http://www.slate.com/articles/life/..._are_no_beans_in_san_antonio_s_specialty.html
Reading this was like having flashbacks.
Reading this was like having flashbacks.
[Question] Okay, 'fess up, which of you writes for Slate?
- Thread starter SpecialKO
- Start date
Beans are all well and good for a chili-flavored stew, but it ain't chili
Have made this in the past: Alton Brown's Pressure Cooker Chili
Was VERY good, though obviously not everybody has a pressure cooker.
Was VERY good, though obviously not everybody has a pressure cooker.
I tried it once without the pressure cooker. It was not successful.
Way back when, my go-to chili was the Carroll Shelby (yes, THAT Carroll Shelby) chili mix.
Cook's Country/America's Test Kitchen has a very similar recipe to Alton Brown's, but made in a dutch oven.I tried it once without the pressure cooker. It was not successful.
http://www.cookscountry.com/recipes/7116-five-alarm-chili
I cried when they threw in the beans, though.
Yes, this exactly.
I like chili. I also like chili with beans...but I won't call it "chili."
--Patrick
>Implying chili without beans is chili.
>Implying chili without beans is anything other than heresy.
>Implying heresy is ok.
>Implying chili without beans is anything other than heresy.
>Implying heresy is ok.
you are getting dangerously close to messin' with Texas with this post
What's the point of making chili if you don't add delicious beans to it? They're my favourite part of any chili.
I guess you can make Bananas Foster without bananas too.
I guess the real question would be, if you put about as many peaches as bananas in it, would it still be bananas foster?
Must admit, this had me laughing so hard it scared the cats.
figmentPez
Staff member
There's a reason why the "People's Choice" category in chili competitions has a requirement that the recipes must contain beans. Chili enthusiasts may get all snooty, but most people like beans.
You are having a spicy bean soup or stew then, not chili. You
BTW, beans are gross travesties to my taste buds, can't stand 'em.
Most chili cookoffs allow beans as a filler when serving the public. But any cook-off using Chili Appreciation Society International rules cannot contain beans. The same goes for International Chili Society cook-offs (though you're right about ICS People's Choice..they must contain beans)
Incidentally, despite my seemingly resolute stance about beans in chili, I really don't give two farts if other people have beans in theirs. Mostly, I don't give two farts because my chili has no beans. But I digress. I don't care if you like beans or use them.
But I never will
Last edited:
chili
noun \ˈchi-lē\
: a small pepper with a very hot flavor
: a spicy dish made of ground beef, hot peppers or chili powder, and usually beans
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/chili
I'm not saying you can't enjoy your chili however you want, I'm just saying you may want to check your dictionary, it seems to be faulty.
At least I won't be worrying about a $6K hospital bill stressing me into another heart attack. Insurance knocked that down to $327.
AND... the ACA knocked the $330/mo premium down to $38.
A definition, but not the rules.
Terlingua International Chili Cookoff:
B. PREPARING CHILI
1.Chili must be cooked on site the day of the cookoff from scratch. "Scratch" means starting with raw meat and using regular spices. "Scratch" means starting with raw meat and spices. Commercial chili powder is permissible, but complete commercial chili mixes are NOT permitted.
2.Chili must be prepared out in the open in as sanitary a manner as possible.
3.No beans, pasta, rice or other similar items are allowed.
4.The head cook must prepare the chili to be judged.
LITERALLY
1
: in a literal sense or manner : actually <took the remark literally> <was literally insane>
2
: in effect : virtually <will literally turn the world upside down to combat cruelty or injustice — Norman Cousins>
I dunno..I don't think I'm going to trust a dictionary where the definition of literally also includes the definition of, you know, "not literally".*
Instead, let's look at the name of the dish itself. We call it chili, but in the hispanic world, where the dish originates, it's "chili con carne". We've had this discussion before, but this means "peppers with meat". "Bananas foster" loses it's meaning if we make it half-and-half with peaches. It becomes something else. It may be in the style of bananas foster, but it's not the signature dish. If someone were to order bananas foster at a restaurant, and it came with bananas, peaches, cherries, and pears, they'd be a little surprised. Maybe even a little disappointed--no matter how many other people loved the dish. It just wouldn't be what they were expecting. One could not fault them for saying "This isn't bananas foster! It's fruit salad"
In the same vein, "chili con carne" loses its meaning once we start throwing in all kinds of stuff, like tomatoes, beans, etc. The name of the dish is "peppers with meat". These are literally (as opposed to "virtually") the ingredients.
* Especially since it's definition of "Chili" also includes the definition of, you know, "not chili".
Last edited:
