ExtraMSG

I think I saw them at Whole Foods here in Portland a couple days ago. I think they were about $2/lb, but their apples are relatively high priced, though apples seem a little high right now in general. But that's why I'm buying pears right now.

Finally, I can get back to annoying people on this thread. And to improve my chances in debate against slkinsey, I've changed my avatar. His was freaking me out and I needed a counter-curse. It's a self-portrait and proves I have a sixth sense when it comes to gastronomic questions. There's sweet, sour, salty, bitter, msg, and my sixth taste, the all seeing eye of the moral palate..... Now, back to the annoyance.... I don't think it makes much of a difference -- as far as hypocisy goes -- whether he was involved or not. Either it's a step in the right direction or it's not. Either he knew so or should have known so before hand or he didn't. Him taking part only would show whether he was inept at producing a fast food that could meet his ideological requirements. btw, I like Bayless' books a lot. I own three. Not a fan of him too much on his shows, but he's not bad. I was disappointed when I ate at both his restaurants, though. His recipes in his book are better than the dishes he serves. Interestingly, I think one of his problems is that he doesn't stick to traditional preparations on key combinations. (And his kitchen's technique when it came to cooking meats such as pork loin was sorely lacking -- dry, dry, dry.) Also I wonder how much was sitting in the fridge or in jars. eg, the salsas tasted like they came from the jar. Speaking of which, how do those of you who have attacked him for "selling-out" feel about his line of salsas? Shouldn't he be encouraging people to avoid jarred salsas and make their own with local, organic produce?

It's been a while since I saw the commercials, but I remember them being all about the sandwich. I don't think you can then assume that: a) RB advocates eating all BK products b) RB has given up any previous criticisms of fast food or BK Obviously if a newspaper came out in support of a politician, then they support that politician. But if they came out in support of the public works program sponsored by a politician that would be a different matter. This actually happens all the time. Democrat Senators co-sponsor Republican bills and vice versa. It doesn't mean they'll support their next bill and it doesn't mean they'd vote for them. Democrat Senators often even make themselves a part of a signing ceremony for a bill being signed by President Bush, a Republican. That doesn't mean they'll support him in 2004, just that this time they're teaming with him. People make these types of distinctions all the time. I don't know why this case should be any different.

If a newspaper comes out in support of a specific politician, does it then support that politician's whole party? If you say Niman Ranch beef is the best beef you've ever had, does that necessarily mean I should buy Niman Ranch pork? It's a support of BK, but trivially so above the support of the sandwich in particular.

I think he was. I think the "step in the right direction" is exactly that. He's saying it's not a violation of the principles because he's supporting something in particular that makes that company's food better and gives people a better option. It may also "educate" their palates to better tastes and textures. I don't know how most people came to good food, but I know that with myself and other friends it was truly slowly. We knew decent home cooking. I was lucky to grow up in an area with lots of agriculture, friends who lived on farms and had orchards. I always had a garden and because we were poor, we made a lot of food from scratch, even if a lot of it was unsophisticated. But I didn't have a lot of variety or knowledge about cuisines and I didn't have much experience with high end food and certainly not often enough to be able to compare. As I had more discretionary income, started cooking myself every day, started eating out with friends and searching for the best places, I developed my palate. But it took baby steps. I found burger places that were independent and way better than the chains and fast food. I ate at the Olive Garden. I was introduced to Pad Thai and Chicken Tikka Masala. I ate out at medium level French and Italian restaurants. It was a slow gradual prcess where now I can appreciate (and afford) The French Laundry, Charlie Trotter's, and the like. I can remember my first taste of mole and I hated it. Now I can't get enough. Change is scary. Revolution is scary. Little steps like this chicken sandwich at BK and other such attempts by McD's and others (Niman Ranch at Chipotle, eg) could have way more positive impact than most of what CC does. It's something that can't be deemed preaching to the choir, but instead actual attempts at wooing the unconverted (to borrow your evangelist metaphor). Who is more subverted by the success of the chicken sandwich, RB or BK?

But at question should be, first, the nature of the sandwich, since that's what he's truly endorsing, not BK as a whole. It's certainly reasonable to condemn his actions because they help an otherwise immoral company, but I imagine he's compartmentalizing, saying that this sandwich is a step in the right direction and that he's not endorsing all their food, only the sandwich and this movement within BK.

