Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Weekend Economists Ask: Is It Haute Enough for You? August 2-4, 2013
Xchrom asked that this weekend be dedicated to food. One can only presume that X is in the throes of 1) a rigorous diet of limited range, or 2) feeding the ravening hoards that summer entertaining brings to the table.
Since there's no limits on this topic, give us your best receipts: whatever you would be cooking and eating, if you weren't reading this thread....
Haute cuisine (French: literally "high cooking", pronounced: ot kɥi.zin) or Grande cuisine refers to the cuisine of "high level" establishments, gourmet restaurants and luxury hotels in France. Haute cuisine is characterized by meticulous preparation and careful presentation of food, at a high price level, accompanied by rare wines.
Haute cuisine was characterised by French cuisine in elaborate preparations and presentations served in small and numerous courses that were produced by large and hierarchical staffs at the grand restaurants and hotels of Europe....
HISTORY
The 17th century chef and writer La Varenne marked a change from cookery known in the Middle Ages, to somewhat lighter dishes, and more modest presentations. In the following century, Antonin Carême, born in 1784, also published works on cooking, and although many of his preparations today seem extravagant, he simplified and codified an earlier and even more complex cuisine.
Georges Auguste Escoffier is a central figure in the modernisation of haute cuisine as of about 1900, which became known as cuisine classique. These were simplifications and refinements of the early work of Carême, Jules Gouffé and Urbain François Dubois. It was practised in the grand restaurants and hotels of Europe and elsewhere for much of the 20th century. The major developments were to replace service à la française (serving all dishes at once) with service à la russe (serving meals in courses) and to develop a system of cookery, based on Escoffier's Le Guide Culinaire, which formalized the preparation of sauces and dishes. In its time, it was considered the pinnacle of haute cuisine, and was a style distinct from cuisine bourgeoise (cuisine for families with cooks), the working-class cuisine of bistros and homes, and cuisines of the French provinces.
The 1960s were marked by the appearance of nouvelle cuisine, as chefs rebelled from Escoffier's "orthodoxy" and complexity. Although the term nouvelle cuisine had been used in the past, the modern usage can be attributed to authors André Gayot, Henri Gault, and Christian Millau, who used nouvelle cuisine to describe the cooking of Paul Bocuse, Alain Chapel, Jean and Pierre Troisgros, Michel Guérard, Roger Vergé and Raymond Oliver, many of whom were once students of Fernand Point.
In general, nouvelle cuisine puts an emphasis on natural flavours, so the freshest possible ingredients are used, preparation is simplified, heavy sauces are less common, as are strong marinades for meat, and cooking times are often reduced. While menus were increasingly short, dishes used more inventive pairings and relied on inspiration from regional dishes. Within 20 years, however, chefs began returning to the earlier style of haute cuisine, although many of the new techniques remained...wiki
Haute cuisine was characterised by French cuisine in elaborate preparations and presentations served in small and numerous courses that were produced by large and hierarchical staffs at the grand restaurants and hotels of Europe....
HISTORY
The 17th century chef and writer La Varenne marked a change from cookery known in the Middle Ages, to somewhat lighter dishes, and more modest presentations. In the following century, Antonin Carême, born in 1784, also published works on cooking, and although many of his preparations today seem extravagant, he simplified and codified an earlier and even more complex cuisine.
Georges Auguste Escoffier is a central figure in the modernisation of haute cuisine as of about 1900, which became known as cuisine classique. These were simplifications and refinements of the early work of Carême, Jules Gouffé and Urbain François Dubois. It was practised in the grand restaurants and hotels of Europe and elsewhere for much of the 20th century. The major developments were to replace service à la française (serving all dishes at once) with service à la russe (serving meals in courses) and to develop a system of cookery, based on Escoffier's Le Guide Culinaire, which formalized the preparation of sauces and dishes. In its time, it was considered the pinnacle of haute cuisine, and was a style distinct from cuisine bourgeoise (cuisine for families with cooks), the working-class cuisine of bistros and homes, and cuisines of the French provinces.
