I'm sorry but I simply can't abide this rampant purposeless decoration in architecture. Those candy canes on the roof patently serve no structural purpose—isn't this all horribly decadent? It's all the worse as they seem to echo the candy canes serving as columns below, giving the impression that they, too, have some legitimate purpose to play—perhaps propping up those pretzels?
There are no trees or bushes, which I don't understand at all.
Someone has, however, positioned a .. giraffe? dog? to one side in the yard there.
There is, in fact, a tree just out of frame to the right. There are not more trees because irregular three-dimensional shapes are a bitch and a half to make look good. I would have thought that the natural question is not so much "Why no trees?" as "What the hell is with all the giant holly leaves?" To which the answer is that the board was too big, and leaving all that space as a blank expanse of snow looked sad, but doing anything sane with it would have been hard.
(The dog-giraffe is a combination of a snowman, similar to the clearly identifiable snowman, seen almost edge-on, and a large cookie-decorated-as-a-candy-cane stuck to the ground beyond it. Why? See above.)
I for one like the button candy motif along the roof.
Why wouldn't there be?
Why would you be confused by the absence of something you have no reason to expect to be there?
That's all the kids. I can take blame for the basic structure of the house, railings, shutters with pine boughs, etc. But once the house is up, I turn them loose to stick things on it. (The strangeness of the surrounding grounds is mostly my problem -- they'd wandered off by then.)
9: Why does a Jew answer a question with a question?
I, for one, appreciate the lack of trees.
11: I didn't intend to answer her question but rather to continue the line of questioning begun in five.
Very nice. When do you let people eat it?
9: But I do expect them to be there! I do! I'm from New England.
It looks a little as though the house is being attacked by alligators.
I'm sorry but I simply can't abide this rampant purposeless decoration in architecture
"When I want to eat a piece of gingerbread, I choose a piece that is plain, not a piece shaped like a heart, or a baby, or a cavalryman, covered over and over with decoration."
Ooh, it does, doesn't it. I could stick some eyes on them.
It looks a little as though the house is being attacked by alligators.
I thought turtles. Essear, call off the turtles!
Adolf Loos doesn't know what he's missing. The frosting is the best part. But he probably thinks sugar is also a crime.
18, 23: I had no idea that gingerbread was actually an example in this, uh, space.
And what is the second hit, on google, at least for me (fuck you google for personalizing this shit), for the search string "a piece that is plain"? It is this recipe for Adolf Loos Gingerbread.
Eyeballs. And you could carefully nibblecut off the lower extremity of one snowman and give it a distressed expression. Well, maybe not for this holiday.
Very nice use of yogurt pretzels.
In my only related news, if you make beignet dough with buttermilk (which, why not?) and have more than you want to deep-fry, they bake up into pretty much Parker House dinner rolls. Presumably, therefore, if you have old-fashioned dinner roll dough, you could fry some up on a whim.
I'm skeptical that deep-frying is a bijection.
Clew seems to be presupposing that it's not, since, if I understand her comment correctly, she's suggesting that both beignet and dinner roll doughs deep fry into beignets.
I read her as saying that since both beignets and dinner rolls deep fry into identical foodstuffs, one could apply a different operation to them (baking) and also get identical results.
I guess she only presumes that there is a bijection between the deep-frying equivalence class including beignets and baking equivalence class.
I don't have a whim. Is it like a George Foreman grill?
Or something. I should remember to resist the impulse to talk math on the Internet when drunk.
I don't even understand 32. However, I've been spending more and more time talking to the drunk people next to me instead of the drunk people here. I'm still not sure that the non-British guy I talked to was sane, but that's not really that different.
Ah, I read her as inferring that beignet and dinner roll doughs deep fry into equivalent foodstuffs on the evidence that beignet and dinner roll doughs bake into equivalent foodstuffs.
Yes, another error on my part. The relevant question then is does there exist a pair of foodstuffs that bake into equivalent meals yet deep-fry differently. If so, clew's theorem is false. Intuitively, it seems stronger than the other direction.
