ExtraMSG

Actually, I wasn't using hyperbole based on what Grimes said. I was exaggerating what I think Bux and Schaem were implying, that those who vote "low" food as tasting as good as "high" food are naive and have little or no taste. They're not worthy of having their votes tallied. I don't think it takes much effort (ie, exaggeration) to take that from the various posts. Instead of me directing more analogies or defending my previous ones at what you've said, I'll just try to reiterate my argument: The complaint that is being made is that "low" food -- street food, comfort food, etc -- does not deserve the food ratings they receive that places them near or equal to the food ratings of haute cuisine restaurants. Mind you, this is only the food rating we're talking about since Zagat does not have a rating for a restaurant as a whole. My response is that there is nothing inherent in haute cuisine that makes it clearly deserving of higher ratings for food than "low" food. Any attempt to do so just shows the prejudice of the one making the argument. How food tastes is subjective. Whether some dish has aesthetic value outside of it's taste is also subjective. My problem is that people are judging the food at The Grocery, and places like it, as less than ADNY, and places like it, a priori. Honestly, and I imagine you already know this, I have not been to The Grocery (nor ADNY) and like Mamster I think that it's very likely that it isn't as good as ADNY. But my reasoning is not based on the type of food that it makes. Like I've said, I think there is bbq, Mexican, Indian, etc, that is every bit as good as anything I've had at any haute cuisine restaurant. Not for "what it is" either. I mean that a) that it tasted as good, b) that I respected it and the effort that went into it as much, and c) that given a last meal before execution (something growingly longed for by those reading this right now?) I would be every bit as likely to choose it over anything else. My problem isn't with having standards. My problem is assuming that one set of standards is objectively superior to another, especially on a matter of taste. The masses always have a strong case on aesthetics. Afterall, you're saying which do you like better, which affects you more, which do you enjoy. And the masses are saying, "well, all of us, way more than you, enjoy this one". All that can be said in response is "yeah, but we know better". I do not believe that once educated in fine dining and introduced to frog legs with pine needle aroma that a person will or should necessarily prefer or respect that more than a pie from Lou Malnatti's. If all the Zagat voters had been to The Grocery -- or even a more striking example, The Olive Garden -- and ADNY and had rated it nearly as high or as high would you attack the guide any less? Probably not. You'd just make the attack entirely a matter of the voters having bad taste. Meanwhile, people would still be using Zagat and finding it quite useful at recommending restaurants.

