for years. There has always been a very vocal minority that finds garlic to be anathema. That minority is very small.  My experience began with working in kitchens around C'ville. Every now and then Helen Worth, a local cooking eminence, would drop in. Helen Worth is very old school. Literally. She's a member of Les Dames d'Escoffier, had a cooking school in New York, invented the precursor to Kitchen Bouquet and she used to pal around with M.F.K. Fisher. She's published a number of cookbooks way back when. In her retirement, she lives near C'ville and gives cooking classes. She's a very sweet old lady.

She also can't abide garlic. And she explained to me that, "Real chefs don't feel the need to use garlic." Talk about waving the red cape...

I, on the other hand, adore garlic. I use it both appropriately and with complete abandon. One of my favorite movie scenes is in Goodfellas, where our protaganists are preparing an Italian meal in prison, and one character is showing another how to lovingly slice garlic paper thin with a razor blade. There is great culinary wisdom in that scene.

Helen and I agreed to disagree.

I always find it interesting when little movements arise proclaiming certain ingredients to be verboten. I've always felt is shows a narrowness of mind that has no room in the world of cooking. Every ingredient has it's context, and there are scores of applications for each of those ingredients, from the obvious to some that make your eyebrows hurt. But I believe this to be true: They are all relevant. Just because I don't particularly like okra doesn't mean I'm going to pronounce it somehow unacceptable to use in gumbo.

You don't like garlic? Fine. But don't tell me the use of it is somehow unworthy of true culinary endeavour. Don't make fey little pronouncements, proclaiming that garlic, "overwhelms delicate flavors." That's just silly. Garlic will do what you want it to do. Used properly, it can bring out delicate flavors, and enhance them. Or you can just drop a garlic bomb and reek for days. I can do both. I suspect that those who make such blanket statements are somewhat lacking in skill and imagination.

I Can't Help Falling In Love With You...

Whoops.

Police: Naked Couple May Have Died From Sex

COLUMBIA, S.C. -- Police on Wednesday were investigating how a naked couple fell four stories from the roof of a downtown office building to their deaths.

The man and woman were found near the sidewalk by a passing cab driver around 5 a.m. Wednesday. One person was pronounced dead at scene and the other died a short time later at a local hospital.

Clothing was discovered on the roof, leading authorities to suspect the couple, in their early 20s, may have been having sex. Their identities were not released.

"It's too early to rule out anything," Columbia police Sgt. Florence McCants said, but McCants said a preliminary investigation didn't show any sign of foul play.

The roof of the building is pyramid-shaped.

I usually don't post an entire article; that's considered gauche in the blogosphere. But I must make an exception in this case, because the last sentence is priceless to someone who is an admirer of Edward Whittemore and his book, Jerusalem Poker.

Ok. Well. I guess I'll stop with the obscure literary references...

The Times Responds To Tony Blair

Last week, I posted on Tony Blair's little tirade against a free press. Now comes this sharp column in The Times by Simon Jenkins:

At first I honestly thought Tony Blair’s “poor diddums” speech last week was farewell satire. He could not really think himself the most persecuted politician since Carlyle declared the supremacy of the “fourth estate” back in the 1840s. Besides, how could the master of spin admit that he had botched his entire modus operandi? He called journalists “feral beasts” who hunted in packs and spread cynicism wherever they went.

What a perfect description of Blair’s office for the past 15 years. Yet the man seemed close to tears. So plaintive was his cry that a stage army of sycophantic columnists leapt forward to hug him and say how right he was. I recall no such media mea culpa when John Major made the same, and more merited, speech on retirement.

And you damn sure didn't hear that sort of crap from Margaret Thatcher.

Regardless, the fact remains that whether the press is biased or not is not the point; only that there is a free and independent press. Hell, up until quite recently, historically, the press has been extremely biased, mostly due to the fact that newspapers were the organs of political parties and various interests.

There is a fantasy that British newspapers were once pillars of journalistic independence and are now polluted by sensationalism, commercialism and venal proprietors. This is rubbish. Until the 20th century, indeed through to the second world war, most papers were owned, produced and written by and for political parties.