It says including these. It's starts out with: It seems that it promotes these three, at least in the mind of Bayless, according to his statements. Do any of the restaurants from Alice Waters, Roy Yamaguchi, Rick Bayless, or whoever else was one of the founders, actually meet these goals perfectly? If I remember correctly, Waters even says that she tries to abide by some of it, but not to the exclusion of quality. It seems like with Bayless' restaurants and Chez Panisse both serving Niman Ranch beef year round that local/seasonal isn't always followed.

But... To challenge his integrity one must assume that he knowingly violated these principles. If I am a nuclear physicist and I say that the most elementary particles in the universe are atoms, but then I find out, hey, there are smaller, more baisc particles, am I a liar, a hypocrite, a dope, or just wrong? The first and second and possibly the third require intimate knowledge of the individual unless there's substantial evidence about the person's knowledge and intentions. Similarly, you might suspect that Bayless was doing it for the money, for the fame, for his ego, or whatever. But the venom that's been spewed forth here seems hugely out of proportion without such knowledge. It should merely be a debate over facts and politics. But instead it's a character assault that has little to do wth reason. It's reactionary. This seems like reasonable positions to me: He made a mistake. Bayless' alignment with the principles as enumerated in Chef's Collaborative are incompatible with promoting a Burger King product even under the best intentions. But that statement, though making a judgment about his actions, makes no judgment about his character or intentions. Sieve's criticism is correct in that even if you assume the worst only on this one incident, RB could still be a much better man than any of us. He may regularly volunteer in charitable organizations, give a huge percentage of his income to charities, save babies from fires on a daily basis, and even think bacon is god's gift to the stomach, but from this thread it would appear all of that would be nullified if he decided to "sell-out" on an advertising campaign.

They advertise it as freshly baked, though I'm sure that could mean something similar to someone freshly baking Pillsbury at home. I'd search back through the thread for elucidation, but it's too damn long.

I think his books are decent as well. I think you can say (assuming he did what he was accused of, which I have no way of knowing) that he's a slimeball and still admire, use, etc, his books. We do it all the time with movies and music. How many celebrities are good people? Talk about creepy, though. I have a used hardback copy of The Frugal Gourmet Cooks American: http://www.powells.com/cgi-bin/biblio?inkey=17-0688063470-0 I don't know how well you can see the cover, but he's sitting with an old lady and two young Boy Scouts, one with his hand on his shoulder. Makes me shudder.

Suggest all you want, but make the argument that it's not a step in the right direction. Here are the "advancements" as I see them: * An in-house baked bun * Real roasted peppers with decent flavor * Much better fat/calories than most fast food products * Better taste than many comparable items You may disagree, like I said. You may not find these substantial moves "forward". But if reasonable people can disagree, then there's no merit in attacking RB's integrity, only in convincing him that he was mistaken.

Pork, you ain't kosher. btw, better watch how you throw around that "foodie" moniker. It doesn't fly with some of the more sensitive types around here. Welcome.

I think the tenor of AB's post was out of proportion along with several others through this whole thread. But I think you can often only respond in kind to show how out of proportion it is. I have no problem getting back to a more thoughtful debate on the subject, as Steve Klc suggested. I think my subsequent posts have shown that. And even my original response has more substance than rhetoric, I would say, if you read both paragraphs. I don't know how selective it is. Missions are quite different from principles. Their mission statement says what they will do and how they will do it. The principles speak of the goals. The goals are objects of the mind, nothing that actually exists. If you're going to condemn a restaurant for not achieving those goals, you're going to have to condemn most, if not all, restaurants. It's an issue of degree, not kind. We're all sinners. And no restaurant is pollution free, purely organic and sustainable.

"To advance and promote among...the general public" -- that sounds like what he's been saying he was doing. You say you disagree. Fine. That's a question of fact that can be debated. It doesn't require an attack on the man's integrity. And it certainly doesn't require RB sucking AB's dick, however much AB may enjoy it.