So, we're in town to do some shopping before our trip to Mexico and see the Chinese Garden while the weather is unseasonably nice and we haven't eaten. After the garden we head over to Ken's Bakery. I've just eaten the bread, not the pastries or anything else. My wife gets a pear almondine tart, I believe, and I get their hazelnut (espresso?) macaroon. Both were very good, I think. The tart grew on me since it's a subtle pastry. The macaroon was a lot of flavor and actually reminded me of a similar mignardis I enjoyed at the French Laundry. So then we go take some stuff back to Cost Plus and I decide to go look at Phil's and Elephant's. Note that cheeses seem much higher than their equivalents at Whole Foods or Pasta Works and don't get anything, though the smell of some Indian-spiced bread or soup cooking in Elephant's was fabulous. Got a couple pepperoni sticks at Phil's while I looked at the meats. They had NY Prime that looked awesome -- impressively marbled, for the same price as their nice choice, about $15/lb. If I were going straight home....I noticed they had Kobe burgers, too, for I think about $9/lb. Next we go to sell some books at Powell's, get our pittance and once again feel rejected as more than half our box must be hauled back up to our car. To make us feel better, as I trudge up the stairs with the books, my wife runs across to Mio Gelato and grabs us a couple cups of ice cream. She got tangerine and tiramisu (I know, weird combo) and got me caramel and espresso. Yum. I think their espresso is a little strong, and had some iciness this time, but all three of the others were divine. Now it's time to head home, we think, with just a quick stop at Wal-Mart (is that possible?) to pick up some travel necessities. Across 84, down to Foster, and up to Wal-Mart. So, we're inside getting an underwater camera, mini shampoos, extra strength anti-perspirant, and Immodium AD (this is tropical Mexico afterall), and mi esposa needs snack. Uruapan's close by, I think, I would have liked to go there anyway. So we check out and head down. But I decide to go down Foster to the other location I'd heard about. We never find that, but pass by several Russian restaurants (anybody try any of these Russian restaurants popping up all over town), a couple Mexican taquerias, and a Salvadoran place. After hitting Powell, we turn around and decide to give the Salvadoran place, La Santaneca, a try. It's somewhat of a dive, but does take credit cards. They have the menu split into Salvadoran, Mexican, and Specialty dishes, along with soups, side orders, and other smaller categories. They have some good looking items throghout, including huaraches on the Mexican side, something difficult to find even at most taquerias. The prices are a bit high for the level of cooking that it looks like we'd get. Average price is probably $9 for a plate that includes a main dish, beans, rice, and tortillas. Since we're not too hungry and I mainly want some pupusas (on the side orders), we get a soup (still $8, I think) 3 pupusas with different fillings ($1.69 each) and an empenada. They give you free chips and salsa which aren't great, but aren't bad and are made inhouse at least. The soup was large, as expected. Probably larger than most bowls of pho. The broth was wonderful. 3rd world cultures know how to do broths. I generally don't order brothy soups. I prefer soups with big flavor and that usually comes with pureed soups. But this was great. Not very clear, but a lot of flavor. The meat (it was a beef soup) was hanging on the bone still and ultra tender. There was cabbage, zucchini, and other vegetables as well. It came with corn tortillas. The pupusas were about 5 or 6 inches each in diameter and filled with cheese, cheese and beans, and cheese and spinach. They weren't great pupusas, but they were pretty good. I love flatbreads of all kind and pupusas are an wonderful exemplar, even merely decent ones are good. The empenada, however, was something special, I think. It's greasy as all hell on the outside and looks burnt, but isn't. It's light in texture with a creamy filling with the unmistakeable flavor of plaintains (or subtle banana). I think lemon maybe, too. Very interesting flavor. It wasn't that big, but it was quite tasty. My wife loved it. So my wife eats half the empenada, half the pupusas, and some chips and she's full after only eating a few bites of the soup. The broth is wonderful, though, and it's paid for, so I just keep eating, and eating, eating. I'm very full. We leave quite contento. But Foster's onramp to 205 North is closed and I go past the interstate to turn around and come back and go up 82nd so I can get on the freeway at Powell. But I never get that far. About 50 yards past the light probably is a sign that says TACOS on a chain link fence and in front of someone's house in the dark is a florescent light shining down on a taco stand that looks like it just dropped out the sky, transported from DF like the tardis through time. I gotta stop. So I whip around to the next one way, go back past the interstate again, whip around again back onto Foster heading east and pull into the driveway. They were out of some other meat they had, but in Spanglish the tacodero and I finally agree on two tacos de adovada (all they had) one with green and one with red salsa for a dollar each. Everything looked made fresh. The meat was a little dry, but it tasted good and the salsas were excellent. Pues, estoy hasta arriba y muy, muy gordo....y contento. Any suggestions for more Salvadoran places to try would be greatly appreciated. Love to hit another before Mexico. I know on the Mexican-American thread some people mentioned that El Palmero was Salvadoran, though it's not mentioned in reviews. Anyone actually been there? Trillium, you said you were going to try some places in your hood.

Bux, there's a degree to which you are correct, but of course recognizing a difference isn't the same as indicating a superiority. I can recognize that my American culture is different from the Mexican culture without indicating a superiority. Of course, I may like mine better and thus continue in it, support it, honor it, whatever, while still respecting Mexicans for doing the same. Essentially calling people naive, tasteless morons for rating The Grocery or any other "low" restaurants as well as ADNY or any other haute cuisine restaurant is no different than an American calling a Mexican beaner and sneering at their culture.

