I have had the pleasure of eating horse meat, It is by far
considered the biggest honor a host can do for a guest of high prestige in the
Arab peninsula, is to ...well ... kill one of his horses to feed his guests.
But by gosh darn, I missed out on the fat.

On Horse Fat, Fries, and Harold McGee
horsey



Last week I wrote a little post about one of our cooking adventures while in the South of France last year, where we cooked our first batch of fries in horse fat, which our friend Mikael sourced from one of the horse butchers in Nice. Jeffrey Steingarten who is one of my favorite food writers –I have a soft spot for grumpy old men, especially the pedantic ones- also wrote about horse fat fries in one of his columns in Vogue magazine a while back.

Quite a few of you left comments and emails, asking what about the horse fat that makes it such a great medium for fried potatoes. Alas I had no idea. I could only tell you what I tasted. Frankly, I was quite curious about it myself.

And so I thought who'd be better to ask than Harold McGee? So I did. I fired off and email to Harold, who promptly wrote back:

Can you describe how the fries were different, or especially good? Horse fat is actually sort of intermediate between solid animal fats and liquid vegetable oils. It's harder (more saturated) than the latter, but softer than tallow or lard, not too different from chicken or duck or goose fat. So I wonder whether it was maybe a difference in the flavor more than the texture? Because I don't see how the consistency of the fat itself would make a distinctive difference in the texture of the fries. Tell me what you remember about them, and I'll see how good of a rationalization I can come up with!

Hey, I usually get by with random guesses or just outright make things up, so a rationalization would do me just fine, especially one from Harold McGee.

So I replied with my best recollection of the experience:

The fries were really delicious. It's hard to describe why I suppose, since it may have to do with the type of potato we used as well. We used Ratte Mona Lisa potatoes, by the way. The oil itself stank to high heaven during the rendering, but produced a beautiful, dark golden oil that had a strong, complex, almost meaty flavor to it. I was worried that the fries would somehow tasted 'horsey', which I suspected I wouldn't like. They didn't, luckily. They only tasted like fried potatoes, but with a deeper flavor than just regular cooked potatoes. They crisp up beautifully though, didn't crisp through and through but had a nice but not super crunchy skin and a soft, perfectly cooked inside.

powered by performancing firefox

Is when all the hatred in your heart is gone

Pray

Fox news airs that Muslims must go through a special line and outrage ablaze like wildfire on the bloggsphear.

While for past 5 years the government of the United States has made it arbitrary for people in its country who are Muslim/Arab nationals to register with homeland security, get finger printed, get interviewed and possibly get detained indefinitely for as little things as name similarities.

Open your eyes people. This is an assault that inherently and fundamentally exists today in the US on a wider and more destructive scale than a line in an airport.

Fox News Airs Call for 'Muslim-Only' Line Reported by Judy - August 15, 2006 - 141 comments A Fox News guest proposed having a "Muslims only" line for airport travelers, an idea that "Dayside" co-host Mike Jerrick called attention to it so that viewers did not overlook the proposal. Conservative radio host Mike Gallagher suggested the idea during a segment Tuesday (August 15, 2006) with constitutional lawyer Michael Gross discussing racial profiling. "Dayside" co-host Juliet Huddy set up the debate by noting that all terrorists have been Muslim extremists, and Jerrick claimed that some people oppose racial profiling as "politically incorrect." "It’s not just a matter of political correctness, please," responded Gross. "It’s illegal, it’s unconstitutional, unethical, immoral, it shouldn’t be done. We do not in this country prejudge a person based upon their race, creed, color, country of national origin and it’s wrong to do so and it addition it’s not effective. It doesn’t work. It actually perpetuates the problem. That is, it separates us." Gallagher responded that Gross's statements were "absolutely absurd" and claimed that the Traffic Safety Administration is aggressively targeting uniformed members of the military. "Let's have a Muslim-only line," Gallagher said, as Gross started to talk. Jerrick asked Gallagher to repeat what he said. "It’s time to have a Muslims check-point line in America’s airports and have Muslims be scrutinized. You better believe it, it’s time," Gallagher said, garnering tepid audience applause. Gross attacked the proposal as "absolutely wrong" because "most Arabs are not Muslims, most Muslims are not Arabs. You don't even have your facts straight. How would you feel if we had a line for the Irish, which the English proposed during the IRA problems?" He pleaded not to turn the United States into a "tyrannical, imperial country." Still, a woman in the audience asked a question about being "politically correct" by not allowing racial profiling. Gallagher claimed that opposition to racial profiling amounted to not wanting to hurt people's feelings. "Most Americans want prejudice. Let’s be prejudiced against those who want to slaughter innocent American men, women and children. It’s time we start exercising some prejudice and stop these bloody terrorists," Gallagher said, this time drawing more robust applause. The segment had all the attributes of a typical "fair and balanced" debate. Although Gross was effective with his comments, Fox News did all it could to favor Gallagher. Jerrick's set-up downplayed the significance of the issue by labeling opposition to racial profiling as merely "politically incorrect" rather than unconstitutional, creating a larger burden for Gross. Then, when the two men first appeared on the screen, Gallagher's image was on the left and Gross's on the right. When Gallagher complained, Fox News flipped the images to accommodate him. Nor did Huddy or Jerrick attempt to press Gallagher as to the specifics of the proposal. How, for example, would the airport screeners determine whether someone is a member of the Muslim religion? Or would Gallagher make all Arabs, including Christian ones, go in the "Muslim-only line"? And how do we tell who is an Arab? Jerrick might have asked Gallagher for these kinds of specifics when he asked him to repeat the proposal, but he chose not to, making the idea seem more plausible and feasible than it is. And when it came time for the wrap-up, Jerrick went first to Gross, allowing Gallagher to go last so that his fear-mongering rhetoric could go unrebutted. With such a lax journalistic performance, Jerrick and Huddy deserve to go from the national Fox News Channel line-up to that morning show for a Chicago station that Roger Ailes has planned for them. The sooner the better.