The 1960s were marked by the appearance of nouvelle cuisine, as chefs rebelled from Escoffier's "orthodoxy" and complexity. Although the term nouvelle cuisine had been used in the past, the modern usage can be attributed to authors André Gayot, Henri Gault, and Christian Millau, who used nouvelle cuisine to describe the cooking of Paul Bocuse, Alain Chapel, Jean and Pierre Troisgros, Michel Guérard, Roger Vergé and Raymond Oliver, many of whom were once students of Fernand Point.
In general, nouvelle cuisine puts an emphasis on natural flavours, so the freshest possible ingredients are used, preparation is simplified, heavy sauces are less common, as are strong marinades for meat, and cooking times are often reduced. While menus were increasingly short, dishes used more inventive pairings and relied on inspiration from regional dishes. Within 20 years, however, chefs began returning to the earlier style of haute cuisine, although many of the new techniques remained...wiki
There are actually several kinds of French cookery: from the extremely simple to the extremely complicated, depending on whether it was destined for the peasants or the princes.
Why, just this afternoon I made quiche for a client:
Quiche is basically a humble cheese custard in a pie crust, with extra ingredients for flavor and variety.
To make the custard: blend 2 eggs with one cup of half and half, pour over a cup of shredded hard cheese (nothing wetter than mozzarella) in an unbaked 9 inch pie crust, and bake at 350F until a knife comes out clean. If the pie shell is larger, increase the quantities, and the baking may take a bit longer, too.
For flavor and variety, try any combination of these: (make sure ingredients are dry, too much water will mess up the custard)
chopped onion sauteed to golden brown
wilted spinach, chopped
cooked vegetables, bite-sized: carrots, broccoli, cauliflower, summer squashes, etc.
bacon bits (the real thing)
ham bits
seafood bits: cooked shrimp. lobster, flakes of white fish, crab, I I would think squid too chewy)
Be imaginative! But don't overload the pie--at least half of it should be custard, or it won't stick together.
As you can see, Quiche is extremely simple to make, although today in America it's considered Haute Cuisine. (Anything above pizza, burgers, subs and fries is haute cuisine today, especially in the Midwest.) The way to "elevate" a quiche is to go extravagant on the added ingredients or the type of cheese, and pick a really fine wine.
64 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
The Turing test is a test of a machine's ability to exhibit intelligent behaviour equivalent to, or indistinguishable from, that of a human. In the original illustrative example, a human judge engages in natural language conversations with a human and a machine designed to generate performance indistinguishable from that of a human being. All participants are separated from one another. If the judge cannot reliably tell the machine from the human, the machine is said to have passed the test. The test does not check the ability to give the correct answer to questions; it checks how closely the answer resembles typical human answers. The conversation is limited to a text-only channel such as a computer keyboard and screen so that the result is not dependent on the machine's ability to render words into audio.
The test was introduced by Alan Turing in his 1950 paper "Computing Machinery and Intelligence," which opens with the words: "I propose to consider the question, 'Can machines think?'" Because "thinking" is difficult to define, Turing chooses to "replace the question by another, which is closely related to it and is expressed in relatively unambiguous words." Turing's new question is: "Are there imaginable digital computers which would do well in the imitation game?" This question, Turing believed, is one that can actually be answered. In the remainder of the paper, he argued against all the major objections to the proposition that "machines can think"...wikipedia
The test was introduced by Alan Turing in his 1950 paper "Computing Machinery and Intelligence," which opens with the words: "I propose to consider the question, 'Can machines think?'" Because "thinking" is difficult to define, Turing chooses to "replace the question by another, which is closely related to it and is expressed in relatively unambiguous words." Turing's new question is: "Are there imaginable digital computers which would do well in the imitation game?" This question, Turing believed, is one that can actually be answered. In the remainder of the paper, he argued against all the major objections to the proposition that "machines can think"...wikipedia
http://www.alternet.org/economy/illinois-pension-attack-collusion?akid=10746.227380.95ob-W&rd=1&src=newsletter876072&t=6
These days, many Americans walk around feeling like no matter how hard they work, how much they manage to save or how carefully they plan for the future, the game is rigged against them. They suspect that behind closed doors, CEOs and Wall Street honchos are eagerly scheming to rip them off. Their worst fears of corruption and collusion just came true in Illinois, where corporate titans were caught red-handed in the act of Rigging the Game.
