Chili and the Church of BBQ

Howdy Folks,

When it comes to both BBQ (also barbeque) and chili, I have to say that I'm a lover, not a fighter. I worship at the church of BBQ and will take chili with beans or without beans for communion. For y'all who didn't grow up in the South, or in Texas, or think that I'm some sort of pervert, allow me to explain...

When people talk about chili in Texas, there is frequently a discussion about whether or not beans can be in real Texas chili. Now, no one is ever quite sure just what, exactly, real Texas chili is, but beans are definitely a sticking point with many. Actually, I take it back. Just like a real religious debate, everyone is sure that they have the unique revelation from on-high about just what real Texas chili is. The anti-bean folks can get quite worked up about it, but to me, there are only a few required parts:

• Spicy spices (I use chili peppers, garlic and cayenne)
• Tomatoes of some sort
• Beef (preferably fatty, as leaner cuts don't provide enough flavor)

Cinnamon, peas or other clearly unnatural substances are, however, wholly unnatural and against god's will vis-a-vis chili. If it's got cinnamon in it, it might be tasty, but chili it ain't. 


Now, while chili is perhaps a soup of the gods, BBQ is nearer and dearer to my heart and waist line. Unfortunately, though, "To Barbecue" is a term often used by unlearned peoples to indicate "cooking outside on grill". Those of us fortunate enough to know better, however, know that hot dogs and hamburgers do not a BBQ make. Unfortunately, the brotherhood (and sisterhood) of BBQ also has its own religious wars underway.

First and foremost, there is "beef vs pork". A silly argument, implying you can't have both. The meat argument is often followed by  "dry vs. wet" (without sauce vs. with sauce). After that, there are arguments about "mustard vs. tomato" sauces, and that's before you get into entire sub-genres of arguments of types of rub, hickory smoked vs. mesquite smoked and what-have-you. Peh. Do wine connoiseurs argue whether red wine is better than white, Pinot Noir better than Cabernet Sauvingon? Perhaps, but if so they are short-sighted idiots. I'm a simple man to keep happy--I'll take a big slice of brisket, a pig sandwich and whatever else ya'll have...and tomorrow, I plan to attend a noon service at a church in Yokohama.


Good Eats Y'all!


PS Found this from the former CTO of Microsoft discussing a trip to a few Texas BBQ spots: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-09-02/texas-cult-of-smoke-barbecue-land-journeys-commentary-by-nathan-myhrvold.html

I'm Fixin' to talk to y'all...all of y'all...

Howdy Folks,

For those of y'all used to earthquake news and whatever, sorry that today's post will instead explore the intersection of English, Ainglish and Texan, specifically the brilliance of "y'all". While those from the left and/or right coasts of the US, and, in fact, in Texas public schools, the English teachers explain the second person plural as being "you", despite the fact that the second person singular is also you.

Now, as a people not inclined to create unnecessary complexity, the second person plural became not you, but "y'all", a logical contraction of "you all" (I find it unlikely that it originated as "Your Awl", as Awl wasn't important in the great state until Spindletop). And, noticing that even the second person plural was vague in the case of greater than two other people, "all of y'all" came into existence, a form which I refer to as the "second person superlative plural". In this case, it is clear that the entire group being addressed is included. Now, no proper language explanation ever ends without examples, so, if addressing a football team:

"Y'all over here on the left. Y'all are offense. Y'all need to score."
"Y'all over here on the right. Y'all are defense. Y'all need to really stick 'em."
"Now, all of y'all go out there and kick some *. "

Questions? Comments? Random acts of literature? Feel free to post below....