The Times was usually in the pocket of the government. The Westminster Gazette, founded by Newnes for the Liberals, was duly described by Rosebery as “a pioneer of clean popular literature”. The Express and the Mail under Beaverbrook and Rothermere pretended to run politics, their bluff occasionally called by Lloyd George and Baldwin. The office song of Labour’s Daily Herald was “We want no party, creed or bias; we want a peerage for Elias” (their chairman). As for Blair dredging up Baldwin’s “power without responsibility” quote, surely that was a cliché too far.

Newspaper editorials (and their promiscuous siblings, columns) are probably more independent than ever in history. This is partly because there are so many of them and partly because the companies for which they write are far more concerned with keeping their papers afloat. The 1985 Wapping revolution gave Fleet Street a decade of soaring profits, which it saw evaporate in a blizzard of price-cutting, freesheets and internet competition. Even so, more papers are being read on the streets of London than for half a century. More front pages are scanned, thanks to the internet, than ever before. More opinion is being formed, debated and regurgitated, to the point that arguments not worth a pint in a pub can circle the earth through the blogosphere.

Much the same could be said about the press in the United States. My problem with the press is not that it's biased. That's fine by me. What bothers me is the press insisting that it's not biased, when it clearly is. They should stop pretending otherwise and get on with it. After all, it's how the distribution of information is trending anyway.

(tip 'o' the hat: Chris)

Faint Glimmer Of Hope

Just when I've pretty much given up on the British, the Queen confers a knighthood on Salman Rushdie. This, of course, causes much wailing and gnashing of teeth in the Muslim world. The Iranians are huffing and the Pakistanis are puffing, and Muslims everywhere are acting like their knickers are on fire.

I'd like to take this opportunity to extend some heartfelt thanks to Her Royal Highness for so honoring a good man, and at the same time, spitting in the eye of his oppressors.

Having said that, I now have to wrap my brain around the rest of the list, which includes Joe Cocker and Barry Humpries, better known as Dame Edna. I'm also scratching my head over CNN's Christiane Amanpour becoming a Knight Commander of the Order of the British Empire. What's up with that?

The Birthday List is always full of things that make you go, "Huh?" But this year marks the first time I can remember it causing a great international kerfuffle.

Huzzah!

UPDATE & CORRECTION:

In the comments, I have been corrected by my Mother. Queen Elizabeth II is addressed as "Her Majesty," not "Her Royal Highness." The latter term is used to refer to a royal personage of lesser rank.

I should note that Mom is quite the Anglophile, and is well versed in these things.

The Episcopal Church Is Really Weird...

Via NRO comes this vexing little article about a woman priest of the Episcopal Church who proclaims that she is both Christian and Muslim.

Shortly after noon on Fridays, the Rev. Ann Holmes Redding ties on a black headscarf, preparing to pray with her Muslim group on First Hill.

On Sunday mornings, Redding puts on the white collar of an Episcopal priest.

She does both, she says, because she's Christian and Muslim.

Redding, who until recently was director of faith formation at St. Mark's Episcopal Cathedral, has been a priest for more than 20 years. Now she's ready to tell people that, for the last 15 months, she's also been a Muslim — drawn to the faith after an introduction to Islamic prayers left her profoundly moved.

Her announcement has provoked surprise and bewilderment in many, raising an obvious question: How can someone be both a Christian and a Muslim?

Well, now. Isn't that special?

The article continues, spinning a strange story that's mostly leaving everyone confused. Except the Bishop, of course:

Redding's situation is highly unusual. Officials at the national Episcopal Church headquarters said they are not aware of any other instance in which a priest has also been a believer in another faith. They said it's up to the local bishop to decide whether such a priest could continue in that role.

Redding's bishop, the Rt. Rev. Vincent Warner, says he accepts Redding as an Episcopal priest and a Muslim, and that he finds the interfaith possibilities exciting. Her announcement, first made through a story in her diocese's newspaper, hasn't caused much controversy yet, he said.

And you think the Episcopalians are confused?

Some local Muslim leaders are perplexed.

Being both Muslim and Christian — "I don't know how that works," said Hisham Farajallah, president of the Islamic Center of Washington.

But Redding has been embraced by leaders at the Al-Islam Center of Seattle, the Muslim group she prays with.

"Islam doesn't say if you're a Christian, you're not a Muslim," said programming director Ayesha Anderson. "Islam doesn't lay it out like that."

