Let's Talk Food

I realize my last few blog entries have been quite serious in nature, so I thought it would be nice to switch gears for a little bit. While I am certainly passionate about politics and current events, there are many other things about which I am passionate. One of those passions is cooking. I started cooking at an early age, experimenting with simple recipes in my Better Homes and Gardens Step by Step Kids Cookbook. I spent two summers working in a kitchen in my late teens, where I learned a great deal, and furthered my passion for great food. These days, Macy and I find time to cook and enjoy great meals at home almost every night.

I have recently added a spectacular new dish to my repertoire - Osso Bucco. I love the bold and complex flavors of Mediterranean cooking. Literally translated, "osso bucco" means "hole bone." This name comes from the cut of meat involved in the recipe - a veal shank. Personally, I don't like to cook with veal. Some people love the taste, but I could personally care less. It also can be very expensive, and if you're like me, you're trying to save money, not spend it lavishly. Instead, I like to work with beef shanks.

Behold the beef shank, in all of its glory. The shank comes from the cow's upper leg. The bone in the center contains a large amount of marrow, which is what makes osso bucco special.

For the cook, a beef shank represents a challenge. It is not a naturally tender cut of meat, in fact, it is quite the opposite. It is a muscle the cow relies on almost every day, which means it is very firm and strong (tender cuts tend to come from parts that experience little use). It is also extremely lean. A fatty cut, like a ribeye, will naturally baste itself with the fat inside of it and remain moist, but a beef shank won't do that. It also contains a lot of connective tissue, which makes the meat sinewy. What is a cook to do?

The answer is, braise it! The word comes from the French word "braiser," and basically means cooking something slowly with very moist heat. Braising naturally forces moisture into the food, which allows the heat to break down the connective tissues in the meat, without drying it out. The result is that, when done properly, even the toughest cuts of meat will become extremely tender, and a pleasure to eat. Many years ago, when our ancestors relied on wild game for their meat, they probably relied heavily on this technique, as wild meats tend to be tougher.

In Osso Bucco, the beef shanks are braised for roughly three hours, until all of the marrow in the bones liquefies, and the beef falls off the bones. The marrow imparts a tremendous amount of flavor to this dish. People don't work with it that much any more, and I'm not sure why. It is said to contain a lot of monounsaturated fats, which are thought to decrease bad cholesterol levels, thus reducing the risk of heart disease. It does require time in order to harness the marrow's full potential, and many Americans simply don't have, or don't want to take, the time to cook with it. But I digress.

Everybody cooks osso bucco differently, and almost everybody can do it well. Below is the recipe I use. It makes dinner for three.

2 beef shanks
kosher salt and fresh ground black pepper
flour
extra virgin olive oil
3/4 cup chopped carrots
3/4 cup chopped onion
3/4 cup chopped celery
3 sprigs fresh thyme
14 oz can diced tomatoes
2 cups chicken stock
4 minced cloves garlic
1 cup of a dry white wine, such as a Chardonnay or pinot grigio
1/2 cup chopped parsley

1) Preheat your oven to 375. Get a good sized skillet, and coat the bottom with a light layer of extra virgin olive oil. Turn the heat on medium - you don't want to make it too hot, or the oil will burn.

2) Get a plate, and place the beef on it. Season it lightly with salt and pepper, then coat all sides with flour.

3) Put the beef in the hot pan, and brown it on all sides (you're not trying to cook it all the way, just the very outside!) Set it aside.

4) Add the chopped carrot, celery, onion, and thyme. Saute until onions are translucent, about eight minutes. Add the garlic and saute another 45 seconds, until you can smell it. Add the tomatoes (and all of their liquid), the stock, and the wind, and bring it to a boil. Throw the parsley in.

5) Get a good sized, deep oven safe dish, preferably one with a cover. Put the beef in the bottom. Pour your sauce over the top. You want the beef to be immersed in the liquid, while just peaking through on the top. Cover the dish with its lid, or a piece of foil.

6) Stick the whole thing in the oven, and cook for about 2 or 2 1/2 hours.

7) When there's about 45 minutes left for the meat, make a batch of risotto. It's made from arborio rice, chicken stock or wine, onions, and a little Parmesan. Just google "risotto" and you will find a good recipe.

8) Also, you can make a lemon gremolata. Remove the zest (skin) of a lemon with a grater. Get a few cloves of garlic and chop them very small. Then take about 2 tablespoons of fresh parsley leaves, and chop them very fine. Mix it all together and put it in the fridge.

When everything is done, it's time to plate it! This is where you can impress your loved one(s) and/or dinner guests. Get a plate, or a wide bowl. Spoon a good sized portion of risotto into the bottom. Then take some of the meat (it will have come off the bone by now), and place it on top. Spoon a big portion of sauce on the top. Garnish with a generous sprinkle of lemon gremolata. Serve immediately.

I guarantee that if you enjoy beef, you'll love this dish. The leftover sauce is delicious over rice by itself. So, the next time you're thinking about buying something frozen, or going out to eat on Friday or Saturday night, I would encourage you to try cooking something new - and get a friend or partner involved, because that only ups the fun!

Here's to good food you make yourself.

An Unwitting Conspiracy on the Conservative Right

Last week, Mitt Romney ended his quest for the Presidency of the United States. The former Massachusetts governor officially threw in the towel on Thursday, February 7, after an inauspicious showing on Super Tuesday. It was a disappointing end to a campaign that seemed primed for success. He seemed to have it all - the crisp suits, the carefully coifed hair, lots of money, and strong support in conservative media outlets. Yet, despite all of that, his campaign fizzled, and many pundits were left to wonder why.

