"Default User" > writes:
>I'm not passionate about it the way you are. On the whole, I prefer my
>own chili versions, which are more or less Midwestern standard, but
>ramped up a bit in quality. By that I mean that the stuff I make for
>myself will usually have: browned ground beef; tomatoes; fresh garlic;
>a spice blend of various ground chiles, cumin, oregano, and black
>pepper; and beans. The Texas guys aren't much happier with that than
>with yours

>I sometimes have my chili in a "chili mac" style, on spaghetti with
>shredded cheese (I don't do onions). I also like it on rice.

>At times I use cubed beef in place of ground, always a good upgrade.
>Smoked chuck roast is a good meat base as well.



>Brian

I'm exactly the same way...I just don't get hung up on calling each
of them chili.

One of my in-laws, assuming that my passion for Cincinnati chili
meant that I was an overall chili zealot, bought me a chili cookbook
(I really like the cookbook, I'm just not an overall chili zealot)
and I've had great fun working my way through many different
chili recipes. Of the regular, Texas Red variety chili, I really
like the basic chiles (dried and otherwise), onions and cubed
chuck (I normally buy a chuck roast and dice it fairly small).
That's probably my favorite, and I might have some rice and/or
beans on the side.

In terms of mid-America, Betty Crocker style chili con carne, I've
been known to have that with some crushed tortilla chips and
maybe some diced onion and cheese. Given my mood, I might even
eat that over spaghetti.

I guess I really only have two hangups: one is that I feel
there are certain things, which I've described, which make
Cincinnati chili authentic. The second, of course, is that I
think one shouldn't get all hung up on the name...while Texans
might feel otherwise, they don't really have a trademark on
the name "chili". It's too generic of a term, as far as I'm
concerned.

Guy