Brown Butter Mid-City
Brown Butter Mid-City for Lunch
231 N. Carrollton Avenue
New Orleans, LA 70119
Reservations via OpenTable (click to the restaurant’s website above)
From the restaurant’s website:
Located at the corner of N Carrollton and Bienville in Mid City New Orleans, we are the city’s destination for Contemporary Southern American cuisine in a comfortable cozy setting. Our goal is to challenge your palate with new and exciting flavors while anchoring our ingredients in the comforting and familiar. We are the place for a quick lunch, fine dinner, business/special event or just a beer and small plates for the game.
Went out to lunch yesterday with the “Todd Price Taste Club,” for the group’s first lunch outing. Had a great time at Brown Butter on Carrollton and Bieville in Mid-City.
HUGE CORRECTION TO THE POD: I refer to the group as “Todd Price Eats and Drinks. That is actually the name of Todd’s old Facebook page. Now, Todd, Ann, and Brett from NOLA dot com aggregate all their stuff on a single Facebook group, Where NOLA Eats. Sorry, Todd, I’ll get it right next time. 🙂
Menu for the Todd Price Taste Club group lunch at Brown Butter (Todd Price photo)
Salad starter at Brown Butter
Brussels Sprouts starter at Brown Butter (Todd Price photo)
The two starters were a Gem Lettuce salad with radish, fennel, onion, and Pecorino, with an herb vinaigrette. Our second starter was Flash-fried Brussel Sprouts. While just about everyone else got the sprouts, I got the salad and snitched some of the Brussels Sprouts from others. Both were good, but the Brussels Sprouts were the winner.
Smoked Brisket at Brown Butter.
The Brown Butter Burger, with pimento cheese, pickled red onion, roasted garlic aioli, on a brioche bun with house cut fries.
Our second option was Smoked Brisket with skillet corn bread, vinegar slaw, along with a white sauce and a smoked onion and apple BBQ sauce. I had the brisket. It was great.
Folks who got the burger also enjoyed their choice!
Chocolate Torte at Brown Butter
In addition to the beef and burgers, we enjoyed a chocolate torte. The dessert had whipped cream and an Amarena Cherry sauce. Tasty!
Be sure to check out Ali’s blog at NowNewOrleans dot com!
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Bayou Brief at Yatpundit’s Pub
Two segments today at the pub. We’ll talk about the new progressive news site for Louisiana, The Bayou Brief, then we’ll talk food, grits and the Holy Trinity.
The Bayou Brief
The Bayou Brief – Nevertheless, we will Progress!
The Bayou Brief is Louisiana’s news site for long-form stories with a Progressive focus. There are three basic types of stories produced by The Bayou Brief (my categorization, not theirs): Cultural/Louisiana, Goverment, and “Red Meat” for Democrats/Liberals. FULL DISCLOSURE: Lamar’s publishing the first chapter of my forthcoming book, Krauss: The New Orleans Value Store, on Wednesday. The concept for The Bayou Brief dates back to December, 2015. Lamar organized a group of progressives involved in media/communications to kick around ideas, in the wake of the election of John Bel Edwards as Governor of Louisiana. Yes, we’d chosen a Democrat, but the media in Louisiana was still overwhelmingly conservative The Bayou Brief offers progressives in the sate a place to read solid news and features, coming at issues from a progressive perspective. This is a Big Deal, and that’s why we discuss it today.
Bayou Brief Coffee Mug, along with a Blue Dot Donuts orange donut at Wakin’ Bakin’
You know you need a Bayou Brief coffee mug in your life. While you may read other sites, your support progressive journalism in Louisiana is essential.
Grits Bowls at Wakin’ Bakin’
Wakin’ Bakin’ on Banks Street in Mid-City New Orleans. Wakin’ Bakin’ is by far my favorite breakfast place in New Orleans.
“Holy Cluck!” (Wakin’ Bakin photo)
“Holy Cluck!” – a Breakfast bowl with grits, swiss cheese, the Holy Trinity (sauteed onions, green pepper, and celery), topped with two eggs.
The Breakfast Bowl is the most popular item on the WB menu. So, they start with a base: grits, hash browns, or black beans. Add a meat (bacon, breakfast sausage, hot sausage, chorizo, chicken. Add cheese if you like, cheddar, swiss, pepper jack (occasionally they’ll use brie on a daily special bowl). Top with two eggs, any style. This bowl has grits, chicken, swiss cheese, the Holy Trinity, and two eggs. Delicious!