I should remember to resist the impulse to talk math on the Internet when drunk.
That's crazy talk.
We should also recall that we aren't dealing with one foodstuff (e.g., a potato) baking into a meal (e.g., a baked potato), or deep-frying into a different meal, but of proto-foodstuffs (belonging to the class of "doughs" or "batters") being baked, or deep-fried, into different foodstuffs.
Now suppose we have some arbitrarily chosen proto-foodstuffs x and y, x ≠ y, such that Baked(x) = Baked(y). I ask you: must it not be the case that Deep-Fried(x) ≠ Deep-Fried(y)? I think there's a strong presumption in that direction—or at least that there must be some culinary operator C such that C(x) ≠ C(y). For by hypothesis x ≠ y; but if every culinary observation we can make of x and y agree, why should we believe that they are culinarily distinct?
37: Well, obviously, if C is the do-nothing operator then C(x) ≠ C(y). Do-nothing is a well-defined culinary operator, no?
No, because doing nothing doesn't take you from a proto-foodstuff to a foodstuff.
(You might object: but don't people eat, e.g., raw cookie dough? They do, but that's on them: formally speaking their action is misbegotten, a clear violation of the laws of logic and the kitchen.)
Hmm. Well, clearly not all proto-foodstuffs are foodstuffs, even if raw cookie dough may be, so you're right that the do-nothing operator is not a map from proto-foodstuffs to foodstuffs.
I'm a little bit skeptical that there's an honest equivalence class here; that is, you could imagine a chain of foodstuffs that are close enough together to be equivalent, in the clew sense of "pretty much", and yet by the time you chain together a long enough sequence of "pretty much" equivalences you get two foodstuffs that are obviously distinguishable to even the crudest palate. In other words, approximate equality is not an equivalence relation, and I think it's closer to what clew is describing.
Well, yeah, but if you're going to be reasonable about it, where's the fun?
I guess there still is the question whether dinner roll dough would deep fry into something "pretty much" like a beignet. I'm skeptical, but ignorant!
The question may be even emptier than you have left it: we can't assume that x ≠ y, because beignet dough, made with buttermilk or not, could be dinner roll dough.
This does not rule out the existence of other proto-foodstuffs x,y: x ≠ y, F(x) ≠ F(y), B(x) = B(y).
Leaving the sere uplands of Mathematics for the clanging, but productive, methods of mere Science, I hypothesize that such an x,y might differ only in degree of wetness: masses of water, liquid or frozen, introduce greater disturbances into frying than into baking.
I would have thought that the natural question is not so much "Why no trees?" as "What the hell is with all the giant holly leaves?"
Oh, so that isn't essear's private turtle army, ever so slowly advancing on the house?
Dammit, so pwned. The one time I don't read the short thread before replying.
How soon after one has recovered from what seems to have been a bout of food-poisoning can one safely prepare food to be served to guests?
Depends how good you are at washing your hands. In principle, right away. In practice, you're probably feeling a bit jaded and you should give yourself a break.
We should also recall that we aren't dealing with one foodstuff (e.g., a potato) baking into a meal (e.g., a baked potato), or deep-frying into a different meal, but of proto-foodstuffs (belonging to the class of "doughs" or "batters") being baked, or deep-fried, into different foodstuffs.
Have you ever tried to eat an uncooked potato?
This is why we established the comparison ban, or the natural kind ban, or whatever it was.
What LB left unsaid, but I will humorlessly explain, is that this is a model of her actual house. How she fit the tiny oven in there, I'll never understand.
43: They're on the porch roof! Were they there before? Are we watching an enactment of M.R. James' hitherto unknown story The jpeg? Having locked the door of my study, I will play a round of golf spend half the day at Ikea, and then see if the turtles have made further progress.
42:
This isn't really a Math problem. More theoretical Physics.
We have a space of doughs: doughspace. It has a structure. We can metrize using the ingredient axes, identifying mixtures with the same proportions of ingredients, the lines through the origin, essentially therefore projecting.