Islam doesn't say if you're a Christian, you're not a Muslim. Huh? Try telling that to Mahmoud.

Mom, I think it's time to pack your bags and catch the last train before it leaves the station. The Episcopal Church has gone from being charmingly eccentric to being flat out weird, and it's just a thin hair away from being mind bogglingly stupid.

Restaurant Conceptualization #1

Funny things happen to you when you're wrapping 200 scallops in bacon.

First of all is the realization that, at the Club, we actually wrap scallops in bacon, as opposed dumping them onto sheet pans straight out of the deep freeze. Most places that do banquet service take most of their product out of the freezer and bake or fry them up, put them on trays for passing or in buffet chafers.

But at the Club, we kick it old school and we keep it real.

Be that as it may, I was about mid way through wrapping my scallops in bacon, when I had an idea for a restaurant.

I would call it Banquet.

Like most new restaurants, it would have an one word name in the singular, only this name would actually extend meaning and give you something of a clue as to what the establishment was about.

At Banquet, I, the Chef, would do banquet food. Like those bacon wrapped scallops, for instance. Except my bacon wrapped scallops would be produced with the finest of thick-cut, applewood smoked bacon, diver scallops and some sort of nice calvados butter sauce to finish it.

Think about it; all the crappy banquets and weddings you've been to, where the food looked good at first glance, but seriously sucked when it got past your lips. At Banquet, this would not be the case. All those canapes, mini-crabcakes, and stuffed mushrooms would be lovingly made by hand of the finest ingredients and beautifully presented.

And the entrées? All the variations on stuffed chicken that you could possibly imagine: Kiev and all the myriad variations on Cordon Bleu.  True USDA Prime grade prime rib. Wild caught Copper River Salmon. Once again, everything, wonderfully fresh, pristine and made from scratch in the classical, traditional methods.

And for dessert? How about a number of wedding cakes that don't taste like sawdust and Crisco flavored spackle. That's right, wedding cake that you'll remember as being special; truly worthy of that wonderful day. Like the cake Laura made for The Lady and me. A real dessert, in other words, instead of a tasteless disappointment. The other desserts would be handmade versions of those other pasty, gelatinous, deathly sweet horrors that tempt you and then leave you quaking with regret like a morning after drunken sailor amidst the debris of an all-night orgy in Bangkok. These desserts would be sublime. They would make your eyes roll up into the back of your skull with delight.

Banquet food, prepared and served in the tradition of fine dining, with white-linen service.

The coffee would be excellent, as well. Can't have that hotel produced, watery swill that passes for coffee at Banquet.

The best part about Banquet? Once the reputation has been established, Bridezilla and her mom will show up to book a wedding. And I, the Chef, will smile and say, "We don't do banquets."

Fool Britannia

While I've always appreciated the support Tony Blair gave our country after 9/11 and during our ongoing struggle against Islamofascism, what he has done to Great Britain in the course of the New Labor revolution has been pathetic.

I never bought into the whole "Cool Britannia" crap that's been slung about for the last umpteen years as Blair and his cohorts have systematically dismantled a once great nation and thrown it upon the pyre of political correctness. Watching England devolve into Orwell's nightmare has been a shame to behold; a Big Brother society intruding brutally on everyday life, leaving the populace as sheep in a vast pen, surrounded by dogs nipping at their hindquarters.

Where Pink Floyd visionaries or what?

And it continues apace. Courtesy of Chris, comes this article in the Telegraph of Blair's parthian shot towards the concept of a free press and unregulated internet in the UK:

Tony Blair hinted today at new restrictions on internet journalism, saying online news coverage had become "more pernicious and less balanced" than traditional political reporting.

In a farewell lecture on public life, he said that much of the British media behaved like a "feral beast, just tearing people and reputations to bits".

But he had particularly harsh words for non-traditional media outlets, particularly the internet.

"It used to be thought - and I include myself in this - that help was on the horizon," he said.

"New forms of communication would provide new outlets to by-pass the increasingly shrill tenor of the traditional media.

"In fact, the new forms can be even more pernicious, less balanced, more intent on the latest conspiracy theory multiplied by five."

Well, ok. The press is a "feral beast" in a free society. The press is particularly nasty in the UK. What else is new? The media has always been biased; it's what they do. The idea of a non-advocating media in a free society is ridiculous.

