Braised lamb shanks son mas macho

by Ted on July 13, 2004

Have you ever read a blog post so aggressively, ferociously wrongheaded that it temporarily sucks all the fun out of political blogging?

Case in point. Glenn Reynolds seems to think that it’s fair to associate the Kerry campaign with a poster for Fahrenheit 9/11 produced by a distributor in the Benelux countries. (I’m still waiting for an explanation from the Kerry/Edwards campaign for White Chicks.) He says that Michael Moore (who is responsible for writing and directing left-wing films of questionable accuracy) is the American version of the Iraqi rebel cleric al-Sadr (who is responsible for killing our soldiers and running a repressive fundamentalist regime in Fallujah). Etc., etc.

I could argue with this nonsense. But wouldn’t all of our time be better spent sharing a genuinely delicious recipe for braised lamb shanks in red wine? I think so.

The recipe is impossible to screw up and requires little attention. I usually make it for just two people, which means that I only cook two lamb shanks with the same quantities of vegetables and liquids. Since the skillet easily holds two lamb shanks, this is a one-dish meal for two people.

Lightly adapted from Cooks Illustrated.

6 lamb shanks (3/4 to 1 pound each), trimmed of excess fat
Salt
1 tablespoon canola oil
2 medium onions, sliced thick
2 celery ribs, cut crosswise into 2-inch pieces
4 garlic cloves, minced
2 tablespoons tomato paste
1 tablespoon oregano
2 cups dry red wine
3 cups chicken stock
Ground black pepper

1. Heat oven to 350 degrees. Sprinkle shanks with salt. Heat oil in a large, nonreactive sauté pan over medium-high heat.

2. (optional) Add shanks to pan in batches if necessary to avoid overcrowding. Sauté until browned on all sides, 5-7 minutes. Using tongs, transfer shanks to a plate as they brown.

3. Add onions, celery, garlic, tomato paste, a light sprinkling of salt and 1 teaspoon of oregano; sauté to soften vegetables slightly, 3 to 4 minutes. Add red wine, then chicken stock to the skillet, stirring with a wooden spoons to loosen browned bits from skillet bottom. Bring liquid to simmer; transfer vegetables and liquid into a deep braising pan, large enough to hold the shanks in a single layer. If your skillet is large enough for all of the shanks, there is no need to transfer. Add shanks, season with salt, pepper, and remaining oregano.

4. Cover pan (with foil if pan has no lid) and transfer it to the oven; braise shanks for 1 1/2 hours. Uncover and continue braising until shank tops are browned, about 30 minutes. Turn shanks and continue braising until remaining side has browned and shanks are fall-off-the-bone tender.

5. Remove pan from oven; let shanks rest for at least 15 minutes. Carefully transfer shanks with tongs to each of 6 plates. Arrange a portion of vegetables around each shank. Skim excess fat from braising liquid and adjust seasoning. Spoon a portion of braising liquid over each shank and serve.

{ 35 comments }

1

Chris Marcil 07.13.04 at 4:59 pm

You forgot to say, “This recipe is objectively pro-delicious!”

2

double-plus-ungood 07.13.04 at 5:12 pm

You didn’t say whether the oregano was dry or fresh. This is the kind of sloppy misinformation that Moore is properly criticised for.

3

asg 07.13.04 at 5:15 pm

Good lord, Reynolds really does get under you folks’ skin, doesn’t he? (One wonders why, if he’s such a buffoon, you don’t remove him from the CT blogroll.)

In any case, the post clearly attributes the comparison of Moore with al-Sadr to Steven Den Beste, not Reynolds himself. Reynolds does point out that Moore uses a term of admiration in the U.S., “Minutemen”, to describe al-Sadr, which seems like a perfectly fair point to me.

Nor does Reynolds say it’s fair to associate the flag-burning poster with Kerry. I think he is alluding to the fact that Moore and the film are perceived as partisan, even if they are not working hand in hand with the Kerry campaign.

4

Ted Barlow 07.13.04 at 5:26 pm

ASG,

1. Yes, he points to den Beste, and then defends the point himself. I don’t think that he maintains plausible deniability there.

2. Here’s the quote:

“I imagine that the Kerry campaign won’t be happy being associated with this poster.”

You’re throwing in qualifiers that aren’t there. Reynolds is the only one associating Kerry’s campaign with the poster. If he wanted to make the point you’re making (both are percieved as partisan) he certainly could have.

5

fafnir 07.13.04 at 5:31 pm

I find this debate deliciously stimulating.

6

q 07.13.04 at 5:51 pm

Yummy! Do you have a recipe for Beef & Potato Stew too?

(On a serious side note: why do you bother to quote the Instapundit drivel at all – is it boredom, are you a masochist, or some other reason?)

7

jdw 07.13.04 at 5:51 pm

Liberals eat cute little baby sheep!

