search
top

Thunderstorms

Well, I was getting ready to head to the range to get some chrony readings for a .223 load I wanted to try, and then some thunderstorms rolled through.  Damn.  Took the power out, which is why the blog was down.  Power is back on now, and I’m making a three bean chili.  At least the parts of it that didn’t end up on the floor.

See, Bitter opened up the cans for me, but I didn’t know she had one of those safety can openers.  You know, the ones that open the can from the side rather than from the top.  So about and hour later, I go to pick up the can of crushed tomatoes, and my brain failed to register “open can!” so I proceeded to spill the contents all over the floor, the stove, and myself.  Ooops.

Anyways, for dinner tonight, Chili, Texas toast, and cheap beer.

UPDATE: I loved the Chili, beans and all.  Bitter considers beans in Chili to be sacrilidge.  To avoid reigniting The Civil War, we decided that we could cut out some of the beans and add more meat.  It’s a compromise we can hopefully live with.

14 Responses to “Thunderstorms”

  1. Alan says:

    Bitter is correct.

    If there are beans in it, it’s not chili.

  2. Sebastian says:

    According to the Wiki:

    A popular saying among self-proclaimed chili purists is “If you know beans about chili, you know chili ain’t got no beans”. The thought that beans do not belong in chili may be further credited to the fact that most official chili cookoffs do not allow beans. In many cases a chili will be disqualified if it contains such ingredients considered filler.[2]

    In fact, Pinto beans (frijoles), a staple of Tex-Mex cooking, have long been associated with chili and the question of whether beans “belong” in chili has been a matter of contention amongst chili cooks for an equally long time. It is likely that in many poorer areas of San Antonio and other places associated with the origins of chili, beans were used rather than meat or in addition to meat due to poverty. In that regard, it has been suggested by some chili aficionados that there were probably two chili types made in the world, depending on what could be afforded and how frugal the cook was.

    Many easterners are just as adamant about the inclusion of beans in their chili for an authentic flavor as a minority of Texans are about their exclusion. A vocal minority of self-styled ‘chili experts’ believe that beans and chili should always be cooked separately and served on the side. It is then up to the consumer to stir his preferred quantity of beans into his own bowl.

    I guess I reflect the eastern culture in that respect in that I think Chili is supposed to have beans in it.

  3. Alan says:

    When I was in Philly, I met some people who thought they knew what good barbecue was too.

    Shudder.

    I still have the nightmares.

  4. Alan says:

    On the other hand, you can’t get a good cheese steak in Texas, so I guess it evens out.

  5. RedneckInNY says:

    Beans. Definitely.

  6. Sebastian says:

    As someone who has traveled extensively in The South, and spent a good deal of time there, I can attest that there is no good BBQ in Philadelphia. Halfway decent, yes… but not really good.

  7. Talkin' Tough in NJ says:

    I have to concur that *GOOD* chili has no beans in it. Plus, it’s easier to make chili pie with the leftovers.

    All meat chili = Good livin’

  8. oldblinddog says:

    You didn’t put tomatos in it too did you?

  9. Lysander says:

    Compromise – double the meat, and more beans than usual.

  10. EgregiousCharles says:

    I’m old enough to remember that chili has beans and NO meat. Chili con carne has beans and meat. The beanless stuff should probably be called Texas chili or Western chili or something.

  11. Boyd says:

    I won’t argue that it might be appropriate to call bean-less chili “Texas chili.” If you want beans, get another bowl and fill it with all the beans you want.

    In this there can be no debate: Bitter is a wise woman.

  12. EgregiousCharles says:

    Looking on the web I find many stories about early chili that don’t list beans. Several of them also talk about using the cheapest ingredients; I discount those, such as the Texas prison story, because I don’t believe the cheapest cut of beef was as cheap as beans. (Except on a cattle ranch right after an animal was slaughtered, you’d have to eat it before it went bad). But, there are lots of other stories that don’t mention cheapness, so maybe the chili I remember was a later Eastern invention.

    For what it’s worth considering that I’m from the East and always used beans, I think game or bison are superior to beef in chili, because they’re more flavorful. They stand up better amidst the spices.

    Now I’m all hungry.

top