Podcast (yatpunditpub): Play in new window | Download
Republicans truly don’t care if people die unnecessarily.
Republicans care more about the wealthy
I heard a story from a Facebook friend this morning, about how a family member needed medical assistance while traveling in Europe. It’s one of dozens of stories I’ve heard from friends over the years. Teens who don’t hydrate properly to professional colleagues who have serious medical problems while away from home. Stuff happens. All the stories have the same ending. Whether or not the patient pulls through, there’s no charge for the medical services provided.
Healthcare on vacation
Americans regularly do not understand how this works, because the overwhelming majority of them do not travel outside the United States. When they go to the mountains, the beach, or the city for vacation, they take huge financial risks. If something happens and a family member needs assistance while away from home, it’s likely they’ll get emergency treatment. But what about the dehydrated teen, or the smaller child who has a fever? How about the mom who develops a UTI, or other infection on the road? At home, you go to the doctor, and you pay the co-pay set up in your insurance policy. So, you’re at the beach? Suddenly you’re “out of network,” and you are on the hook for the full cost of that IV for your teen, or the antibiotics that will treat that fever or infection.
Now, the family’s got a decision to make. While the ill person ride it out, should the family have to decide if that’s necessary?
In Europe, this is a no-brainer. You got to a doctor. You get help. You get on with your life.
This is the part about ACA that Americans who have no serious travel experience don’t get. They don’t realize the smoke screen insurance companies put up to avoid paying up. Europe removed that smoke screen. They set up “public option” system. You’re from Amsterdam and you get sick in Eindhoven? No problem. You’re from Glasgow and your kid needs that IV in London? They get it.
Who pays the bills? They do! They pay taxes to cover the system. Americans’ refusal to pay taxes of any kind is why we fail.
Revisionist History is a problem for everyone.
Image courtesy the Washington Post
As a former History teacher, I take a conservative approach to revisionist history. Oh, don’t get me wrong, I firmly believe in calling out the Holocaust Deniers, the Sandy Hook Truthers, and other such idiots. It’s the statements of lower impact that are thorny. Came across one of those yesterday, when a commenter said, “Democrats could have passed single-payer [health insurance] in 2008.”
A number of issues here. I’ll come back to the “2008” reference last.
Revisionist History – the ignorance of the Bern-it-downers
We hear this foolishness from #nonpartisanprogressives. They declare a pox on both parties. It’s possible the OP is just an uneducated/unaware individual, who heard someone else make this statement, and now they’re parroting it. This is more than possible, given the extent to which Berners of all striped parroted the lies of the Republicans about Clinton last year. It would not surprise me to learn that someone like Sarandon or Stein said this, and now the parrots go off. Angry people get angry, and there’s often no dealing with them. We see this regularly with Catholics, on the abortion issue. Close-mindedness is certainly not limited to any particular ideology.
ACA before Stimulus
Could the Democrats have passed single-payer in 2009? Doubtful, for a number of reasons:
- The economy was a hot mess. President Obama and his team decided that passing his very-successful economic stimulus package was a greater need, out of the gate. Keeping Congress focused to accomplish something is tough on a good day. Throwing two huge agenda items at them at the same time risks the failure of both. Obama went for the economy first. Given that one of the biggest raps against the Clinton campaign last year was a lack of a clear.focused, economic message, this decision made a lot of sense.
- Healthcare took time. One of the biggest arguments against TrumpCare was how quickly “repeal and replace” happened. Paul Ryan handled it badly for Team Trump. President Obama took the time to put ACA together. Teams were working on healthcare in the White House while the public face of the administration worked on the stimulus. It takes time to put a big package like healthcare reform together. They listened, kicked around ideas, and considered what would and would not pass muster, even in a Democratic-controlled Congress. This sort of thing doesn’t get done overnight. Adults know this, but #nonpartisanprogressives think there’s a magic wand that makes things happen.