8

Adam Kotsko 07.13.04 at 5:52 pm

You are now my seventh-favorite blogger.

9

Adam Kotsko 07.13.04 at 5:53 pm

You are now my seventh-favorite blogger.

10

Tim Lambert 07.13.04 at 6:11 pm

Reynold’s post started with a comment about a review of Moore published in the Sydney Morning Herald. I sent Reynolds my post pointing out how the review used a quote that was fabricated by Hitchens to criticize Moore. He did not link to my post, instead linking every quarter-baked criticism of Moore that he was sent.

11

Tim Lambert 07.13.04 at 6:12 pm

Reynold’s post started with a comment about a review of Moore published in the Sydney Morning Herald. I sent Reynolds my post pointing out how the review used a quote that was fabricated by Hitchens to criticize Moore. He did not link to my post, instead linking every quarter-baked criticism of Moore that he was sent.

12

nick 07.13.04 at 6:21 pm

I suspect that Reynolds Crap gets under the skin of several CT authors primarily because they, as members of the academic community, are rather unimpressed by an ostensible member of their profession not only showing himself up on a regular and egregious basis, but also having a cadre of craven lollygaggers.

Of course, now that he apparently coins it in from Blogads — and, unless his office hours are 1.03-1.06pm — it’s possibly time for the Knoxville law school to ascertain just what good it does to be most visibly represented by someone who couldn’t argue his way out of a wet paper bag.

13

yabonn 07.13.04 at 6:47 pm

Good lord, Reynolds really does get under you folks’ skin, doesn’t he?

“Aha, my pooping on the carpet does get under you folks’ skin doesn’t it? Got you cornered there, mmhm?”

14

The Editors 07.13.04 at 6:48 pm

Why does Ted Barlow hate our famous 4-cheese vegetarian pizza recipe?

15

mc 07.13.04 at 6:54 pm

4 garlic cloves, minced, are highly dangerous biological material that could cause serious damage to the breath of your guests.

To reduce that risk, I suggest 1 clove, minced (if large, otherwise, 2), or keep the 4, but whole, and remove them later.

16

Matt Weiner 07.13.04 at 6:59 pm

it’s possibly time for the Knoxville law school to ascertain just what good it does to be most visibly represented by someone who couldn’t argue his way out of a wet paper bag.
Nah, that would definitely be an academic freedom violation (and blogging from the office probably doesn’t constitute grounds for anything; almost all academics use their office computers for personal stuff; I’m doing right now, though technically I’m not even an employee of this school anymore.)

17

Ted Barlow 07.13.04 at 6:59 pm

MC,

Extremism in defense of garlic is no vice.

18

y81 07.13.04 at 7:47 pm

Well, this would be more bite if, e.g., Bill Clinton hadn’t done whatever he could to link Newt Gingrich and the Republicans with the Oklahoma City bombing and militia groups. It is a common tactic to link politicians with the more extreme elements of their coalitions. If you think that tactic is illegitimate, so be it, but both sides use it. I’d even bet we could find some examples of this tactic being used by some CT contributors, somewhere along the line.

19

Bernard Yomtov 07.13.04 at 7:51 pm

Red wine? Garlic? Sounds French to me.

Why do you hate America?

20

bob mcmanus 07.13.04 at 7:59 pm

Reynolds linking and quoting den Beste while keeping some level of deniability on the content is exactly the Insty formula. In a way, he is just publishing the Freeper/LGF comment sections, and calling it a blog.

Uhh, this may draw some trolls. If not, then my theory that the web trolls are handed the FNC daily talking points, today’s being Wilson/Yellowcake/Bush didn’t lie, gains credibility.

21

asg 07.13.04 at 8:04 pm

I’m actually really interested to know whether Ted’s view of Glenn Reynolds is shared by the majority of CT’s posters (not commenters). My understanding of a blogroll is that it’s a list of other blogs the blogroller may not endorse or agree with but at the very least thinks are worth reading. Is Reynolds’ listing in the CT blogroll merely a courtesy (since Reynolds links to CT)?

22

nick 07.13.04 at 8:22 pm

Nah, that would definitely be an academic freedom violation

Perhaps, but Reynolds’ faculty page also shows no single-authored articles of his published since 2001, which, coinkidinkly, is when he started his blog. Ain’t tenure sweet?

My suspicion is that Prof. G. might have trouble writing a peer-reviewed article these days without using ‘heh’, ‘indeed’ and a series of citations to Mickey Kaus and James Taranto. It’s not like riding a bike…

23

Ted Barlow 07.13.04 at 8:25 pm

I can’t speak for fellow Timberites about their opinion of Reynolds. I can say that since he’s a professor at an academic institution, our policy is to give him a link.

24

John Isbell 07.13.04 at 9:03 pm

“Michael, can you review Hodgkin vs. the United States?”
“Yes. Hodgkin was accused of larceny -“
“Wait. You are neglecting the very similar case of Jenkins vs. the United States, where Jenkins was accused of murder. Heh. Please incorporate this into your argument. Continue.”

