The pantry staple that can change your cooking

posted in: Adventure | 0

Raised in an Armenian household in Santa Clara, California, Levon Minassian recalls trips to the Middle Eastern spice shop where his parents bought Aleppo pepper, the mild, fruity red-chile flakes named after the Syrian city, to use in all manner of dishes at home. Culled from big bins and decanted into bags dragged home, the crimson powder was sprinkled over labneh, baba ghanoush and soups, each pinch a burst of sunlight.

Now, as a founder of Fire Tongue Farms, about 30 miles south in Santa Cruz, Minassian, 34, grows fresh Aleppo peppers and many other chile varieties, dries them and processes them into flakes. At the moment, his Aleppos are green, but soon they will be red, sun-dried and milled, fragrant with the sweetness of time.

Like Aleppos (also known as Halaby peppers), many of the world’s most delicious dried red-chile powders and flakes belong to the Capsicum annuum species, a plant with many varietals and what the chef and food historian Maricel Presilla calls, in her book “Peppers of the Americas,” “both the greatest world traveler of all peppers and the one found in the most incredibly diverse forms.” These include jalapeños, cayenne and bell peppers.

You know what else is part of this pepper group? Gochugaru, the sweet, fragrant Korean chile flakes that dye kimchi red; togarashi, a bright-orange powdered chile from Japan; fruity, moderately spiced Espelette pepper, named for a French commune and prevalent in Basque cooking; ground chipotle, jalapeños that have been dried and smoked; paprika, which comes in many styles but especially sweet, hot and smoked; and more.

By viewing chiles not just by heat level but by flavor, we the curious — home cooks who like to linger in the kitchen — can wander a world of culinary possibilities. So my question to you is: What’s in your pepper pantry?

There’s nothing wrong with the shaker of pizza shop red-pepper flakes — the one next to the oregano and Parmesan — but it’s just one color in a spectrum of chile possibilities. The joy of cooking with dried chiles is mixing and matching. Why paint in gray when you can access a full palette of brilliant colors?

It all comes down to preference, in the end. “Do you want it sweet or do you want it hot or do you want it red or do you want it yellow?” said Ethan Frisch, a founder and CEO of Burlap & Barrel, a company that sells single-origin spices.

For Frisch, 37, who has bought various red peppers from Minassian’s farm for Burlap & Barrel, each dried chile flake has a story: As with coffee and wine, terroir is a key determinant in the ultimate flavor of a chile. “It doesn’t take long for the chile to start evolving, to meet the demands of its local climate,” he said. “And that, of course, changes the flavor and also is, of course, shaped by human interest.”

As an example: An old friend from high school, James Dong, recently gave me a plastic resealable sandwich bag of Korean red chiles he had grown in Georgia (from seeds he bought on Etsy), smoked and crushed himself to make gochugaru. His chile flakes had the same red glint and jammy savoriness of those grown in Asia, but through the smoking process, they had taken on the fragrance of Mexican chipotles. The blazing perfume was so strong, it felt like I was carrying around a flame. I reached into that bag to sprinkle over all kinds of meals throughout the month, but the most delicious use of it was in this tomato sauce.

Whichever pepper you choose to stock, this recipe takes full advantage of Capsicum annuum’s flavor and heat, and celebrates its journey. Using a mix of dried chile flakes, and accepting that it’s all right to have more than one in your pantry (they all taste so different!), leads to exciting results.

A homage to Marcella Hazan’s famous tomato sauce, this recipe has you switch the order: First, the butter is melted, so it can bloom a heaping tablespoon or two of your favorite mix of chile powders and flakes to bring out their fruity heat. In lieu of red-pepper flakes made by a childhood friend, you can use regular gochugaru, Aleppo pepper or even togarashi, among others, along with a little smoked paprika to replicate the explosive flavor that smoking gives beautiful red chiles.

At the end of the day, dried chiles have so much to offer, beyond just their spiciness. All it takes is a little playful tinkering in the kitchen to bring out those coveted qualities.

Spicy Pizza Sauce

By Eric Kim

An homage to the famous Marcella Hazan tomato sauce, this iteration has you switch the order: First, the butter is melted, so it can then bloom a heaping tablespoon or two of chile flakes to bring out their fruity heat. Any kind works, but what this recipe can teach you is how to mix and match between different chile powders to find exactly the flavor you’re craving in any given moment. Because at the end of the day, chiles have so much flavor, so much nuance, beyond just their spiciness. Use this all-purpose red sauce for pizza, pasta, sandwiches and everything in between.