Blair and his successors will use this to once again sink another blade into Britannia's expiring body, until all that is left is a rotting corpse for the carrion to feed upon.

And the British? Well, they'll just keep smiling for the cameras.

Whackjob

So, now I'm going to piss my brother off.

I can't stand Ron Paul.

I think the man is a certified whackjob. So does Roger L. Simon.

Of course, psychological sophistication isn't a hallmark of Paul supporters. Ideological purity is. More than most groups, they live deep in the world of theory, typing away on their computers with very little connection to the real world. In that way they are somewhat like their candidate - a man who, I confess, was not on my radar screen until recently - who seems to suffer from a kind of cognitive dissonance. When you listen to him answer questions at the debates, he never appears to answer directly. And I don't mean that he spins in the way nearly all politicians do. He seems so lost in ideology he doesn't quite comprehend. Can you imagine this man actually being elected and telling the G8 he wants to go back on the gold standard? I guess his supporters would applaud.

And in the comments to this post the Paulbots emerge to prove Simon's point. Predictably and right on schedule.

Every time I hear Ron Paul speak, I cringe and grind my teeth. The man is so thoroughly out of touch with reality. That is, the real world around him and how it operates.  He's many things, but he's not a Republican. Hell, I can't really see how he's a libertarian, for that matter. He's as much a Republican as Lyndon LaRouche was a Democrat. Or as much of a Republican as David Duke. Ron Paul strikes me as being in that league: A fringe loser of a charlatan surrounded by sycophantic fanatics who have nothing better to do than run up internet polls to satisfy their maniacal egos. As one Paulbot commenter states:

Remember the Ron Paul momentum is only a month or so old. MSM lags several weeks behind. He is not listed in polls and the phone polls do not include cell phone users. I am a former liberal who is supporting him. The fight will continue and increase and God willing the American people will come out on top when the dust settles. When the naysayers see the supporters in the streets (we are willing to fight) many will join him. It comes down to a battle of the republic versus the nwo. where will you be counted? You must decide where you stand idealogcally and choose sides. The time is now. You might think we are crazy, but thats what the English thought of our forefathers.

(emphasis mine)

How's that for letting your Brownshirt/Jackboot freak flag fly? You don't like what we're trying to do, we're gonna take to the streets! The pusch will not be televised... Setting aside the fact that the English didn't consider our forefathers crazy, just English, the amount of disconnect to reality illustrated in this comment is mind boggling.

Let's get it out there: Ron Paul is a Truther (a 9/11 denialist), and I find those types despicable in their idiocy. He's completely out of touch on the war in Iraq in particular and the war on terror in general. Areas that I might agree with him (taxes, border security, privacy) are negated by the fact that he's completely out there on aforementioned issues. I don't like his style and I certainly don't like that vast majority of his lame supporters. Paul does not belong on the dais with the other Republican candidates. If he wants to run for President, let him run as an independent. He's going to do that anyway, sooner rather than later.

Sifting Through The Ashes

Last week, I posted on my displeasure upon hearing of Paris Hilton being released from jail for unspecified "medical reasons."

In the interim, as you know, she was dragged screaming and crying from a courthouse back to jail after a judge ruled that the LA County Sheriff had no call to release her in the first place.

Oh, and how I laughed. I turned the schadenfreude up to 11. I really enjoyed seeing the clueless, elitist child of privilege go down in flames to be left smoldering in a jail cell.

I really wanted to post something about it at the time, but something began to bother me about the whole thing. Not so much the whole Paris-goes-to-jail part of it - she got what she deserved -, but how this society reacted to it. When you took a deep breath and looked at it, it was sort of how I imagine the behavior of the crowds at a Roman arena featuring the latest gladiatorial spectacle. So, I decided to leave it alone, pull back and move away from viewing this human train wreck.

And wouldn't you know it? Christopher Hitchens lays it out in no uncertain terms in Slate:

And now here I go, clearing my throat as above before deciding to do something I would have never believed I would do, and choosing to write about Paris Hilton. Choosing to write about her, furthermore, not just as if she were some metaphor or signifier, but as a subject in herself. At some point toward the middle of last Friday, it seemed to me, one was being made a spectator to a small but important injustice. Those gloating and jeering headlines, showing a tearful child being hauled back to jail, had the effect of making me feel sick. So, you finally got the kid to weep on camera? Are you happy now?

