ExtraMSG

What, no mention of fellatio?

As a Christmas gift to my wife's family, she's taking them out to the Nutcracker (matinee) and then they're returning to our house for an early Christmas dinner. For my own benefit and to make it memorable for them, I'm thinking of doing a multi-course tasting menu, maybe a dozen courses some with multiple tastes. Tough in a home kitchen, but a good challenge. I need to go shopping some time this week and would like a list of ingredients and flavors to work from. So what I'm asking for is not dishes or recipes, but just flavors and ingredients that mean Christmas to you. Maybe simple combinations of flavors, too.

That's household income, not individual income. The average person makes even less. btw, great source of stats is the Statistical Abstract of the United States: http://www.census.gov/prod/www/statistical-abstract-02.html

Never said quality isn't important, just that it often gets too much importance here. But by implying moral importance to artisinal and organic foods and saying that companies such as Wal-Mart and ADM are evil (which often saturates this site, especially on more political threads such as this one), I think one can conclude that many members here do believe that everyone should be cooking every meal from home using organic ingredients. I'll try to deal with the Decline and Fall of the Culinary Empire later when I have more time.

FG, sorry I helped move it off-topic. I should have tied in my comments a little better. I do think the discussion of the importance of these items to society is relevant to even the specific topic about the evil of corporate food. I think to assume that offering quantity over quality is wrong you have to assume an importance for food quality that I think needs to be proven (and we're generally talking about taste here, rather than health since presumably a Wal-Mart potato is no less healthy than a Whole Foods potato). Sure, food quality is important to us, that's why we're here, but I don't know that it's important or necessarily a "good" to society or that it should be. In fact, I think a strong argument can be made that the search for good, ie, tasty, food has caused a lot of ill in the world and that in the same sense that John Lennon imagined a world without religion, someone could imagine a world without taste, where we only eat what we need and would never withhold food from another, wouldn't cut down a rain forest to grow coffee, and wouldn't colonize a country over chocolate and spices. I don't know that quantity should be looked down on. It's only a recent phenomenon that people have too much food. It's not the replacement piece you're paying for, but the service. I'm glad that people are valued more than things.

FG, it'd be a straw man if that's all I said. But I went on to talk about the central nature of the timepiece to our society and the importance of it in ancient societies as well. This is just a internet forum, afterall. The clock also played a central role in the expansion of the western world through the ability to better navigate. An accurate clock was essential to navigation and helped Britain become the colonial power it was. But the point is that good (ie, tasty) food being central to some people, to some cultures, to some traditions doesn't need to be so, and it certainly doesn't need to be more important to any individual than the beauty of a timepiece. Time is as central to our existence as food and it is perfectly reasonable to imagine a culture centering around their timepiece as a symbol of this aspect of our existence and because of its practical use. Stone Henge might be a good example. Some people speculate that it's a quasi-religious timepiece. I just think there's a tendency here, because so many of us love food, to give it more weight than it deserves. We project its importance to us onto others. Mayhan, I don't disagree with you in general. But it's important to remember that nearly all poisons require not only their ingestion, but the ingestion of a minimum amount, and that many things we think of as normal to ingest can become poisons once we ingest over a threshold. In other words, it's not what we eat, but how much. That friend who pretty much just eats breakfast foods all day, every day, also eats less per meal than almost any one else I know. He usually can't finish half a plate of whatever I make when he's over for dinner. He also works out a lot and is very muscular. He's also one of those people with a high metabolism who gets shaky if he doesn't eat regularly and has to have a snack before and during a round a golf or before and after we play basketball or else he'll get ligh-headed. So, there are at least two choices for how people could change their eating habits: 1) change what they eat, 2) change the amount they eat. I have another friend in Texas who constantly points this out to me. He eats worse than just about anyone I've ever known. His refrigerator's crispers have only 2lb bags of M&Ms in them. He eats out daily and always has appetizer, entree, and dessert and usually eats high calorie foods, never salads even for an appetizer. He loves Mexican and bbq of course. And when he snacks, it's chocolate. But he only eats one meal a day and even though he never exercises, he hasn't gained weight in years.