As it stands now, Senator John McCain has amassed 827 delegates, and will likely win his party's nomination for the Presidential campaign. His nearest rival, former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, poses little threat, and God only knows (that's probably true, in this case) why he is still campaigning.

Throughout the race, Mr. Romney fought to present himself as the true conservative candidate, while trying to portray McCain as a moderate maverick. Many Right Wing pundits, such as Rush Limbaugh, Laura Ingraham, Sean Hannity, and Ann Coulter, bought into his candidacy. In Limbaugh's case, he used his popular talk show as a forum for praising Romney, stating that "...he (Romney) exemplified characteristics of somebody who (was) not afraid to lead." Coulter, meanwhile, tried to take a bullet for the fallen candidate, stating that "...if McCain weren’t a dunce, what he would do is take Mitt Romney as his vice president. That is the only way I think you could get me to vote for him. That's my final offer."

Additionally, both popular pundits used their respective platforms to throw bombs at Romney's GOP rivals. Limbaugh once opined that either a Huckabee or McCain candidacy would "destroy the Republican party." He chided McCain as "someone who supported amnesty for illegal aliens, who supported limiting free political speech, (and) who embraced the ACLU's brief for terrorist detainees getting US constitutional rights." Huckabee, he said, "might be a fine man, and is a great Christian - [he] is not a conservative." Coulter argued "John McCain is not only bad for Republicans - he is also bad for the country."

Based on Romney's poor showing on super Tuesday, one could argue that pundits do not assert as much influence over voters as they think. His withdrawal has left them alone in a political desert, drinking the last few drops of Romney Kool - Aide left in their canteens.

Or so it seems. One can't help but think they're enjoying this.

It's important to remember that pundits like Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter are not nonprofit enterprises. They do not merely exist to provide (what they consider) a service. They exist to make money, and will do anything to improve their profit margins. Limbaugh, for instance, includes product endorsements during his program. I may not remember much of his program's content, but I will always remember the ringing endorsement of "Clean Shower" I heard him deliver some ten years ago.

Without a doubt, their relentless attacks against McCain and Huckabee have drawn plenty of attention. A quick google news search confirms this - try searching for "Rush Limbaugh" and "John McCain" together - you would be amazed at how many hits come up. The same is true for Coulter. Bomb throwing creates more exposure.

Additionally, the "lone wolf" effect cannot be underestimated. Romney never developed into a clear front-runner, which made their contrarian positions stand out even more in the media landscape. Like salmon bravely battling currents upstream, Limbaugh and Coulter's supposed struggle for true conservatism caused the media to point its cameras and microphones right at them. Only instead of National Geographic, their words appeared in newspapers, on blogs, and on network news. In short, Romney's loss has been their personal gain. However, while interesting, this analysis barely scratches the surface. There is something far more significant at work here. Their relentless assault has been, and will continue to be, a boon for John McCain.

It goes beyond the 827 delegates under McCain's banner. Change is happening in the Republican ranks. True, the word "change" itself is used so often these days that it seems nearly devoid of meaning. However, the success of John McCain's candidacy represents a slight departure from the Carl Rove school of campaign strategy.

When Rove (with plenty of help) engineered two successful presidential campaigns for George W. Bush, the greatest emphasis was placed on the Republican base. In short, Bush and his fellow campaigners worked hard to win the full support of the conservative right. Opposition to gay marriage, tax cuts, and a hawkish foreign policy were all political cornerstones, particularly in 2004.

Instead of engaging the conservative base, John McCain's focus will likely be on courting independent voters. Both parties are seeing record turnouts for their primaries and caucuses, but it appears that in many cases, the Democrats are bringing out slightly more voters. Senator Barack Obama has proven a worthy adversary in the struggle for independents, and Hillary Clinton, while trying to regain her momentum, is no slouch either. Being labeled a "moderate" and / or a "maverick" only helps McCain in his quest for independent votes.

In many ways, John McCain is a truly conservative politician. He voted to defund Planned Parenthood last year. He opposes partial birth (and all) abortions. He voted for both of George W. Bush's Supreme Court appointments. He has never voted for tax increases. He advocates more tax cuts structured similarly to the Bush tax cuts. He convicted former President Clinton on impeachment. He does not support universal health care, but rather, private strategies. Most significantly, he is a staunch supporter of the war in Iraq. Sure, he acknowledges that global warming is actually occurring - that is hardly a radical position when placed in a global context. It's actually quite mainstream. I could go on and on about his conservative voting record. However, I will leave that to Bill Bennett and Seth Leibsohn of the National Review Online. Read their article, "Conservative Sense and Sensibility" for more insight into McCain's conservatism.

The next President will win not because of their political base, but because of their ability to reach beyond it. On the key issues, by and large, Senator McCain is a conservative, not a moderate. Yet, this largely fictitious moderate identity has been perpetuated by people like Limbaugh and Coulter. Whether they know it or not, their arguments against John McCain are only going to help him.

It was Bill Clinton who once quipped that "Democrats fall in love, Republicans fall in line." True to form, the Republican voters will fall in line behind John McCain. Look no further than surveys taken during the recent Potomac primaries. According to CNN, three quarters of the Republicans they polled said they would support McCain in November, regardless of how they voted in the primaries.

While John McCain is not a true moderate, the election will be decided by moderate voters. The more Limbaugh and Coulter label him a moderate, the more they help his cause. So, in a strange way, such bluster is working towards exactly what the conservative right desires. Four more years.

Then again, what stake do such pundits really have in this race, anyway? If McCain wins, they get another four years with a Republican President. If he loses, they will have at least four years of fun - filled, liberal - bashing ahead. Either way, they'll get their television, radio appearances, and book deals. It's a win - win for them.

If only every American had it so easy.