You really think so? What was Mozart? What was Dickens? What was Shakespeare? Were they creators of "high" art or "low" art? Were they popular with the masses or only the elites? Who will be remembered better (and whose films), Steven Spielberg or Woody Allen? The creator of "pop" art or "high" art? The creator of films for the masses or the elites? Maybe you argue that it's a matter of the use of the tools at hand and that Spielberg made more "impressive" movies than Allen. Why, then, is Casablanca one of the most respected American films 50 years later, though only a B film not worthy of color at the time? It's not "impressive" in by any objective measure except that people like it. I think you may suffer from a common delusion that a) what is popular with elites, nobility, or scholars in one generation was and always will be popular with elites, nobility, or scholars in other generations, b) that aesthetic judgments can ever be grounded objectively, whether objectivity based on qualitative or quantitative analyses, c) that we can know now what will be seen as today's "good" art in the future. Clay Aiken, btw, seems hardly the appropriate comparison. What about Count Basie? What about Duke Ellington? What about Elvis? What about The Beatles? All pop music for their times, bound to become more and more elitist music as new pop music takes their place and they are remembered more as a part of the history of music. To food: will Adria's foams be eaten 100 years from now? Keller's salmon "ice cream" cones and other transformations? Achatz' aromas? Might it be imaginable that these "conceptual" or clever inventions will be seen by later critics as a pretentious interlude in culinary history? It's quite imaginable that culinary historians and professionals will look back much more kindly on culinary traditions like Tex-Mex and Italian immigrant foods, or even just pizzas and burritos, than they will foams and aromas, highly strained sauces, skyscraper platings, and squeeze bottle art. What is it that Chez Panisse is doing or the Slow Food movement, if not putting itself squarely as an option to these more "conceptual" culinarians. To my mind, it's not that Zagat is an anti-elitist revolution, but merely a much better representation of what people like than more elitist publications.

There are really too many inexpensive options in Berkeley to explore, but have fun trying. Don't forget to go to Berkeley Bowl. Greatest market in the US? Maybe. I think Vik's is a little overrated. Get one of those puffed up things (can't remember the name) if you go. For a low cost option, hit some taquerias in the Fruitvale area of Oakland. La Torta Loca, allegedly with two locations, one of which is just a window connected to a laundry, is fabulous Mexican street food.

I like Molto Mario and Ciao America. They're both good shows that pack a lot of info into a half hour. There's some great food on both. I do think that Mario's ego shines through, though, especially on this last episode (which I finally watched on tape). I mean, he spends like 2 minutes on La Spiga, a minute on Gelatiamo, 30 seconds on Pike Place, and the rest of the show on Salumi and his family food fest. Don't get me wrong. Salumi's great. But he could have cut down some of the time of Mario in the kitchen doing this and that and hit another place or two or shown more from La Spiga. And note that Mario really seems to be unable to not be the center of attention. He can't even let his dad explain his own salumi, Mario has to take over. He did the same thing in the SF episode. I think ever since I saw that show he did where he took the two high school kids who hope to be chefs into the kitchen, it's been very obvious that Mario can't stand to not be in charge. (He was totally unhelpful with those kids and instead used it as an opportunity to just look down at amateurs.) I'm sure it helps him in many circumstances, including his Molto Mario show. But he needs to be a little more Seattle and a little less NY on Ciao America and let people show what they know and do. For all Bobby Flay's problems, he's much better at that on his FoodNation show. And he's probably a native NYer! I still enjoy the show. It's one of their top several. But Mario, lighten up! PS Almost forgot to mention. Did you notice where the big thing of oil came from for the basting liquid? Safeway. Mario's family apparently shops at Safeway. Just some side trivia.

Damn local and organic movement. Viva la FedEx!