Let’s step inside a recent gathering of the corporate-backed Union League Club of Chicago, where former Illinois Attorney General Ty Fahner, who now leads a band of plutocrats known as the “Civic Committee of the Commercial Club of Chicago,” recently launched into an hour-long diatribe on the evils of state pensions. Fahner, a top GOP fundraiser, can’t abide the notion that teachers, firefighters, nurses and other public workers in the state of Illinois can still expect a decent retirement. Not a luxurious retirement, mind you — the average pension is $32,000 a year, and most state employees will not receive Social Security. But even a modest retirement for hard-working people is too much for today’s fatcats. Fahner is part of a virulent strain of public raiders and economic crackpots who have become dominant in the Republican Party (and increasingly among the Democrats, too) who are hell-bent on destroying unions and attacking public employees. Ultimately they wish to privatize everything and reduce their tax responsibilities down to nothing. That’s why Fahner has declared war on pensions and is promoting a pension crisis in order to justify it. He has called for cost of living cuts, raising the retirement age, capping pension earnings and shifting the cost of the pension obligation of teachers to local school districts, many of which are too poor ever to pay He styles himself as a savior who wants only to protect the public from debt, when in reality he is a brutal plutocrat who will stop at nothing to line his pockets at public expense and reduce his and his friends' taxes.
Illinois has real problems. However, Fahner desperately hopes the public will not catch on to the fact that states are having difficulty paying out pensions because of the lack of revenue caused by a Wall Street-driven financial crisis and the deep recession it set off, regressive taxes, and the myriad bond scams financiers have already inflicted on states, cities, towns, and municipalities which have triggered funding crises for pensions and other programs. (See " How Wall Street Fraudsters Plunder Public Finances, And 5 Ways to Fight Back."
Fahner has tried a number of dirty tricks to attack pensions in his career. But his most recent admission is absolutely breathtaking in its brazenness: He boasted of working to scam the Illinois bond rating....During Fahner’s talk to the Union League Club, an unidentified person in the audience suggested that pressuring credit agencies to rig the state bond ratings in order to attack pensions might be a jolly good idea. Fahner gleefully replied that he had already thought about that — and his group has tried it.
These days, many Americans walk around feeling like no matter how hard they work, how much they manage to save or how carefully they plan for the future, the game is rigged against them. They suspect that behind closed doors, CEOs and Wall Street honchos are eagerly scheming to rip them off. Their worst fears of corruption and collusion just came true in Illinois, where corporate titans were caught red-handed in the act of Rigging the Game.
Let’s step inside a recent gathering of the corporate-backed Union League Club of Chicago, where former Illinois Attorney General Ty Fahner, who now leads a band of plutocrats known as the “Civic Committee of the Commercial Club of Chicago,” recently launched into an hour-long diatribe on the evils of state pensions. Fahner, a top GOP fundraiser, can’t abide the notion that teachers, firefighters, nurses and other public workers in the state of Illinois can still expect a decent retirement. Not a luxurious retirement, mind you — the average pension is $32,000 a year, and most state employees will not receive Social Security. But even a modest retirement for hard-working people is too much for today’s fatcats. Fahner is part of a virulent strain of public raiders and economic crackpots who have become dominant in the Republican Party (and increasingly among the Democrats, too) who are hell-bent on destroying unions and attacking public employees. Ultimately they wish to privatize everything and reduce their tax responsibilities down to nothing. That’s why Fahner has declared war on pensions and is promoting a pension crisis in order to justify it. He has called for cost of living cuts, raising the retirement age, capping pension earnings and shifting the cost of the pension obligation of teachers to local school districts, many of which are too poor ever to pay He styles himself as a savior who wants only to protect the public from debt, when in reality he is a brutal plutocrat who will stop at nothing to line his pockets at public expense and reduce his and his friends' taxes.
Illinois has real problems. However, Fahner desperately hopes the public will not catch on to the fact that states are having difficulty paying out pensions because of the lack of revenue caused by a Wall Street-driven financial crisis and the deep recession it set off, regressive taxes, and the myriad bond scams financiers have already inflicted on states, cities, towns, and municipalities which have triggered funding crises for pensions and other programs. (See " How Wall Street Fraudsters Plunder Public Finances, And 5 Ways to Fight Back."