In his statement he said he's been saying for years that fast food should do a better job. He believes that this sandwich is a step in the right direction. It's perfectly reasonable to say that promoting the success of such a product is good because its success will encourage BK to make more such products -- products that RB believes are healthier and less-processed. It's also reasonable to believe that reform not revolution is in order (ie, a product here and product there, rather than an overhaul of an entire company). You may disagree with it, but that's a matter of "reasonable minds can disagree" and does not warrant the moral attacks that strike me as more posturing than principled.

The criticism has to be on intentions otherwise it has little merit. If Bayless honestly believes that he's moving things forward, that the sandwich is good, etc, etc, then at worst he's a dope (assuming it's not, the sandwich sucks, etc). But for him to be lacking integrity, the main charge, he must be in it for the money, not truly believe the sandwich is a step in the right direction, etc, etc.

My hope is that he'd take that bitter salami in his mouth, bite down and say, "Mmmm, tastes like chicken." And while you lie bleeding and bawling take a bit more than $40 from your wallet. Even if you assume the worst in this case, the criticism is way out of proportion here. Bayless wasn't a saint before the endorsement. You shouldn't hold anyone to such a standard as perfection -- and none of you assholes passing such strong judgments against someone based largely on intentions you can't know should presume yourself more righteous.

Wildwood is still very good.

And likewise, fresco, if you think they're doomed, you should short their stock.

I should try to find my report on Genoa. I do think the main dining room could use a little of an overhaul. I think my main complaint about decor was actually that they don't use that little "David Lynch" sitting room well enough. It really should be what you enter into almost, or be just to the side of what you enter into, and then you should be encouraged to hang out there and drink before or after your seating. The description of dishes and ingredients is pretty typical at high end restaurants that are so focused on the food. Places like The French Laundry, Chez Panisse, Charlie Trotter's, etc, especially when dealing with a tasting menu, will have the waiter go into great detail about the dishes and they can often answer detailed question about sources and such. They know that they're dealing with a lot of foodies at that level and they're also often educating their clients. Some places will even recommend how to eat an item. I don't know if Genoa is weird, but I think it could definitely be improved. Which seating did you have and how full was the place? What did you think of the food and what was on the menu?

Everybody cut, everybody cut... Everybody cut, everybody cut... Everybody cut, everybody cut... Everybody cut poulet! Just doesn't have the same feel. Maybe something by Chicago. Or Simple Minds and Echo & The Bunnymen for the disaffected cooks among us.

Yes, yogurt has bacteria that takes care of the problem as well. Supposedly, eating yogurt can improve your lactose tolerance in general. I went on a diet for about a year where I ate yogurt nearly every day and it certainly had an effect. I've been off yogurt for a while now, though, and my lactose intolerance is probably back to where it was.

What do you mean by "weird" for Genoa? Portland certainly has it's neighborhoods with a lot of character: Hawithorne, Laurelhurst, Clinton, Belmont, Alberta/Freemont/NE, NW/Nob Hill, Sellwood, etc, etc....

Don't know your preferences really but, my preferences for nice hotels w/ nice restaurants: Heathman/Heathman Hotel Vintage Plaza/Pazzo Riverplace/Lucere The first two are located in the heart of downtown near the light rail line if you need to venture out without a car (it's free in downtown, too). The last is on the waterfront in downtown. There are others in this class, but none that are clearly better, I don't think. It just depends on your preferences. As for food outside these hotels, I would suggest something that you may not be able to get in Seattle like Cafe Azul's premium and truly authentic interior Mexican. Or maybe Bewon's wonderful fixed-price Korean dinner (at least two people must order it, but they have an extensive ala carte menu as well). Both places are nice inside, not dives at all. If that's not your thing, my perennial recommendations are Wildwood and Caprial's. I think both provide distinct NW style cuisine consistently executed well.

Note that aged cheeses don't have lactose. I'm lactose intolerant, though I've been much less so since I've stopped drinking soda pop and primarily drink water. Ice cream is still a killer often, but a pint of milk would probably do me in, and that's really not that much. But a bowl of cereal, once a favorite of mine, is a no-no. I might as well eat a few handfulls of sugar free Jelly Bellies. According to this site, a huge percentage of non-whites are lactose intolerant: http://www.people.virginia.edu/~rjh9u/lacdata.html Of course, it doesn't say how intolerant, only that they are.