- The ACA required compromise. Ironically, the Affordable Care Act was initially a compromise proposal. It was created by the Heritage Foundation. Newt the Gingrich offered it in 1993. It was a counter to President Clinton’s single-payer proposal that year. The dynamics had changed significantly by 2009. The ability of Gingrich to defeat “Hillarycare” outright in 1993 emboldened the Republicans. They believed they could beat back any future attempts to take down the industry. President Obama recognized that. His team put forward a variant of the Heritage Foundation’s plan. ACA kept the insurance industry intact, giving it a better chance to pass. That’s how compromise works. It’s what adults do. Still, #nonpartisanprogressives wrap themselves in purity.
The Public Option
- Obama’s proposal had a “public option” component. Many believe (as do I) that the public option was a bargaining chip. When the Dem leadership in both houses began to whip votes, it was clear that both caucuses didn’t have the fortitude to vote for the public option. You take what you can get. Adults don’t run home crying; they make the best out of the situation. They don’t try to Bern down the house.
- Final passage of ACA was a still a near-run thing. The Dem caucuses had the votes to pass in both the House and Senate. The Senate filibuster was the main problem. Obama’s team knew 60 Senators was a problem. No way the public option was going to survive that process. Dems liked the private insurance framework. Those holding out for local pork got things thrown at them. Had Obama taken the all-or-nothing stance of #nonpartisanprogressives, the whip count was more like 56-58 votes.
So, I’m simplifying a lot here, and I welcome comments elaborating on specific points. I stand by the notion that the public option was dead on arrival when ACA was pitched.
Yet, we’re almost eight years on and the left’s purity police are making claims that are patently wrong. They don’t rise to the level of Sandy Hook Truthers, and that’s the problem. A crazy spouting such incredibly stupid things is easily dismissed. Revisionist history with respect to policy wonkery just doesn’t stand out in the same way. The #nonpartisanprogessves in the lead or in the punditocracy know this. Their followers most likely don’t.
This is is why there’s no compelling reason to try to bring #nonpartisanprogressives into a coalition. We’d love it if they stopped throwing rocks and grew up, but it’s not necessary to push the Republicans out. Their penchant for revisionist history makes things worse.
Anyway, I said I’d come back to the “2008” thing. This is a common mistake. Of course, the president starts his term on January 20th of the year after the November election. In a serious discussion, however, most folks care when it comes to dates. Of course, #nonpartisanprogressives aren’t serious. That’s why many of them voted for Stein. She said the many things she said that were factually inaccurate. The “2008” sort of error indicates someone who doesn’t take any of this seriously. So-called leaders engage in revisionist history because their people won’t call them on it.
Twitter can be silly sometimes
1. I was critical of an aggregation of Twitter stuff that a friend put together and shared here on Facebook. I was rude in my comments.
2. While it was inappropriate for me to be obnoxious on another’s page, I still firmly believe that using twitter to blog is ridiculous.
3. Instead of composing a proper thesis and discussing it, the tweet-blaster gives us 140 characters at a time, like leaky faucet.
4. notice that these “thoughts” aren’t even 140 characters, because when you come to 130ish, you need to stop to move on to the next one.
5. the argument for doing this is, your audience is on twitter. I categorically reject this. It’s an excuse to be lazy, lowering the bar.
6. I wanted to say “it lowers the level of discourse” on that last “tweet”, but couldn’t. It ran the message over 140 characters.
Take a breath…this isn’t Twitter, after all.
7. So-called writers who take to twitter in this fashion rely on others to aggregate the blast into a coherent form. That’s unreliable.
8. A couple of weeks ago, I saw E.J. Dionne of the Washington Post re-tweet the FIFTEENTH part of some NYT gal’s tweet vomitus.
9. He said, basically, “here’s some stuff to read, go find this woman and read the rest of what she had to say. Assuming you can find her.
10. Have you noticed that, at the beginning of each of these “tweets”, I lose two characters in the hopes this “essay” stays organized?
11. This isn’t how thought leaders work. This isn’t an acceptable way to grow an audience. Thought leaders establish a premise, then they
12. (see what happens when you hit the 140-character wall in mid-sentence?) Now your next tweet looks feckin stupid, and you lose the reader
13. Thought leaders, like Jamelle Bouie of Slate, write essays that provoke thought and comment. Here’s his latest.
14. Bouie isn’t looking for a cheap appeal to someone with a minute and a half to glance at their phone. He wants to discuss an issue.
15. Reject tweet blasts. Don’t pander to the people who do them.