Thanks. Believe me, though, we're pushing our food budget way out there this month, especially since we're gong to Mexico soon. Guess we'll have to be cheap this Christmas. Normally, I just cook every night and we'll eat maybe a lunch out and a dinner out a week. But I figure 25 for $25 gives us an opportunity to try new places and give other places a second chance. I think places seem to have two approaches to the 25 for $25, either as a least common denominator, put something out there that almost everyone can like well enough, or as a showcase. I prefer the latter, Southpark seemed to have done the former (especially since they made sure there was a vegetarian, fish, and meat entree, a soup and a salad). I'm hoping that some of these threads I've started won't end up just being my 25 for $25 thread but people as they go to these places in the future or thinking back will give their recommendations and criticism as well. eGullet, afterall, has an advantage over Chowhound in that you don't have to create a new thread since the old threads pop to the top with new messages. It makes it a nice way to just see a bunch of information on a place all in one thread. There are surprisingly few threads for restaurants out there right now. I've tried to search for pre-existing threads, too, for all the places I've gone for 25 for $25. I'm not sure how our tastes are different, but I do like to have a certain amount of complexity to a dish. I like balance and it takes a bit of complexity for that. But ofteh these can be quite simple. Take for instance a restaurant (actually a part of a restaurant) that I really like in Dallas called Lola's Tasting Room. They have a 15 course tasting menu, each dish being quite small. It may be something like a braised veal cheek with polenta and broccoli. But the veal cheek is glazed with a wonderfully rich yet tangy sauce. The polenta is creamy and salty. And the broccoli adds that slightly bitter green vegetable flavor. Each was good on its own, all three together were greater than the sum of each alone. It's relatively simple in appearance and flavor, truly, but well-balanced. Or a foie gras dish I had that was seared foie gras, It had a little silver dollar-sized toast layer, thin and crunchy. Then the seared foie gras. Off to the side was poached cherries, so red and delightful. When you put all three together it was bliss: crunchy toast, rich, meaty foie gras, sweet and sour cherries. I don't know that Portland has any restaurants where they're truly making complex dishes or very complex flavors. Probably your average Indian food place tops them all. I like Caprial's because they're bringing some fusion elements to the dishes to add a lot of depth. I like depth to be part of most dishes. Finally, I would say that when I go out I definitely am looking for something at least a little special. I don't want a piece of grilled salmon on some spaghetti with butter and sauteed greens with nothing to bring it together. I can do that at home and spend less free time, less money, and probably do a better job than 99% of places.

You know that scene in The Breakfast Club where Ally Sheedy makes it "snow" on her drawing. Well, whenever Emeril leans forward and you see his dome, that's when he's adding his essence. (Only slightly less nauseating than the sexual double-entendres accentuated by the word "BAM" to end every phrase that came to mind.)