Fahner has tried a number of dirty tricks to attack pensions in his career. But his most recent admission is absolutely breathtaking in its brazenness: He boasted of working to scam the Illinois bond rating....During Fahner’s talk to the Union League Club, an unidentified person in the audience suggested that pressuring credit agencies to rig the state bond ratings in order to attack pensions might be a jolly good idea. Fahner gleefully replied that he had already thought about that — and his group has tried it.
Audience member: “Maybe sometimes you gotta be irresponsible to be responsible. If a political solution really doesn’t produce a favorable outcome, maybe you really need a market solution. And a market solution, I don’t mean bankruptcy, I mean actually talking down the state rating even further so the state’s bonds essentially become below investment grade. And it drives up the borrowing cost to the state and all of us to a significant level enough that you really feel the public pressure…”
http://www.businessinsider.com/george-clooney-slams-hedge-fund-honcho-daniel-loeb-2013-8
George Clooney and Smokehouse Pictures partner Grant Heslov made a killing with "Argo," and are following up with "The Monuments Men" — a risky film Clooney says Loeb wouldn't touch with a 10-foot pole.
***SNIP
The discussion turned toward recent critical comments made by Third Point LLC hedge fund head Daniel Loeb and the pressure he is placing on Sony Pictures chiefs Michael Lynton and Amy Pascal, which is centered around the under-performing back-to-back summer films "After Earth" and "White House Down." Loeb, whose fund controls 7% of Sony stock, is pressing for Sony to spin off its entertainment assets and likened those misfires to historic flops "Waterworld" and "Ishtar." Though Clooney and Heslov base their Smokehouse Pictures banner at Sony, and Loeb’s influence is growing there, Clooney has never been shy about standing up to what he feels is wrong. So, buckle up.
Said Clooney:
“I’ve been reading a lot about Daniel Loeb, a hedge fund guy who describes himself as an activist but who knows nothing about our business, and he is looking to take scalps at Sony because two movies in a row underperformed? When does the clock stop and start for him at Sony? Why didn’t he include ‘Skyfall,’ the 007 movie that grossed a billion dollars, or ‘Zero Dark Thirty’ or ‘Django Unchained’?
“And what about the rest of a year that includes ‘Elysium,’ ‘Captain Phillips,’ ‘American Hustle’ and ‘The Monuments Men’? You can’t cherry pick a small time period and point to two films that didn’t do great. It makes me crazy. Fortunately, this business is run by people who understand that the movie business ebbs and flows and the good news is they are ignoring his calls to spin off the entertainment assets.
“How any hedge fund guy can call for responsibility is beyond me, because if you look at those guys, there is no conscience at work. It is a business that is only about creating wealth, where when they fail, they get bailed out and where nobody gets fired. A guy from a hedge fund entity is the single least qualified person to be making these kinds of judgments, and he is dangerous to our industry.”
Read more: http://www.deadline.com/2013/08/george-clooney-slams-sony-investor-daniel-loeb/#ixzz2atpYR1jT
George Clooney and Smokehouse Pictures partner Grant Heslov made a killing with "Argo," and are following up with "The Monuments Men" — a risky film Clooney says Loeb wouldn't touch with a 10-foot pole.
***SNIP
The discussion turned toward recent critical comments made by Third Point LLC hedge fund head Daniel Loeb and the pressure he is placing on Sony Pictures chiefs Michael Lynton and Amy Pascal, which is centered around the under-performing back-to-back summer films "After Earth" and "White House Down." Loeb, whose fund controls 7% of Sony stock, is pressing for Sony to spin off its entertainment assets and likened those misfires to historic flops "Waterworld" and "Ishtar." Though Clooney and Heslov base their Smokehouse Pictures banner at Sony, and Loeb’s influence is growing there, Clooney has never been shy about standing up to what he feels is wrong. So, buckle up.
Said Clooney:
“I’ve been reading a lot about Daniel Loeb, a hedge fund guy who describes himself as an activist but who knows nothing about our business, and he is looking to take scalps at Sony because two movies in a row underperformed? When does the clock stop and start for him at Sony? Why didn’t he include ‘Skyfall,’ the 007 movie that grossed a billion dollars, or ‘Zero Dark Thirty’ or ‘Django Unchained’?
