Cookaholics Bulletin Board

Jean and JesBelle (hmmm, bit of and 80's reference there),

Huh. For me, dried beans are about 4X cheaper than canned ones cup-for-cup. There's also the issue that for many bean-heavy dishes, such as bean soups, the texture of the soup is wrong if you don't cook the beans in the broth; they add a considerable amount of starch, and you don't get that if you don't cook them in it. Also, I find that beans I cook myself taste better and have a better texture; canned beans are often overcooked and mushy.

Becky,

There's a company which sells canned beans with konbu in them as a flavoring (Eden Organics); I find them disgusting. Besides which, konbu is just a sneaky way to avoid admitting they're adding MSG to the beans.


Frank,

As previously discussed, there are also New Mexico Chili ("a bowl of green") and Cincinnati Chili (Greek chili, or "chili 3-ways") which do contain beans. These are different dishes from Texas chili, but for historical reasons Americans call all three dishes "chili" and don't distinguish.

Oh, and I made vegetarian "chili" the other night. It was delicious.

I am happy to report that a somewhat similar dish, called Firebrand Chilli is sold in Springfield, Illinois. It has not relationship to chili being based on boiling suet with pickling spices an then burning a portion of the suet with excessive cayenne. Ground beef, seasonings and cooked beans are added to the boiled suite. The dish is finished with the blackened suet. No liquid is added.

I'm not sure why they call it "Chilli" but we have a major heart center as a by product.

cc

Yeah, and I had a great chocolate 'martini' the other night...very smooooooth

Saw this tonight and thought of this board:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXChcvVPv2A

PERFECT

Touché!

Jean, I laughed outloud at that clip...perfect!

Laurie

As soon as Sheldon asked about the beans, I thought about Frank

Ahhh...Sheldon...clearly a man of superior intellect as well as a keen sense of history!!

I have no qualms with those from Cincinnati, New Mexico, or elsewhere who do not label the dish as simply "chili' but add text to clarify that it is not "real" chili..."with beans" is totally unacceptable!

Language changes, regardless of origin. Calling a left handed happy man a sinister gay man will likely not go down well in most circumstances now-a-days, but is historically accurate. For any even remotely sane diet, you need something with your chili. Putting beans straight in is a viable option, if you like beans with your chili. If you like cornbread with your chili, putting it straight in probably wouldn't work so well, but if we served cornbread with the chili, no one would say it isn't chili.