Thought I'd give the fish at Southpark a try and 25 for $25 gave me a reason. I'm not a big fan of fish. I usually am extremely picky about the seafood I'll eat. But Southpark came recommended for fish. It seems to be recommended second only to Jake's. Here's the 25 for $25 menu (I'm going by memory for the items not on the webpage because they gave us a copy of the menu, but it was the wrong menu, which was annoying): STARTERS Singing Pig Farm Organic Greens and Candied Walnuts with Spanish Goat Cheese or Gorgonzola Soup of the Day ENTREES Butternut Squash Ravioli with Toasted Hazelnuts, Sage and Marsala Grilled Salmon with Chorizo and Clam Piperade Painted Hills Beef Short Ribs Braised in Red Wine with Creamy Rosemary Polenta DESSERTS Southpark's Vanilla Bean Crème Brûlée: A Traditional Custard with Burnt Sugar Crust Warm Banana Bread Pudding: Rich Banana Bread Baked in a Rum Vanilla Custard and Served with a Vanilla Caramel Sauce Choice of Gelato: Vanilla Bean, Toasted Almond, Pear Sorbetto *** They went a little weak on the starters and desserts, imo, but maybe they were providing for the least common denominator, putting boring things that people wouldn't be scared to try. I had the 25 for $25. My wife chose off the regular menu. I had the soup, the salmon, and the bread pudding. My wife had crab cakes, the black bass (if I remember right) special, and the chocolate fritters. They started us out with a nice bread basket, a decent wheat sourdough with a nice thick crust and a white bean spread to go on the bread. They also place an interesting pitcher of water on the table (at least for us as non-drinkers) but still came by so often and filled our glass with it that I never had to fill it myself. The soup was a vegetable-noodle soup with serrano ham julienne. It had bell peppers and tomatoes, I believe. It was an okay soup helped a lot by the serrano ham. The broth was a little oily or something, I think, but had a nice mild spicy heat. The grilled salmon was pretty good, though its meat was maybe a little soft. But the flavor was good. The clams were spaced around the outside of the plate, littlenecks, I think, and still attached to their shells, which was a bit annoying. It's nice when they take scrape the clams from their shells and then put them back in. With only a butter knife and fork it can be a bit awkward removing them. They seemed to be cooked correctly. The chorizo was a very mild chorizo cut into 1/4" thick slices and laid all over the dish. The salmon came with a sautee of bell pepper julienne and crushed tomatoes. Overall it was a decent dish. But just a little lackluster and disappointing. I think a good sauce using the clam jus, maybe some ground rather than link chorizo, and the tomatoes would have brought everything together better. It was just too much like the chorizo and clams were a side dish for the simply prepared salmon. I want dishes that are more cohesive. The bread pudding was quite tasty. The sauce for a bread pudding is very important and this one is good. But the use of the banana bread for the pudding also adds interest and the texture and flavors were all there. It's a solid dessert up there with The Heathman's and maybe even Mother's bread puddings. My wife's crabs cakes were pretty good. They were Moroccan spiced with a cilanto, minto, and lime sauce. The sauce and the seasoning were very good. However, I think some would be disappointed. They actually reminded me of falafel with crab or something. They weren't anything like the great crab cakes you get in places like Washington, DC, where it's all big lumps of crab minimally bound by other bits. These are not those. You'd have to really look to see the crab and if you're crab averse like I tend to be, you'll have no problem with these. It's a subtle crab flavor. And with this appetizer tying with the highest priced appetizers at Southpark, I think that justifies a little complaining. It's one of thoese cases where it's a very good appetizer and yet still disappointing depending on who you are. $10 The black bass was excellent. It was served on sauteed or braised greens with a large "grain" couscous, pleasantly seasoned with some sort of Middle-Eastern/African flavorings, and sauteed winter squash. The bass was grilled and reminded me of ono that I've had in Hawaii with it's ultra meaty texture that makes it more like a very tender chicken breast than anything you might normally call fish. Both my wife and I liked it a lot. $19.50 Her dessert sounded better than it was, I think. It's described as deep fried chocolate marbled fritters served with toasted almond gelato and caramel sauce. What it is is chocolate chip doughnut holes with ice cream. I think they're tossed in cocoa powder or something before being fried, too. The gelato was pretty good. But I hoped for something a little more special. Like a cross between the cherry fritters and chocolate dumplings Lucere used to serve. $7. Overall I think the menu has some interesting items with their slight Mediterranean/Middle-Eastern/North African accents. Their prices are fair with almost nothing over $20 and most appetizers under $10. The service is adequate and the room is pleasant with high ceilings, subtle Mediterranean earthtones, and large windows. It's another one of Portland's quality restaurants without too much that's exceptional, but with prices most diners can afford.

Well now I want to see a picture even more. You mean women don't wear lycra in the kitchen to accentuate their figures?

And you a man of the (table)cloth and all.... But really? This lady? Do you see what I see? I'm not saying she's unattractive, just looks like I wouldn't want her waving a spatula at me. She might be able to play linebacker in the Canadian Football League. Have any better pics?

I was truly talking about the hockey pucks, but definitely interested in the yellow corn version as well. I imagine they're a lot more like cachapas, whereas the white are more like thick Mexican antojitos such as sopes and huaraches. I'm sure both have their place. If you haven't made or eaten cachapas, you're really missing out. Here's Ortiz's recipe (modified to make it a little better, I think): 1 3/4 C fresh corn kernels 1/2 C heavy cream 1 egg 1/2 t sugar 1/2 t salt 2 T flour Heat a cast iron or heavy skillet or comal on medium to medium low heat. Puree 1 1/2 C of the corn, the cream, the egg, the sugar, and the salt until mostly smooth. Lightly whisk in the flour until just combined. Fold in the remaining corn kernels. For better results, let it rest in a refrigerator for 30 minutes. Pour maybe 1/2 cup of the mixture onto the skillet and use a spoon to spread the mixture in a circular pattern to create a uniform and relatively thin disc of the batter. (If the spreading of the batter causes empty spaces to begin to form in the pancake it's too thin.) Cook like you would a pancake until bubbles form throughout the cachapa, dry, and burst forming little holes. When the top of the pancake has started to set through the entire cachapa, flip and cook until lightly browned on the other side. It will probably take about 6 minute on the first side and 2 minutes on the second side, depending on the heat of your pan. It's a nice, sweet, and moist pancake somewhere between a crepe and a traditional wheat flour pancake. It's good with a nice crema, like sour cream or crema mexicana, or a softened cream cheese. It's also good with seasoned black beans and cotija cheese. My favorite so far is probably when I make them with a spicy, smoky meat stew like tinga. Add a little crema in there. Yum. I'm mixing cuisines with some of this, but it's damned good. There's a breakfast place in Dallas that does a great job if you ever get a chance. It's pan-Latin bakery and breakfast place called Zaguan bakery. They do their churros small and GBD just like in Mexico City. They have lots of fresh juices and Mexican style hot chocolate. I think they do arepas along with cachapas and have a variety of fillings.