“And what about the rest of a year that includes ‘Elysium,’ ‘Captain Phillips,’ ‘American Hustle’ and ‘The Monuments Men’? You can’t cherry pick a small time period and point to two films that didn’t do great. It makes me crazy. Fortunately, this business is run by people who understand that the movie business ebbs and flows and the good news is they are ignoring his calls to spin off the entertainment assets.
“How any hedge fund guy can call for responsibility is beyond me, because if you look at those guys, there is no conscience at work. It is a business that is only about creating wealth, where when they fail, they get bailed out and where nobody gets fired. A guy from a hedge fund entity is the single least qualified person to be making these kinds of judgments, and he is dangerous to our industry.”
Read more: http://www.deadline.com/2013/08/george-clooney-slams-sony-investor-daniel-loeb/#ixzz2atpYR1jT
http://www.businessinsider.com/warren-buffett-q2-derivatives-gains-2013-8
Berkshire Hathaway's Q2 earnings are out. The massive conglomerate run by Warren Buffett earned a whopping $3.91 billion or $2,384 per share, up from $3.72 billion or $2,262 per share a year ago.
One detail from Berkshire's filings we're always interested in is the value of Buffett's long-term derivative bets on the global stock markets. In case you forgot, Berkshire had sold put options on the S&P 500, FTSE 100, Euro Stoxx 50, and the Nikkei 225.
Berkshire collected premiums when it sold these options. Because they are put options, Berkshire is obligated to pay the option buyer should the indices fall below the exercise price. It's important to note that these are European style options, which means they can only be exercised at maturity. As a general rule, the value of these positions increase when stocks go up and vice versa.
This bet was controversial because in his 2002 letter to Berkshire Hathaway shareholders, Buffett dubbed derivative securities as "financial weapons of mass destruction."
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/warren-buffett-q2-derivatives-gains-2013-8#ixzz2atu0A6tS
Berkshire Hathaway's Q2 earnings are out. The massive conglomerate run by Warren Buffett earned a whopping $3.91 billion or $2,384 per share, up from $3.72 billion or $2,262 per share a year ago.
One detail from Berkshire's filings we're always interested in is the value of Buffett's long-term derivative bets on the global stock markets. In case you forgot, Berkshire had sold put options on the S&P 500, FTSE 100, Euro Stoxx 50, and the Nikkei 225.
Berkshire collected premiums when it sold these options. Because they are put options, Berkshire is obligated to pay the option buyer should the indices fall below the exercise price. It's important to note that these are European style options, which means they can only be exercised at maturity. As a general rule, the value of these positions increase when stocks go up and vice versa.
This bet was controversial because in his 2002 letter to Berkshire Hathaway shareholders, Buffett dubbed derivative securities as "financial weapons of mass destruction."
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/warren-buffett-q2-derivatives-gains-2013-8#ixzz2atu0A6tS
it was 115-120. But that is a dry heat of course. 
It was beautiful in Vancouver. I am now in sunny Houston where the temps are in the triple digits and so is the humidity. Again, this is the only place I know where you can have 100% humidity and no rain. I am staying indoors in the heat of the day but once the sun starts going down and the temps are in the low 90's, folks start venturing out. I have been going to near by malls to walk.
For the rich: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vichyssoise
Vichyssoise (/ˌvɪʃiˈswɑːz/ US dict: vish·ē·swäz′ is a thick soup made of puréed leeks, onions, potatoes, cream, and chicken stock. It is traditionally served cold but can be eaten hot.[1]
is a thick soup made of puréed leeks, onions, potatoes, cream, and chicken stock. It is traditionally served cold but can be eaten hot.[1]
It was MFK Fisher* who introduced me to the notion of Vichyssoise - I had never heard of it, though I ate plenty of potato soup growing up. I never made it because I don't like the "taste" it evokes in my mind's palate. I would say it qualifies as "Haute" though, as one of the versions of its origin is at the Ritz. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vichyssoise It is the leeks and cream (and surely home-made stock) that make it haute, of course - poor people use onions and water and maybe milk, if they have it.