Yield: About 1 quart

Total time: 1 hour, largely unattended

INGREDIENTS

5 tablespoons unsalted butter
1 to 2 tablespoons red chile powder or flakes (any mix of gochugaru, togarashi, Aleppo pepper, Espelette pepper and red-pepper flakes, plus 1 teaspoon smoked paprika)
1 (28-ounce) can whole plum tomatoes, crushed with your hands
1 large red or yellow onion, quartered lengthwise and peeled
1 (2-inch square) Parmesan rind
Salt
1 teaspoon sugar (optional)

DIRECTIONS

In a large saucepan over medium, melt the butter, then add the chile powder and stir until fragrant, just a few seconds (be careful not to burn the chiles). Add the tomatoes, along with 1/2 cup water swished around the can to catch any clinging sauce. Stir in the onion, Parmesan rind, 1 teaspoon salt and the sugar, if using.
Bring to a boil, then lower the heat to simmer. Partially cover and cook, stirring occasionally, until the sauce is thick and jammy, about 45 minutes. Discard or eat the onion. Discard the rind. Taste and add more salt or sugar as needed.
Use right away or store in a tightly sealed container. The sauce should keep for up to 5 days in the refrigerator (and is even easier to cook with when cold).

— This article originally appeared in The New York Times.

Related Articles

Restaurants, Food and Drink |


How to make America’s most iconic ice cream dessert at home

Restaurants, Food and Drink |


Quick Fix: Pork and Peach Summer Salad

Restaurants, Food and Drink |


Peach cobbler, 2 ways: Spectacularly simple and simply spectacular

Restaurants, Food and Drink |


Injera is the soul of Ethiopian cuisine

Restaurants, Food and Drink |


Peanut and chili crisp cucumber salad is a bright and crunchy summer dish

Taylor J. Swift: Congress must get serious about its capacity or cede power to courts

posted in: News | 0

The Supreme Court’s recent decision to strike down a cornerstone of administrative law known as the Chevron doctrine represents a seismic shift in the balance of power between the three branches of government.

After 40 years of relying on federal agencies to interpret legislative ambiguities when implementing regulations, it’s now up to courts to discern congressional intent. The Supreme Court did not “return” power to Congress, but it did put the onus on an under-resourced legislative branch to be much more clear in writing laws. If Congress fails to exercise its lawmaking power, it will cede power to the judiciary.

As the “first branch,” Congress must now reassess its ability to fulfill this increased responsibility effectively. A recent House hearing highlighted the urgency of this issue: Witnesses called for Congress to increase its resources to ensure that lawmakers can respond to the needs of constituents, engage in effective lawmaking and maintain robust oversight.

Even with a spotlight on its diminished capacity, the House began summer recess early after failing to pass its latest legislative branch appropriations bill, underscoring the difficulty in securing the necessary funding to strengthen congressional operations. Provisions to increase funding for member and staff salaries should not be controversial, but are typically dead on arrival, leading to chronic underfunding and a congressional “brain drain” that has crippled the institution.

After decades of underinvestment, Congress must rebuild its workforce and equip its employees with the tools they need. The legislative branch operates with roughly 1/120th of the resources of the executive branch. The legislative branch has only 31,000 employees across the House, Senate and support agencies with an annual budget of $7 billion, while the executive branch employs 2.97 million individuals and operates with trillions of dollars annually. Funding for congressional operations has not kept pace with other increases in government spending, causing further imbalances and resource constraints.

Legislative branch appropriations have increased only 50 percent from fiscal 2001 to fiscal 2022 while non-defense discretionary spending grew by over 90% in the same period. And most increases in the legislative branch budget went to maintaining buildings and policing the Capitol rather than enhancing legislative capacity.

This constrained funding has taken a toll on the institution and its capacity. From 2011 to 2021, House staff salaries were effectively cut 20% when adjusting for inflation while the cost of living in the nation’s capital significantly increased. And since the original Chevron decision in the 1980s, Congress has seen a 41% reduction in House committee staff and a 25% downsizing in critical support offices like the Congressional Research Service and the Government Accountability Office.

This decades-long lack of investment has also coincided with an increase in legislative activity and oversight. The number of legislative drafting requests to the House Office of Legislative Counsel has surged by 76% since the 115th Congress, while the number of proposed amendments has increased by 39%. Despite this growing workload, the Office of Legislative Counsel’s operating budget has increased by only 17% when adjusted for inflation.

Congress must build on recent modernization efforts to enhance its capacity and reassert its legislative authority. To provide stability, Congress could mandate that annual legislative branch appropriations increase proportionally with non-defense discretionary spending each fiscal year. Implementing this policy beginning in fiscal 2025 would tie legislative funding growth to the overall growth in federal discretionary budgets. Excluding the Capitol Police funding from this proportional growth policy would account for its unique budget needs.