Thank you Malik. I agree with everything you've said. 1 down, 12837 to go.

I don't know that we really have any stuffy hotels. I don't know, maybe the Benson? I haven't stayed there or visited someone staying there, though. I'd suggest Hotel Vintage Plaza. Heathman is good as well. I think The Hotel Vintage Plaza has more character, though, and I think it might be a little cheaper. If you want to be near the water you might look at Riverplace. It's still in downtown. 5th Avenue Suites is run by the same people as Hotel Vintage Plaza, I believe. I think these three 5th Ave, Vintage, Heathman are good choices because they're in the midst of downtown near lightrail and good restaurants and have some character. All of them have websites if you google them.

I caught about 10 minutes of it and it looked like Emeril was actually kind of annoyed by the crowd's usual butter and garlic orgasms. I think he was a little embarassed. btw, anyone see Emeril's Crest commercial where he wakes up the neighborhood with a "BAM". Not as funny as the Amazon or B&N commercial he did (what was that commercial?), but not bad. And you can't blame him for being a hypocrite. He's never hid his commercialism.

I was reading an old book on Latin American cooking the other day and the lady really trashed arepas. She was amazed that even non-peasants eat them. I guess they're really the equivalent of a cooked gruel for Anglos. Reading through Ortiz and another book (Kajic or someone like that), it sounds like one of the best things is to either griddle and then fry them, like you do with lots of Mexican antojitos, or split them and pull out the innards and then fill them with other stuff. Both authors liked cremas as a stuffing/filling, or sour cream, or a cream cheese cut with cream. I imagine they're pretty versatile though as anything from dumplings to mops for sauces.

Problems is, you can't carry Chowhound or eGullet with you or buy it in whatever town to carry around. Zagat, in that case, can be the best of a bad situation. In a new city if I haven't researched adequately or find myself somewhere where I want something to eat but don't have time to look for some Chowhound rec, I usually use Mobil (in the US) for dinner and Zagat for lunch. I don't really trust Zagat enough for high end places, but Mobil doesn't cover the low end places well at all. Fodor's, Frommer's, and Lonely Planet give little indication why I would choose one of their recs. I wish more good weeklies, like your LA Weekly probably is, or The Willamette Week is here in Portland, would publish guides with both a top 100, say, and a cheap eats section. Our paper does both, but they're given out once a year in the paper. I'd like a Zagat-sized guide I could buy somewhere, even if off the internet, before I go.