I don't mind admitting that I, too, have watched Hilton undergoing the sexual act. I phrase it as crudely as that because it was one of the least erotic such sequences I have ever seen. She seemed to know what was expected of her and to manifest some hard-won expertise, but I could almost have believed that she was drugged. At no point did her facial expression match even the simulacrum of lovemaking. (Kingsley Amis, a genius in these matters and certainly no Puritan, once captured the combined experience of the sordid and the illicit by saying that, even as he wanted a certain spectacle to go on, he also wanted it to stop.)

(emphasis mine)

As he goes on, Hitch points out that, by our collective reaction, we emulate the puritanical fanatics that used to brand adulterers and burn witches:

Not content with seeing her undressed and variously penetrated, it seems to be assumed that we need to watch her being punished and humiliated as well. The supposedly "broad-minded" culture turns out to be as prurient and salacious as the elders in The Scarlet Letter. Hilton is legally an adult but the treatment she is receiving stinks—indeed it reeks—of whatever horrible, buried, vicarious impulse underlies kiddie porn and child abuse.

There are some parts of this essay that I take issue with. I find Sarah Silverman funny as hell. Her burning of Paris was simply true to type. After all, this is the woman who did Jesus Is Magic. It's interesting that at the end of her Paris bit, Silverman does look somewhat uncomfortable, and says, "Why do I feel dirty?" Well, I guess that's a question many of us should be asking.

Hitchens wraps this up by drawing an interesting parallel to Hilton's situation and the Scooter Libby ordeal. Overall, worth reading and remembering.

And revel in the irony, would you, of an avowed atheist showing the way to "Christian" charity.

Dennis Miller Beats On Harry Reid Like A Red-Headed Stepchild

Via Hot Air comes this video of Dennis Miller taking a fillet knife to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada.

It is a joy to watch. When Miller is in top form, he's unbeatable. He reduces Reid to so much hamburger that he then feeds to a pack of wild dogs. Truer words were never spoken.

Oh, And By The Way...

I'm with Fred.

That little widget doohickey to the right will set you up over at Fred's new site, if you are of like mind.

Fred Thompson srikes me as smart, tough and articulate on the issues I care about. There's something genuine about the guy that appeals to me. These are trying and delicate times, and I think Fred's the one to steer us past the rocks and shoals.

Dems? Nary a one that doesn't make my skin crawl. No. Really. These people creep me out. They start out saying something I understand, and then the next thing I know, they're doing the political equivalent of speaking in tongues and handling snakes. They start getting googly eyed and start doing the Panderer Cake Walk to please their core. Not that the Republicans don't do that, mind you.  It's just that when the Dems do it, it's just far more schizophrenic. Example. I expect Republicans to pander to the religious right; that's a given. But watching Democrats triangulate on religion is just sad.

Anyway, this will probably be the beginning of me blogging politics again. Sorry to those I love who may find this distressing, but I gotta have my say, whether anyone's reading it ore not. And from the look of things, not many people are reading Chef Mojo. [well, Chef, if you bothered to post every once in a blue moon, things might be different, y'know? Yeah, yeah. I know...]

Maybe I should start Google chumming...

Wealth & Power

I really wanted to stay away from this whole Paris Hilton thing. I really did.

I was thinking, "Ok, she's going to jail. Great. She deserves it. She does her time and gets on with her life. No problem."

Well, check this out:

Paris Hilton released after 5 days in prison

By staff and agencies
Last Updated: 3:44pm BST 07/06/2007

Hotel heiress Paris Hilton has been released from prison for medical reasons after serving just five days of her 45-day sentence.

Steve Whitmore of the Los Angeles County Sheriff's office said the 26-year-old had been "reassigned" though he refused to give any more details.

Hilton will have to wear an electronic monitoring device on her ankle and will be confined to her home for the 40 remaining days of her sentence.

You or me? We'd still be in there, no matter what "medical reasons" we might have. Instead, she gets to serve out her time in her home.

Can't do the time, don't do the crime?

Yeah. Right.

What a waste of oxygen.