This approach would prevent legislative capacity from lagging and enable investments in staff, technology, operations and infrastructure to support congressional duties. Stable funding would allow congressional offices and agencies to better project budgets over the long term and — most importantly — fortify the first branch of government’s ability to fulfill its constitutional responsibilities.

The overturning of Chevron is a wake-up call for a Congress that has often found it difficult to invest in itself or hold its constitutional ground. The ball is on Congress’ court, but if lawmakers don’t step up, it will be the courts that run the game.

Taylor J. Swift is director of government capacity at POPVOX Foundation. Prior to joining POPVOX Foundation, he was a senior policy advisor at Demand Progress, focusing on Congressional transparency, efficiency, capacity, and modernization. He wrote this column for The Fulcrum,  nonprofit, nonpartisan news platform covering efforts to fix our governing systems.

Related Articles

Opinion |


Zeynep Tufekci: Don’t call the Telegram CEO’s arrest a free-speech infringement — yet

Opinion |


Serge Schmemann: Putin is getting rattled

Opinion |


Ivan Eland: Solutions to the Supreme Court’s presidential immunity disaster

Opinion |


Galvao, Klutsey: Teaching civil discourse — a classroom blueprint for America

Opinion |


Jackie Payne: Undecided moderate women could be the tipping point this November

Matthew Yglesias: The breakout star of the Democratic Convention was … YIMBY

posted in: Politics | 0

Barack Obama’s speech at last week’s Democratic National Convention marks what is almost certainly the high-water mark for the political visibility of the YIMBY movement.

Taking a cue from one of the main themes of the week — “We’re not going back” — the former president noted that the nation needs “to chart a new way forward to meet the challenges of today.”

For example, he noted, “if we want to make it easier for young people to buy a home, we need to build more units and clear away some of the outdated laws and regulations that have made it harder to build homes for working people in this country.”

For us veterans of the land-use reform movement, it was a thrilling moment. Not that these ideas are brand new to Obama. His administration embraced the basic analytic viewpoint of YIMBYism during his second term, most clearly in its 2016 Housing Supply Toolkit but also in various budget requests and remarks by administration officials over the years. President Joe Biden’s administration has similarly been officially YIMBY in a low-key way.

What we never got from either president, however, was the kind of high-profile endorsement that Obama delivered last week. Under the circumstances, it would be extremely churlish to offer any reaction other than a simple, “Thank you.”

And yet here I am.

While tackling regulatory barriers to housing construction in high-demand areas is absolutely an important long-term issue for the U.S. economy, in the short term federal policymakers have more powerful tools.

For better or worse, the U.S. is currently building dense housing at the highest rate since the mid-1980s. It’s true that anti-density rules are still too strict, and that rolling them back would have large economic benefits. But restrictions on apartments don’t explain very much about why housing-cost pressures are so much more severe today than they were a decade ago. What’s happened instead is that construction of single-family homes is running at a dramatically slower rate than in the 1990s, to say nothing of the aughts.

In 2010 or 2014, nobody found the low rate of housebuilding remarkable. There had just been an enormous housing market crash, after all, and homebuilding was recovering from a low level. But the slow recovery has basically plateaued since the pandemic, even though demand keeps rising. What gives?

Some analysts, such as Kevin Erdmann at the Mercatus Center, point the finger at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac noting that tighter lending standards adopted after the financial crisis mean that mortgage lending to lower-income families has dried up.

Without any eligible purchasers of cheap starter homes, it doesn’t really make sense to build them. Despite the hype around private equity funds investing in single-family homes as rental properties, single-family rentals are a very small and unproven business. The majority of investment in purpose-built rental housing is multifamily apartments, just as it’s always been.

Investment in this sector is in fact up in response to the rise in demand, but it is running into the regulatory constraints Obama is talking about. Lifting these constraints is important and useful, but a series of state-by-state, city-by-city, zoning-board-by-zoning-board battles is a generational struggle — it’s not a quick fix for suffering families. Mortgage lending standards, by contrast, are set nationally by the Federal Housing Finance Agency (and to an extent the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau) and could simply be made more lax.

Would this be courting another financial catastrophe?

I’m skeptical. For starters, the rules can be altered without going all the way back to the “liar loans” of yesteryear — there’s such a thing as an overreaction to a real problem. More to the point, trying to avoid financial crises at that end of the funnel is just a slightly odd idea. The federal government regulates the overall riskiness of banks’ loan portfolios with regulations on stuff like capital and liquidity. The recent trend at the Federal Reserve has been toward weakening these rules in pursuit of economic growth. It would make more sense to be lax on mortgage lending and strict on bank capital, letting investors risk their money on loans if that’s what they want to do.

There is also the construction market, which is significantly influenced by the interest-rate environment. Democrats are aware of this when they talk about their hope that the Fed will cut rates this fall. But they are less aware that the capacity of long-term rates to fall — unless unemployment surges — is limited by the size of the budget deficit.