Regions in doughspace map under a couple of operations to finite point sets. Under Baking, they map to plain rolls, Parker house rolls etc. Under Deepfrying, they map to beignets, plain donuts etc.
Now come the experimentalists. Clew et al report that several points in doughspace that map to beignets under Deepfrying also map to Parker house rolls under Baking. One wants to construct a theory which respects that experimental result and makes useful predictions that other experimentalists can test.
Recognize that doughspace is what's interesting, not the maps from it. It has structure. It may even have geometry. It's the thing we can theorize about.
The turtles in the army are named Cimabue, Duccio di Buoninsegna, Giotto, Fra Angelico, Filippo Lippi, Domenico Ghirlandaio, Masaccio, Andrea del Verrocchio, Sandro Botticelli, Il Perugino, and Piero di Cosimo. Piero is a party dude.
50: that description still makes it sound like a math problem, to me.
(Yeah, yeah, "experimentalists", whatever.)
It certainly doesn't sound like a physics problem. A math problem about chemistry?
If only we had a theoretical physicist to weigh in on the matter.
Maybe if the rest of us attack as a mass we can overcome the theoretical physicist though shear momentum.
||
I know it's a bit late in the season, but I just uploaded three Christmas mixes.
(Apparently one of them still needs 11 minutes to upload. But screw it, I'm hitting post.)
|>
Huzzah! They are all snug in their Dropbox.
You really prefer "Yo kay-SKI" to "Yo KAY-ski"?
I do, although, as noted, "KAY-ski" is the standard pronunciation.
Thank you Yokayski! Thank you! Just what I wanted.
Yes, I'm asking specifically about the "yo"-prefixed form.
They're basically cheating in how they are doing the White House in this video, right?
strictly speaking, beignet dough is meant to be pate a choux, while parker house rolls are a sweet-ish yeast dough. I think the moral of the story is that beignets just don't taste all that much different than doughnuts when all are made properly (or all are made at home, which may amount to same).
The vocabulary lists in my French textbook listed "beignet" as the French word for "doughnut".
62: "Yo kay SKI" in practice comes out as three equally stressed syllables. Where as, "Yo, KAY-ski!" ...
Is there something you object to about "yo kay-SKI?" I'm not even sure what I'm explaining. It has its origin in a rap lyric.
Well, you have it written as three unequally stressed syllables, and I don't like the rhythm.
The two of you sound equally stressed.
beignet dough is meant to be pate a choux
That would be even puffier (and still bake into a another tasty item, x = y).
||
Just about every item in this Boston Globe post-mortem on the Romney campaign is redolent of cluelessness, but this was my favorite:
As Romney's campaign plane landed at Logan International Airport at around 6 p.m. on Election Day, he turned on his iPad and opened the Drudge Report. "Uh oh," someone said upon seeing reports of early exit polls. But Romney still had hope.Drudge.
"He wanted to be president less than anyone I've met in my life. He had no desire to . . . run," said Tagg
"For the last eight years."
Keep in mind Tagg has only ever met six people.
70: Epistemic closure at it's finest. At least it wasn't a breitbart site.
Sally on her Wonder Woman Chuck Taylors: "So swag." And Newt is describing things as totes adorbs.
Congratulations, you have ironic twentysomethings.
At eleven and thirteen, it is totes adorbs.
On the other hand, I just found out that Sally ate the dark chocolate I knew was in the cupboard and was going to glaze the cake with -- she has been packed off to the store to atone for her sins.
Mine is really into Tom and Jerry right now. So into it, I don't think we can get a cat.
Forgive her
It was delicious
So sweet
And so cold
Mine is really into Tom and Jerry right now.
Not sure what it says about me that I read this as being about the alcoholic punch. Then again, I just went through the photos on my phone to delete a bunch, and there were tons of pictures of alcoholic drinks. Why did I take a photo of the ginger mai tai at my sushi place? Of a glass of wine at Lord Hobo?
81 - Why didn't I know about Troegs Mad Elf earlier in the season? Delish.
80: "Will, you are a dick. You're goddamn right I was saving those plums for breakfast."