Time is less integral to human existence than food? I think they're both necessary. There's a hell of a lot more written about time in philosophy books than there is about food. It's true we don't need to buy a watch to experience the passing of time, but the timepiece in all its forms -- the watch on your arm, the clock on your wall, the little set of pixels in the corner of my screen right now -- has certainly become an integral part of modern society. Certainly its more a part of our day as a society than food. We, as a people, are more obsessed with time and how it passes according to timepieces than we probably are with food. Our whole modern society is run by the clock. Ancient cultures it was broader, the seasonal calendar guiding their lives and depended on. While we may need food in a physical way that we don't need a timepiece, that says nothing about it's integral nature to society. We could be eating gruel and grubs without the ability to measure time. The broader point is an excellent one anyway that shouldn't just be dismissed because the analogy isn't perfect. When I read his initial post, I thought about books, movies, music, and art. I can't believe people like to read Stephen King, John Grisham, and the like. I can't get through a chapter in their books. And it's not that I don't like reading. It's that, to me, it's unbearable trash. I can't enjoy reading it. I'm amazed at how much money mediocre movies make and that people actually say that Titanic is the best movie they've ever seen. Britney Spears, need I say more! I cannot believe how many paintings Thomas Kinkade sells. I say I don't understand it, but that's not true because I can empathize through analogy. I buy cheap clothes. I buy cheap cars. I buy cheap stereos. I stay in cheap hotels. None of that is important to me and I recognize it's important to others, just like the quality of movies, music, art, books, and food are to me. The issue is that the pleasure in food is not more important to any individual than the pleasure in anything else. All they need is nourishment, and that need not give any pleasure. Some people it apparently gives more pleasure than to others. And for those people, like myself, we shouldn't give our pleasure undue weight. It's ridiculous. If a person is happy with mediocre scambled eggs and toast from Denny's, as a friend of mine is, why suppose he'd be better off eating either "well-made" (in quotes because this is always relative) or haute eggs and toast? Maybe he's lucky that he can be satisfied with the $2.99 Grand Slam and those of us here are just being self-absorbed prigs. One more analogy, FG: sex. Some people think sex is of the utmost importance, either in their lives or in their relationships. Certainly sex is supremely important to humanity, though, like food, it can be bypassed (intravenous fluids = test tube babies). But is someone who finds sex to be of minor importance, especially weighed against other factors, such as religious belief, fidelity, a good friendship, health, money, etc, missing out if that means they don't ever have a good sex life? No more, I think, than one who decides to hit Taco Bell on the way home rather than hit a taqueria or make their own.

Interesting article, Fresco. One of the things I like about Wal-Mart is that they often first go to small towns. Here in Oregon, they had stores in many 10-15k person towns before they had one in Portland. We just got our first Wal-Mart in Portland a couple years ago. Our first Super Wal-Mart is actually the one about a mile from my house in the suburb of Vancouver, WA, and opened less than a year ago. That means they're often bringing shopping variety and prices unheard of in these small towns. These little towns often have no jobs for older folks, too, and many of the minorities are migrant workers. And even though Wal-Mart isn't a great job, it's better than picking fruit, and it's available all year. These small town people who need "everyday low prices" and jobs of any kind get them because of Wal-Mart.

Very good points, FG, and not just because you agree with me on a point. One thing that people forget, I think, is that Wal-Mart and a vibrant downtown are not mutually exclusive. I've seen this happen in many towns. Sure, Wal-Mart replaces often long-existing little markets or clothiers or shoe stores. But a lot of these places, frankly, sucked. They were over-priced in comparison because they had to be and offered less selection. I grew up in these types of towns. I saw when a "real" grocery store opened and a megamart opened. Usually the small family-runned stores offered the same items the megastores were offering, just in a smaller venue with higher prices. Someone talked about driving 45 minutes to go to an old-fashioned hardware store. Are these guys making their own equipment by hand or something? What's the comparative advantage in going to this little store? Do they have anything Home Depot doesn't sell cheaper? Do they have anything better than Sears' Craftsman? A lot of these little places are just barely scraping by, too. The owners aren't making any more than a manager or assistant manager would be making at Wal-Mart but they don't get paid time off or insurance benefits. And do you think most of these small businesses were paying their employees, often family members, more than minimum wage or offer any decent benefits? I can understand the nostalgia for these small, family-run businesses, just like I can understand the nostalgia for an agrarian society. But I think people's conception of these systems' objective benefits is generally faulty or at least clouded by sentiment. What happens in these little towns (or even big towns with sprawl like here in Portland) is that over time businesses are often lured back in or businesses adapt to lure customers. They become more specialized, become boutiques, offer truly high-end or unique products and services. Or ethnic businesses move in and create a different community. So people who want cheap have their Wal-Marts, and people who want good have their boutiques. And the cheap stuff is cheaper than it ever was and the good stuff is better than it ever was. The new owners of these boutiques have better margins and make a real living. The people who are working Wal-Mart are still making minimum wage, but have the benefits that a large corporation can supply, and the managers are making decent wages, have the ability to advance (something that can never happen in small businesses) and even move to a different city, state, or country. I'm not saying there aren't real problems that develop. Some downtowns just turn into such crapholes that they are pretty much lost forever, though I think this is usually accompanied by the loss of significant industries. Owners of these businesses do lose their businesses, often. A certain sense of community is often lost forever. But I don't think it's good to support the status quo just because you're afraid of change. Change happens. We can't just make the manufacture of cars illegal because we don't want the manufacturers of horse-drawn buggies to go out of business. As you move towards a horizon there is always a shadow horizon behind you that fades and is lost. Doesn't mean that you stop sailing towards those new discoveries. I counted 9 different types of apples the other day at Safeway. There were probably 10 or more types of greens. Probably 50 or more types of bread, including freshly baked rustic breads. They had cheeses ranging from your typical Lucerne and Tillamook cheddars to fetas and gorgonzolas and ricottas to Parmeggiano-Reggiano. There were a dozen or more types of fish, plus shellfish and crustaceans. 10-15 kinds of bacon. Sevaral cuts of beef, lamb, and pork. Chicken, turkey, duck, goose. You can find this in most any small town in America now. I think that's pretty cool.