Police Officer Frisks More Than He Expects
Arab News


MADINAH, 14 August 2006 — A rookie police officer at a checkpoint in Ghazala on the Madinah to Hail Road ended up thumbing more than he expected when routinely frisking a Filipino “man,” the Okaz daily reported yesterday. The police officer was making a routine check on two “males” in a car, when he unexpectedly realized that the “man” he was frisking did not feel like a man but rather had some lethal female assets. Hilariously, the rookie was left feeling rather flushed and so called for the help of an elderly colleague. After questioning the Filipino it soon transpired that the “man” was a housemaid who was running away from her employer in Riyadh and so had adopted a male dress. Both the maid and the Filipino driver of the car were taken into custody while police conduct further investigations

powered by performancing firefox

do you think of your mother’s childhood?



just a question

Take my hand.......

I am dutch-israeli, an IDF veteran of Lebanon 1982, and since that experience a committed peace activist. My thoughts on the current human tragedy:

Civilian deaths and displacement are UNACCEPTABLE regardless of one's point of view.

You can say whatever you want about who started what and when and why, but the fact remains that the human suffering in Lebanon is absolutely and totally unacceptable. If you believe it is acceptable, then please explain your view: why the great majority of the dead, injured and displaced, who have NOTHING to do with Hezbollah should deserve what they are receiving? Why? What crime have they committed? And if you say, well.. you know.. lots of them support Hezbollah.. then I say to you, since when is someone's opinion or feeling about something justification for death? I must have missed that lesson.

So again, whatever side of the debate you are on, Israel's actions and reactions to Hezbollah, is causing a humanitarian disaster. (Yes, I know there are lots of disasters around the world, but that doesnt mean this is not one so spare me that line). And you can believe what you want that the ultimate responsibility is Hezbollah's, (and there is some truth to that which will have to faced in honest introspection) but I guarantee you, all the dead in Lebanon are lying under Istraeli bombs and shells.

True military victory is not possible.

Anyone with any knowledge will know that short of a level of destruction and death, which everyone will have to face as meeting normative criteria of war crimes, there is no military solution. No modern conventional army has succeeded in defeating an entrenched 'guerilla' movement once it has reached a critical mass of military prowess and social support. So you have two choices: stop because killing isnt going to achieve the goal anyway or raise the level to that which will undeniably be one of war crimes. Or do like the babylonians and romans used to do... kill indiscriminately in huge numbers and forcibly disperse huge numbers in order to pacify a country. Anyone here really willing to do that? So, you can just as well stop now then.

And last, yes my Lebanese friends, at some point, you too will have to make a choice.

You do know, that a democratic country can not function with an independent militia that is actually stronger than the army of the central government. I understand what Hezbollah has meant for you. They were the ones who lead the way to Israel's withdrawal from (almost all of) Lebanon. They fulfill a vital function in many areas in education, healthcare and welfare. I appreciate that. And I appreciate the fact that your country is still a fragile democracy, an emerging democracy, with many rivalries that if not managed delicately can threaten your emerging democracy. So tell us, tell the world, how we can help, what we can do (after stopping this war) to aid your country move to the next level of stable democracy. But first, you do have to decide about an independent army that can, if it wants, probably bring down the central government.

I know one thing, to solve my pain I need your cooperation and you need my cooperation to solve your pain. We are then each other's key to solving the other's pain. And I will start by saying, no more will I try and prove that my pain and suffering is greater than yours. And make that my justification for inflicting more pain on you. Pain is pain. A dead baby is a dead baby regardless of color, religion, place or time. The mother hurts the same. So take my hand, and lets stop this nonsense. Together, in peace, jew, muslim, christian, druze, shia, sunni, whatever.... together we can recreate the garden of eden in the middle east.

peace and love

lennybruce

powered by performancing firefox

Heidi Klum's bra honour


Thursday, 10th August 2006, 11:47
LIFE STYLE EXTRA (UK) - Heidi Klum has had a bra named after her.

powered by performancing firefox

B) LEBANON!!!!!!!!!!!! NO NO NO!
Not the pretty Arabs, not the peace-loving, tolerant, openminded, cultured, eloquent, queer-friendly, etc etc, Arabs. Why, why why?? Seriously, KHALAAAAAAAAAS! I'm very angry. Very very very angry.
On a side note: is it wrong that I'm wondering what will happen to all the saudi investors/tourists? It is, isn't it? Fine, I take that back.

I'm never traveling again.

powered by performancing firefox