Fiscal discipline and bank deregulation was the housing-policy formula of another former Democratic president who spoke last week: Bill Clinton. But ever since the financial crisis, he hasn’t liked to talk about it so much — even though, as housing policy, it worked pretty well.

America’s current home dearth is a reminder that every choice in life comes with trade-offs. There are downsides to getting too lax with mortgage origination rules, and downsides to getting too strict. And over time, the U.S. does really need to address zoning and other land-use practices that block apartment construction from too many communities.

But America suffers from a housing shortage right now, and if Democrats want to fulfill Kamala Harris’ pledge to end it, then they will need some powerful, fast-acting tools. That means making use of the federal government’s vast power over home financing instead of its limited influence over local building regulations.

Matthew Yglesias is a columnist for Bloomberg Opinion. A co-founder of and former columnist for Vox, he writes the Slow Boring blog and newsletter. He is the author of “One Billion Americans.”

Related Articles

Opinion |


Zeynep Tufekci: Don’t call the Telegram CEO’s arrest a free-speech infringement — yet

Opinion |


Serge Schmemann: Putin is getting rattled

Opinion |


Ivan Eland: Solutions to the Supreme Court’s presidential immunity disaster

Opinion |


Galvao, Klutsey: Teaching civil discourse — a classroom blueprint for America

Opinion |


Jackie Payne: Undecided moderate women could be the tipping point this November

Zeynep Tufekci: Don’t call the Telegram CEO’s arrest a free-speech infringement — yet

posted in: News | 0

The detention in France of Pavel Durov, founder and CEO of the messaging app Telegram, has sparked a loud outcry about free speech. Elon Musk has portrayed the arrest on his X account as an ominous threat to free speech, and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. referred to the app as an “encrypted, uncensored” platform and said “the need to protect free speech has never been more urgent.”

It’s a curious case, and the French government hasn’t helped matters by releasing information in dribs and drabs. While it is possible that there are free-speech issues entangled here, some early details suggest the issue may be one of criminal activity.

On Monday, the French prosecutor said in a statement that Durov — who is a citizen of France, Russia, St. Kitts and Nevis and the United Arab Emirates — was being held for questioning in connection with an investigation into criminal activities on the app, including the trading of child sexual abuse material as well as drug trafficking, fraud and money laundering. Notably, Telegram explicitly boasts that it has never disclosed user data to any government, ever.

Questions have long swirled around Telegram. Contrary to widespread belief, Telegram is not encrypted in any meaningful sense. That would be “end to end” encryption, so that even the company couldn’t read users’ messages. Telegram — and anyone it chooses — can read all group chats, and there is no way to fully encrypt them. Those very large groups are the main attraction of the platform.

Related Articles

Opinion |


Serge Schmemann: Putin is getting rattled

Opinion |


Ivan Eland: Solutions to the Supreme Court’s presidential immunity disaster

Opinion |


Sunday Bulletin Board: A box in the closet reveals a world gone, but not forgotten

Opinion |


Chad Kulas: The potential of St. Paul’s Midway soars

Opinion |


Galvao, Klutsey: Teaching civil discourse — a classroom blueprint for America

Private chats on Telegram also lack end-to-end encryption by default. Here, though, users can undergo an onerous process to turn on end-to-end encryption, which then applies only to that conversation. Even the protection provided to private chats is murky: Cryptography experts have long questioned whether Telegram’s limited encryption actually meets security standards.

Durov was born in Russia, where Telegram is used widely. The Kremlin has Durov’s back: It issued a statement that unless more evidence is provided, Durov’s detention may be “a direct attempt to limit freedom of communication.” Russian anti-war activists have long wondered how the Kremlin seems to know so much about their activities on Telegram. (Good question.)

Free speech is an important value, but protecting it does not mean absolving anyone of responsibility for all criminal activity. Ironically, Telegram’s shortage of end-to-end encryption means the company is likely to be more liable simply because CAN see the criminal activity happening on its platform. If, for example, Telegram did not cooperate with authorities at all after receiving legal warrants for information about criminal activities, that would mean trouble even in the United States, with its sweeping free speech protections.

Zeynep Tufekci writes for the New York Times.

Related Articles

Opinion |


Serge Schmemann: Putin is getting rattled

Opinion |


Ivan Eland: Solutions to the Supreme Court’s presidential immunity disaster

Opinion |


Sunday Bulletin Board: A box in the closet reveals a world gone, but not forgotten

Opinion |


Chad Kulas: The potential of St. Paul’s Midway soars

Opinion |


Galvao, Klutsey: Teaching civil discourse — a classroom blueprint for America