One thing to recognize is that much of the basis for the disdain of these chains is aesthetic. It often has little to do with anything about them truly being better or worse morally, providing a better or worse product, or being better or worse for humanity, the environment, etc. It's about them being ugly (to you). Pork, I think your original post is saturated with this hatred via aesthetics more than something objective or pragmatic. It reminds me of the issue with pro sports stadiums being named American Airlines or FedEx instead of after some politician or rich donor. It's not primarily about function or economics or health or whatever, it's about it not being pretty. Which is fine. I make these same fine distinctions all the time. I prefer Christmas shopping, eg, in little boutiques with what appear to be more unique gifts. (It's often not the case with these items being imports from Thailand or Mexico that if you were to go there you'd see available from any vendor for 1/1000th the price you're paying at these boutiques which share similar inventories with boutiques throughout the country.) But recognize it's aesthetic. It's not self-evident at all. It's your preference, what appeals to you, as beautiful or ugly.

I was actually reading about some respected restaurant just the other day that does it to more easily have fresh from the oven bread at every table. I'll try to find it.

Tommy and slkinsey: The thing is, these aren't the first of their kind, as you admit, but they also might not be the first of their kind to stay around. The grilled/non-breaded chicken sandwich itself is ubiquitous in fast food as a lighter, healthier alternative to hamburgers and deep-fried chicken sandwiches. The salad is also almost universally available. They even supply low-fat dressing. There's no reason to believe (in fact, it's entirely coutner-intuitive unless you can show it's an actual loss leader, not just analogous to a loss leader) that BK wouldn't keep this sandwich forever if it made them money, brought in new customers, stole customers away from other fast food and burger places. As I've said, we've seen the rolls, eg, at sub fast food improve dramatically over the last 10 years. With success, BK could start a trend where at least all higher-end sandwiches in BK, McD's, and other larger chains were freshly-baked.

It's interesting that she like Jamie Oliver, because in many ways he's the poster child for the simple, ingredient-focused cooking she seems to find second-rate. There's a lot of importance placed on sources. Everything's always roughly chopped . The dishes usually only have a few ingredients. Everything is only quickly cooked and tossed together. It'd fit in in most rustic New American kitchens, I would think.

Do you know any of the particulars, like whether they're open for lunch and dinner? What were the prices like? Yak seems like a rare ingredient around here. Have you tried any other Tibetan places. I think there's one on Sandy, eg, in the Hollywood district.

That may be. It's an astute possiblity -- the brand modification hypothesis. However, the condemnation of Bayless should be more a matter of him being used, then. Exploited, even (since there's apparently a ton of Marxists here). However, assuming Bayless is shrewd and still believes that CC's principles are good and that he's working to promote them, he could argue that he was hoping for its success and that even if BK's intentions were impure, faced with its success they would, in their own self-interest, embrace the concept.

This is typical of most things in modern civilization. We rely on experts a lot. You go to a doctor and he tells you take some prescription or another. Rarely do people look up reports or studies on the drug. We think food is different because everyone supposes themself an expert, and in some sense that's true. But I don't think it's generally stupid to take the advice of experienced individuals. But you have to consider its context.

Yeah, but judging from the heft of the Marx tomes on my philosophy shelf, he didn't mind doing a lot of talking himself.

The problem is that few things would bring about the answer "yes". Calvin realized this and essentially said "screw it" it's not in our hands, you'll do what you'll do, either you're saved or you aren't. An attempt at an ascetic lifestyle was viewed as arrogance. I'm not saying that we shouldn't try to do good, or make the world a better place, but I think it's ludicrous to set the standard you present. We'd probably miss out on a lot of things most of us find quite appealing. Some are obvious. Toss out cars. Toss out cigarettes, alcohol, high calorie foods and drinks. What about time wasters like TV, professional sports, and movies. How do they make the world a better place? To many there's nothing uglier than a skyscraper and think of all the resources involved in their creation. Books -- all those trees. There are very few things in this world that a) don't have a destructive side to them, b) aren't ugly to someone. And the extent of these is always contingent. Fast food makes quick and cheap products that a hell of a lot of people apparently like. And judging from the nostalgia associated with places like McDonald's, for things like Coca-Cola, and the ferocity with which people will defend their honor against the likes of Burger King and Pepsi, I think it's fair to say that many people think they're not so "ugly". And if you extend this to include places like In-n-Out Burger and soda with cane sugar, you'll find that passion even on places like eGullet. As a libertarian you can, as I do, recognize a right while demeaning its particular uses. And often, I would say, as a libertarian you should take on a greater obligation to make the world a better place, because you don't expect anyone else to....