25

Mrs Tilton 07.13.04 at 9:14 pm

My suspicion is that Prof. G. might have trouble writing a peer-reviewed article these days without using ‘heh’, ‘indeed’ and a series of citations to Mickey Kaus and James Taranto.

The thing is, Reynolds (like other legal academics) is unlikely to write peer-reviewed articles under any circumstances.

Law teachers typically publish in law reviews. Their articles are reviewed not by peers but by students. And the review is somewhat formal. There’s a bit more to it than mere blue-booking (during the fracas over that Harvard Law School student getting it all wrong about Intelligent Design, somebody, somewhere, posted a useful explanation of what goes into cite-checking). But articles don’t get shot down in flames because the student-editors think them wrong. (In my own long-ago law review days, I edited an article on the 2d amendment. The author reached a conclusion that I thought fundamentally wrong; but my remit didn’t extend to proposing the article be rejected on that count. Interestingly, another prominent 2d amendment scholar (and now blogger) later took the author to task for his conclusion; correctly, I thought, though I generally disagree with much of what that scholar says.)

I admit, though, that I am entranced by the notion of Reynolds submitting a paper to Nature. (‘An organism is unlikely to survive when a majority – or even a large and angry minority – of its cells is undergoing apoptosis.‘)

26

Mrs Tilton 07.13.04 at 9:15 pm

My suspicion is that Prof. G. might have trouble writing a peer-reviewed article these days without using ‘heh’, ‘indeed’ and a series of citations to Mickey Kaus and James Taranto.

The thing is, Reynolds (like other legal academics) is unlikely to write peer-reviewed articles under any circumstances.

Law teachers typically publish in law reviews. Their articles are reviewed not by peers but by students. And the review is somewhat formal. There’s a bit more to it than mere blue-booking (during the fracas over that Harvard Law School student getting it all wrong about Intelligent Design, somebody, somewhere, posted a useful explanation of what goes into cite-checking). But articles don’t get shot down in flames because the student-editors think them wrong. (In my own long-ago law review days, I edited an article on the 2d amendment. The author reached a conclusion that I thought fundamentally wrong; but my remit didn’t extend to proposing the article be rejected on that count. Interestingly, another prominent 2d amendment scholar (and now blogger) later took the author to task for his conclusion; correctly, I thought, though I generally disagree with much of what that scholar says.)

I admit, though, that I am entranced by the notion of Reynolds submitting a paper to Nature. (‘An organism is unlikely to survive when a majority – or even a large and angry minority – of its cells is undergoing apoptosis.‘)

27

Gusto 07.13.04 at 9:54 pm

Ah, the ol’ “Barlow Recipe Smokescreen”. To wit:

Now in a cup dissolve two packs of yeast/ Let it stand and then prepare the feast/ Quarter cup of sugar, of flour four/ Mix it up and let it stand some more/ Get two greasy pans, oil top of dough/ Let it rise and when all systems go/ Cook it 25 minutes at 400 degrees/ Sometimes I cut it up and eat with cheese!

28

tom 47 07.13.04 at 10:00 pm

Delicious, easy recipe. May I suggest adding an anchovy filet, or a little paste, during the cooking? And have a second bottle of red wine available (to make up for what went in to the pot).

Bon appetit (“Tish, that’s French!” kisses up her arm…)

29

Ted Barlow 07.13.04 at 10:54 pm

Gusto,

I’ll take “References I Thought I’d Never Hear Again” for $400, please.

30

Jack 07.13.04 at 11:25 pm

erm, cough… I don’t think Sadr has gained control of Falluja yet.

31

chun the unavoidable 07.14.04 at 12:07 am

All people who graduated from Yale are very intelligent.

Glenn Reynolds graduated from Yale.

Therefore, Glenn Reynolds is very intelligent.

Also,

Our market economy rewards importance with money.

Law professors are well-paid.

Therefore, law professors are important.

32

Buffalo Gal 07.14.04 at 2:03 am

MC – while I concede that you have the right to alter the amount of garlic in a recipe to suit your own taste (little-known clause in the 1st Amendment), the long cooking time will render the garlic flavor deep and smooth rather than pungent. And if everyone eats it, everyone will smell the same anyway.

33

belle 07.14.04 at 6:58 am

whoa, we can post recipes on CT? Killer!

34

nick 07.14.04 at 1:38 pm

All people who graduated from Yale are very intelligent.

Ah, Chun, that syllogism has its very own black swan: George W. Bush. And I’m sure that with time I could come up with a fair list of dumb Yale grads.

Or were you being ironic? In which case, good show.

35

Jeremy Osner 07.16.04 at 6:23 pm

Nick — come on, you have to ask? You are obviously unfamiliar with this Chun guy and with his ways…

Comments on this entry are closed.