From Laura Jayne Martin's "This is Just to Say That I'm Tired of Sharing an Apartment with William Carlos Williams."
My first comment from the Nook I got as a Christmas present. Pretty cool.
I know I'm way behind the curve technology wise. It will be nice not to have to schlep my laptop around when I travel just to be able to check email and surf the web (because I have a super primitive phone).
Yeah, the conceit is better than the execution (although it has its moments).
"This is Just to Say That I'm Tired of Sharing an Apartment with William Carlos Williams."
See also, "Leonard Cohen's Never Gonna Bring My Groceries In"
Dinner done (served midafternoon), guests (including special guest Jackmormon) gone, kitchen cleaned, goose disassembled into meat, carcass, and rendered fat, bags packed, and ready to get on a plane at 10 am tomorrow.
88: I'm pissed at Mark Bittman. I did our goose per his recipe and overshot significantly. That rat bastard.
Overshot meaning cooked too long, or bought a goose too big for the number of guests?
I've found that Bittman is far from reliable.
93: no kidding. His recipes are tempting because they're so simple, but half the time they don't work.
92: So he's got that goin' for him, which is nice.
93,94: Yeah the time was just way wrong.
Are you sure your oven thermostat is accurate?
Jammies' family struck up a giant card game while I was in the shower, which means that I can sociably sit in the same room, staring at my computer, and I'm being totally polite and appropriate. Yay for me!
93: no kidding. His recipes are tempting because they're so simple, but half the time they don't work.
Fact.
I take it Smitten Kitchen doesn't have a goose recipe.
93+94: Agreed. I also find they're often oversimplified, so the actual dish doesn't deliver the deliciousness his description promises. These days I mostly end up using How to Cook Everything as a quick reference for how much liquid to cook particular grains in. At some point I'll have written the grain:water ratios on the tops of all the mason jars storing the grains, and then I can ditch that book.
I'll have written the grain:water ratios on the tops of all the mason jars storing the grains
Oh, that would be smart.
Yeah, now that I've written that out in a comment, I'm not sure why I haven't gone through and done it for all of them already.
||
Browsing jewelry on Etsy:
I fell in love with you the way you fall asleep: slowly, then all at once.
Asphinctorsayswhat?
|>
DR. DOLEN: Shame about Ed.FLETCH: It was. Really a shame. To go so suddenly.
DR. DOLEN: Oh, he was dying for years.
FLETCH: Sure, but the end was so sudden.
DR. DOLEN: He was in intensive care for eight weeks.
FLETCH: Yes, but the very end, when he actually died, that was extremely sudden.
I do love Fletch although I don't want to rewatch and risk ruining my fond opinion.
Merry Christmas, everyone. I worked yesterday and will work tomorrow, so today had the feeling of a random day off rather than a major holiday, but it snowed most of the day, so it was quite pleasant anyway.
The roast duck recipe in Joy of Cooking is also all wrong.
(The legs ended up fine, but the breasts were overcooked and livery.)
bittman: often totes wrong. so typical that he would give the wrong time and overcook the goose. I bet he never times his own roasting, and just pulls it out when he thinks it looks good. Then an intern made up a number for the recipe.
in his defense, goose just ain't all that good, except for the bloated livers. do you see it on menus in fancy restaurants? is it a mainstay of cooking in any world-famous cuisine? no. when my mom finally kicked my step-dad to the curb, we kicked the christmas eve goose too, and traditionally have standing rib roast. so much improvement. [homer simpson drooling noise] it's crazy expensive, especially when it's well frenched, but once a year, what the hey...
is it a mainstay of cooking in any world-famous cuisine?
What, you have something against cassoulet?
is it a mainstay of cooking in any world-famous cuisine?
Anti-semite.
Man. I love goose, when I have reason to splurge. My gravy comes out black as molasses and soooooo goooooood and then there's all the goosefat! Best pastry fat ever! And I like the goose itself. And they're not nearly as likable as ducks, out in the world.
Maybe someday swan. I have a grudge to pay off.
