In cooking, there are two roads you can take. If you have fresh, local, good products, you should mess with them as little as possible. Let the flavors of the food shine on their own.
If you don’t have fresh, local, seasonal fish, produce or meat, you have to fuss with what you’ve got, use sauces, many ingredients, herbs, cooking techniques, etc to make food taste anything half decent.
Remember how I said Spanish food tends to be atrocious? That’s because they can’t stop fussing around with wonderful products they’ve got.
Example. In Tudela, they have the world famous Ugly Tomato, which is an heirloom tomato that tastes out of this world. We visited this local hole-in-the-wall eatery that serves ugly tomato salad. The tomato is so good that all you need is a pinch of salt and a drizzle of balsamic, and you’ve got a meal. But instead of letting the tomato be, the cook dumped a can of tuna on top of the tomato. Cheap canned tuna! On a fresh heirloom tomato! Why, gods of cooking, why?
Even in San Sebastián, a place where cooking is historically revered, you can find correctly cooked, unmessed with seafood in one very overbooked, very expensive place. Everybody has seafood. But everybody else messes with it. Cans of tuna or old, very salty anchovies dumped on top of everything are ubiquitous. If you’ve got extremely fresh fish like they do, all you need is put it on the grill for 3 minutes on each side and you are done. If you have old, defrosted fish that’s lost all flavor, then of course you need to do sauces and try to build flavor. Canned tuna is still a horrible idea, though.
A great long article from a recent Yale graduate (and a daughter of Russian-speaking immigrants, which explains why she’s so smart):
Even members of the clique are never really safe. Anyone who contradicts the latest consensus version of the constantly mutating ideology, even if they have worked to its benefit or are otherwise obviously on side, gets purged. If you don’t keep up, you get purged. It doesn’t matter that the ideology is abusive to its own constituents and allies, or that it doesn’t really even serve its formal beneficiaries. All that matters is this: for everyone who gets purged for a slight infraction, there are dozens who learn from this example never to stand up to the ideology, dozens who learn that they can attack with impunity if they use the ideology to do it, and dozens who are vaguely convinced by its rhetoric to be supportive of the next purge. So, on it goes.
Please spare me the inanities about how this is a tiny group nobody cares about. People like these turned Bernie Sanders from a life-long champion of workers into a clumsy and confused champion of wokesters. They bullied and bribed the entire Democratic presidential nominee field into parroting their rich-kid mantras at the expense of – cf previous post. Keep not caring even as you imitate their incomprehensible speech patterns and behaviors because, as always, it pays to please your masters. Until it strikes their fancy to feel displeased.
Half (49%) of likely voters surveyed at least somewhat agreed they “tell people they do not approve of Donald Trump, but they personally agree with him on certain issues.” Conversely, slightly more than half disagreed they have to hide their support of President Trump. Zogby Analytics has been tracking this issue for some time and the amount of likely voters who believe they have to “silently” support Trump has increased to 49% from 40% in the last year.
Even back before the last election, I kept saying that we can’t trust polls if they don’t take into account the silent voters. I turned out to be right although I completely underestimated their number.
The president has made in-roads with independents, suburban voters, urban men, and, urban parents, while increasing the level of support among his base — men, consumer blocs, older voters, and union voters.
It’s very obvious what happened since May to lead to this result.