My mother made a fine work-a-day version of hot "Vichyssoise," which we of course just called "potato soup." Cubed potatoes and chopped onions simmered in water till done, with a little bacon if we had it or if not, not. Once the potatoes were cooked she added canned milk and some salt and pepper and heated it all through. We usually ate this with home-made cornbread, on winter nights when my father was on third shift (he did not consider soup a meal). We loved it.
My own version is just a little more "refined." Same basic outline, but I saute the onions in butter first, use fresh whole milk combined with some heavy cream (or half-and-half if I don't happen to have cream). I remove about half the cook potatoes and mash them before returning to the pot, and add a goodly bit of butter with the milk. The bacon bits are added at the end, with fresh chopped parsley. Salt and pepper of course. This makes a fine thick soup that is wonderful in the winter.
My mother also made another potato-based soup we loved - it was not quite a "pottage" but that word is really more evocative of this dish than soup.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pottage
Pottage is a thick soup or stew made by boiling vegetables, grains, and, if available, meat or fish.
It was a staple food of all people living in Great Britain from neolithic times on into the Middle Ages.[citation needed] The word pottage comes from the same Old French root as potage, which is a similar type of dish of more recent origin.
Pottage commonly consisted of various ingredients easily available to serfs and peasants and could be kept over the fire for a period of days, during which time some of it was eaten and more ingredients added. The result was a dish that was constantly changing. Pottage consistently remained a staple of the poor's diet throughout most of the 9th-17th-century Europe. When people of higher economic rank, such as nobles, ate pottage, they would add more expensive ingredients such as meats. The pottage that these people ate was much like modern day soups.[citation needed]
Preparation
Pottage was typically boiled for several hours until the entire mixture took on a homogeneous texture and flavor; this was intended to break down complex starches and to ensure the food was safe for consumption. It was often served, when possible, with bread
.
It was a staple food of all people living in Great Britain from neolithic times on into the Middle Ages.[citation needed] The word pottage comes from the same Old French root as potage, which is a similar type of dish of more recent origin.
Pottage commonly consisted of various ingredients easily available to serfs and peasants and could be kept over the fire for a period of days, during which time some of it was eaten and more ingredients added. The result was a dish that was constantly changing. Pottage consistently remained a staple of the poor's diet throughout most of the 9th-17th-century Europe. When people of higher economic rank, such as nobles, ate pottage, they would add more expensive ingredients such as meats. The pottage that these people ate was much like modern day soups.[citation needed]
Preparation
Pottage was typically boiled for several hours until the entire mixture took on a homogeneous texture and flavor; this was intended to break down complex starches and to ensure the food was safe for consumption. It was often served, when possible, with bread
My mother's ham, potato, and green bean soup:
Take a large ham bone and all the scraps from the ham and simmer with water to cover for a good long time, then add more water, cubed potatoes, onion, and whole green beans. Simmer all this for a good long time. No need for salt, as the ham takes care of that. Add pepper as desired at table. Eat with corn bread.
We loved this too - served very hot, usually in winter, it combined hearty ingredients in a thin, ham-flavored broth that was warming and filling. I have tried to make it a few times, but I have never had occasion to bake one of the huge hams my mother made for the nine of us, I don't think our hams are as good as they used to be, as an adult I don't much actually care for ham, and - perhaps most pertinent - I don't have the fine, sharp hunger of a growing child coming in from the snow.
My very plain potato soup.
One very cold night I came home hungry and chilled - I was by myself, and craving something hot and comforting but too tired to think of cooking much. I sauteed some minced onion in butter then added a cubed Idaho potato and some water and a dash of salt and pepper. I let it simmer till the potato fell apart and the broth was milky, then ate it very hot with some french bread. It was wonderful - if, that is, you love potatoes as I do.
* I do not much like MFK Fisher - I find her pretentious and self-indulgent for the most part. However, some of her food writing is interesting nonetheless, and is by now rather of historical interest. One thing I did like was her restrained but obvious contempt for the changes to the American diet after WWII - women mewling if they could not get sliced bread, for instance - and her scorn for the dictates of dieticians. Also, "How to Cook a Wolf" - food for hard and hungry times - is interesting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M._F._K._Fisher