I had an early Danish Christmas dinner a couple weeks ago (duck, duck gravy, steamed potatoes and candied potatoes) and have been looking for a good roast duck recipe so I can have that dinner again and always.
I agree about Bittman. Not only are his cooking times unreliable, but his ingredients lists are sometimes way off. The example that comes immediately to mind is the cornbread recipe in HTCE, which includes barely any fat or sweetener, and comes out tasting like toasted paste.
How do these people get to be famous food writers if their recipes are so terrible?
115: We had aebleskiver AND aeblekage this year! I was responsible for preparing both, and they turned out pretty damn good.
101: No, but if you're at the Smitten Kitten and somebody bumps you from behind, it's perfectly appropriate to exclaim: "It's a little early for my Christmas goose!"
re: 116
I don't know. I bet, in the UK at least, a lot of people buy the famous chef/foodie books, but when it comes to basic timings and recipes, rely on the (unfashionable) likes of Delia Smith.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delia_Smith
She started reading English cookery books in the Reading Room at the British Museum, trying out the recipes on a Harley Street family with whom she was living at the time.
No, but if you're at the Smitten Kitten and somebody bumps you from behind, it's perfectly appropriate to exclaim: "It's a little early for my Christmas goose!"
Not tonight, though, presumably.
I am actually impressed by how many people in this thread apparently actually eat goose on Christmas.
We made a goose (my first time ever) for Christmas. I found it mildly harrowing, especially as we made a newbie mistake and failed to check first if a) it fit in our roasting pan and b) it fit in the oven. (It did, diagonally on a sheet pan, but that was not ideal for collecting fat.) But a goose was had and the meal was delicious! Especially the goose-fat roasted potatoes.
Our goose came out pretty darn good, despite the generally half-assed and lackadaisical approach to cooking and/or not burning and/or actually buying ingredients that my mom has lately adopted.
I don't love goose like Tweety does. I prefer it when there are enough people at Christmas dinner that we have to make a supplementary duck.
I don't love goose like Tweety does.
That's sort of definitional.
I don't think I've ever eaten goose.
93: So glad someone else sees this. It's almost good for basic ratios, if you already know how to cook and can change the recipe on the fly so the food tastes good.
116: Bittman's Minimalist column and videos in the New York Times used to be pretty good. Much better than his books.
I got fairly good results with this roast goose recipe, but it really is a lot of trouble relative to the quality of the outcome. I'd probably rather roast a chicken or capon or something, and leave goose and duck to the professionals.
Although I do still have a Muskovy duck and a Guinea Fowl in my freezer.
Also, for some reason one of the breasts cooked much faster than the other, and my meat thermometer sucks, which jointly contributed quite a lot to my anxiety about the meal.
I did a goose a few years back, and it made no lasting impression on me, which means that it wasn't even close to being worth the effort. Of course, I think people who complain about turkey are nuts, and simply don't know how to cook it, so YMMV. Presumably well-cooked goose is much better than poorly-cooked turkey.
If I ever get more duck, I'm going to do the sensible thing and cook the breasts and legs separately.
I make a lot of Bittman's recipes from HTCE and generally feel like they only work well if you have absolutely perfect flavorful ingredients to start with. Otherwise a lot of them end up badly under-seasoned and bland. But as a general "When combining X and Y, some Z works well" reference, it's good enough. I do sometimes wonder if the second edition of the cookbook is better, but it's sort of hard to justify on that basis alone.
134: What made me happy with duck was getting 2, using the legs for confit*, and roasting the breasts as a separate meal. Give the different sections of bird the opportunity to be their best.
* possibly 2 legs for confit, 2 roasted. Can't recall.
124: oh boy cooking a whole duck right is a hassleful endeavor.
Which parts do you cook the thighs with? The wings probably don't have much to bother with.
Legs: drumstick + thigh.
IIRC I cut the wings off and roasted them with the breasts.
You could save the wings, along with the carcass, for stock.
I use the mastering... Julia Child instructions for goose, and she has never failed me.