To all: I'm interested to know what your favorite guides are. I'm interested to know what your ideal guide (other than the fantastical guide that knows exactly what you want and where to get it before you even think it) might be. How would you improve Zagat or would you just toss it out? Is there a guide you do use and would you change anything about it? What do you do before you go to a new city? I guess some of this is covered here. To Pan: Obviously Zagat could be stronger. I get annoyed and disappointed by it. It doesn't help me much, though neither does any other guide, in Portland anymore. Every guide can be better. But at least its a guide that does cover some of these places. And ultimately the lion's share of the blame has to be placed upon those who presume they know better and yet don't involve themselves in the surveying process. There are a lot of places that will never be found in any guidebook from a large publisher. It's unfortunate, but a fact of the matter. As for the "low" foods or ethnic foods you mention, you'll never see those kinds of places with a star rating in a guidebook. When an actual decent restaurant with a decent wine list, linen tablecloths, English speaking servers, organic and local produce, high grade meats, Chez Panisse and Diana Kennedy trained chef, but serves Mexican food can only get two stars, good luck for some dive that serves the best curries in this hemisphere even getting one (in Mobil). To Fat Guy: You're painting my claims as a straw man. Mobil and Michelin are more like an oligarchy, a small, relatively tight group of people, a committe, as you put it, deciding what's good or bad. Relative to the other guides (I've always claimed relativism here), Zagat is a democracy. Theoretically, anyone could even be a part of it, all they have to do is get themself a form and fill it out and send it in. There are no pre-requisites for voters except being part of the dining community. Sure, there is some "get out the vote" drives, to continue the metaphor; there may even be some dead people voting, but I doubt they make a significant difference. What happens if a chef bad mouths Zagat? The people with no affiliation to Zagat vote. What happens if a chef bad mouths Michelin? I actually have an ongoing religious argument with a friend that's analagous. He argues that a centralized church is dangerous because if the head of the church (or someone reasonably high up) becomes corrupt, that corruption filters down to all the branches of the church. Whereas if churches are independent, democratized in a way, there is no centralized leadership to corrupt the entire church. A branch may become corrupt, but it's independent and does not necessarily affect the other branches. I point out that a centralized church has the advantage of imposing standards on the whole church and ensuring that no branch becomes corrupted. But it's two sides of a coin, both with their advantages and disadvantages. Our government employs a balanced approach, using checks and balances to the branches of government, both distinct and integrated. For me, Zagat is the legislative branch, somewhat representative of the people, though not a perfect representation by any means. Mobil, in the US, is more like the judicial branch, experts on the cuisine/law decreeing their judgments from a loftier platform. I am the executive branch, and I execute the laws, ie, I choose where to eat. I guess that makes eGullet the Fat Guy lobbyists, trying to convince me I'd be better if....I think they compliment each other, though none rules solo. To Bux: Zagat doesn't review restaurants as a whole. There is no place in a Zagat guide where they give a score for a restaurant as a singular entity. They never say "these are the top restaurants". They have food, decor, and service ratings. They have categories like top food, top decor, top service, top food by cuisine, and most popular. As such, their methods can never be directly compared to Mobil and Michelin which rate restaurants, not distinctly food, decor, service, etc. As someone who is primarily interested in the quality of the food, the Zagat method does appeal to me. Though there are times when I'm looking for an experience and only Mobil and Michelin provide that angle. For Michelin I should have used the term "recommendations". I wish they were reviews. They might be more useful. As for the philosophical questions about experts, I could go on and on (wait, I already have and have). a) I'd like to hear some objective analysis of haute cuisine. b) experts in some fields are such because they can prove it; a doctor heals people, he has stats. An electrician makes it so the fuses don't blow. A culinary critic? A film critic? They're often the opposite. They are judging something based on taste, on a subjective analysis. Their opinion should be well-regarded and yet it usually differs from the masses. But the only objective measure of taste is whether people like it. Experts in these matters are experts because either they have more knowledge about the subject than most people, or because the right people agree with their taste. The first has no necessary connection with taste, however, and the second is just cronyism, preaching to the choir among elitists. I should note I'm making the case more vehemently than I probably should since I'm one of those, since I'm a person who does disagree with the masses, who will eat foie gras and like it (occasionally), who does look for creativity in a dish, for new ingredients and techniques, and who too often tries such things out on his all-too-suspecting-now-that-she's-eaten-about-a-gazillion-such-experiments wife. This I wholeheartedly deny. Look at how much discussion there's been on burgers, bbq, and the like on both this site and Chowhound. I think you'll find that people are just as eager to talk about comfort foods, ethnic foods, street foods, and so on as they are haute cuisine. I think you're projecting. Look at how often they show Unwrapped on the Food Network. Look at what Tony Bourdain is eating. Look at the dishes and information Good Eats covers. Is there even a show on the Food Network that covers haute cuisine regularly. I guess the closest would be Iron Chef, really. Apparently, even people really interested in food love these "low" foods just as much as the "high" foods. (btw, I disagree somewhat wth the claim that haute cuisine is by its nature complex, refined, and intellectual, too; sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't.)

hollywood, you can say the same thing about any guidebook. But the problem is that when I'm travelling, I'm essentially a dummie for that city and a guidebook is a good place to get up to speed. Before I go to a city, I generally look through Chowhound and eGullet, Mobil, Zagat, and local newspapers, if they have anything useful. Cross-referencing there can be a good start. If I ignored Zagat, though, I might miss some things that wouldn't be recognized in Mobil (or Michelin in Europe) as "starworthy".