I think the stats I've seen were pretty clear that fast food is primarily staffed by young people. In bigger cities, my experience is that these young people are usually minorities. I think Fast Food Nation points out that (and my experience trying to get a job while in college at a couple fast food places confirmed it) such restaurants generally don't employ people full-time either (or, I think FFN's point was that even if they employ them full-time, they're only showing them as part-time often). But I'm going by memory here. I'm sure someone could find statistics on this. What's the demographics of fast food workers? Anyone have a good source?

One person's nasty patty is another person's pate.

Top 5 Service Experiences for Me: 1. Charlie Trotter's 2. Inn at Little Washington 3. Lola's Tasting Room (Dallas, TX) 4. The French Laundry 5. Los Milagros (Puerto Vallarta, MX) Here's an experience from Charlie Trotter's I posted on another thread: Every one of the places did something special along with wonderfully professional service. I@LW did lots of nice little things for us, but also did something special for the couple next to us, printing up personalized menus for the husband's birthday and surprising the couple with it. Plus some other birthday niceties. LTR had stupendous course timing. We were cruising through the 15 courses (at only $65, now $75) and each course came out only minutes after the previous one. I bet we did all 15 courses in an hour. Then we were very impressed with one of the desserts and we mentioned how it was awesome and the guy went back and brought us each an additional gratis. TFL stood out above every other Bay Area fine dining restaurant for service with impeccable course timing (most other places were very slow, even Danko's, Masa's, and Fifth Floor), but also went out of their way to give us a kitchen tour even though he was technically not supposed to. Then he even took our picture in the kitchen with the sous chef, I think. Los Milagros was wonderful with great friendly service doing any little thing they could to make the experience special including dimming only to candlelight and flaming a lobster with tequila. Then they let me tour the whole restaurant the next day when they weren't open and take pictures. They talked with me and answered questions.

Of course they didn't need Bayless. And I have no idea whether it actually has been a success. But it seems almost self-evident that if a better product (assuming the sandwich is a better product) were to do well at a fast food place, it would encourage them to try making or introducing other better products. There is the possibility that they're trying to nose in on the Red Robin/TGI Friday's lunch and dinner business, but I kind of doubt it. They're probably trying to steal each other's business more than anything, get a leg up on the competition. It's much like the change that has happened at the sub chains over the last 10 years. They all used to have very mediocre bread, just very bland white and wheat. But now they're all making it in-house (at least the national chains I'm familiar with around here -- Subway, Blimpie, and Quiznos) and they've got whole grains and other more interesting and flavorful offerings. Quiznos even freshly toasts each sandwich. I think if this sandwich were to do well, you'd find McD's, Carl's Jr, Jack in the Box, and other burger chains trying to compete, first following BK's lead and maybe providing freshly baked (or finished) buns, and then maybe taking the lead and roasting peppers in-house. As fast food, they'll always need to balance costs, service, and quality, leaning more towards the first two than the third, but maybe the success of such a sandwich would show them that the third does have merit. If you look through the thread you'll see that I too tried the sandwich and so did my wife. I thought it was okay. The peppers were nice and the bun was nice. Mine was fairly crusty. The chicken wasn't bad; a step up from most of the deep-fried crap out there. And I tried it at the LAX airport.

I wasn't saying it is a success, only asking that if it were a success, who would be more subverted, BK or RB? It's a little ironic to think that if all the people complaining about fast food and RB's support of this sandwich would eat the sandwich, it might actually make a difference -- at least more than the bitching. (Well, honestly, it wouldn't make a difference either way, but if people in general were to buy this sandwich, showing BK that moving towards a healthier and a fresher product makes business sense, it might make a difference.)

I have the Professional 6 and it's often too big to do small batches. I like the lifting action, but I would have preferred a smaller bowl since I'm mostly using it for relatively small batches of food. One thing I would recommend is that you purchase an extra bowl whatever kind you get. It's really nice being able to swap out.

Okay, I've been hanging out in downtown Christmas shopping too much lately. When you said "no tvs" I thought what's Trillium's beef with transvestites. Maybe I'm working too much. I too find Higgins underwhelming. I'd really like to eat there with a group that loves the place so they can explain it to me. For me, Heathman just a block or so away is a meaningful step up in quality.