In response to Fat Guy: And this differs from every other democracy how? Was the founding of the US a democratic process? Was the 19th Century US a democracy? It excluded blacks and women, and most voters were land-owners, in other words, elites. If you go back to the origin of the word, Ancient Greece, you'll see that by your understanding of the word their incarnation did not fit. Slaves could not vote. Those without land could not vote. Today, voting increases in the United States according to wealth and education. And often less than half of people vote in a election. Yet it is still a democratic process. Democracy is, breaking down the word, the rule of the people. It can be applied, even if only metaphorically, to whatever we want. Sometimes the best we can do in using such a word is to indicate things that are such relatively speaking. Zagat is, relatively speaking, democratic, when compared to Mobil and Michelin and any other guide out there. This is not a judgment on whether Zagat is good, mind you, just a description of it. Plato rightly saw two sides to democracy and thankfully the United States is a democratic Republic, not a pure democracy. But because we are not a pure democracy does not mean th word doesn't apply to our government. And our government is no more a facade for democracy than Zagat is. Reality isn't ones and zeroes. It's okay to something is something even if its only a fuzzy representation of our concept of it. You seem to think it's a piece of crap. That's fine. I think it's a useful, though predictably flawed, guide that makes a mostly successful attempt at surveying diners opinions on restaurants. In Response to Bux: Well, in that sense, it is what you make it. If you want to ignore the context for the food rating, that's your business. I doubt many people do, though. I always say to myself as I look at it, "What's the best pizza place in Zagat?" and look at pizza places. Then I might look at the prices for places and note that a place gets a 27 food rating but only charges on average $25 per person, low for that kind of rating. To me that says that the food might be rated up because it's seen as a good value and people are less disappointed with the amount they paid. That sort of thing. I think that's the realistic process. I think only idiots would look at the ratings and say everything that gets a 27 must be equal in quality (whatever they mean by that word). That would just show an immense ignorance in how people relate to food and their dining experiences. But the unstarred level, like Fodor's and Frommer's, gives you little basis for comparison. You have to read all the reviews and interpret them correctly. Not that that's necessarily bad. But Zagat's way of doing things has its advantages. Believe me. I'm not arguing that Zagat couldn't be better. But my impression is that several of you on eGullet consider it good for little more than a directory of restaurants. I think it could be improved. I don't know that I agree with your suggestions. I don't know that we have to go about "educating" people in order for their opinions to be valid. They like what they like. And as someone who has given up trying to "educate" family and friends, I've realized that such attempts at education is to a large degree elitist because it's not a matter of them not knowing better, but of them truly not being interested or not liking what's offered. The masses don't ignore arthouse "films" and a good number of the Academy Award nominees because they don't know any better or haven't been marketed to properly. They don't see them because they're pretty sure they wouldn't like them. People who study music often love jazz, think of it as the highest form of music. But you can sit the average person down and force them to listen to jazz for hours and they still won't like it. There's no "educating" to be done because by-and-large the people won't like it regardless. The people who go into music and become experts are already inclined to like jazz. The people who study film, who go on to be film professionals and critics, already are predisposed to like arthouse flicks. The people who are on eGullet, and even the people who review in Zagat, are already pre-disposed to like [insert your favorite haute cuisine restaurant here]. I think it's a testament to its democratic nature that it does pull in pizza places and bbq and Mexican in the mid-20s. Like I said, I'll put a piece of Black's brisket, or Taco Loco's tinga, or lots of other specific comfort food dishes up against just about any dish that's served in front of you at [insert your favorite haute cuisine restaurant here]. (Try to name a scientific survey where you make sure everyone has the same experience. Or a poll. It would be considered unscientific if you did so.) btw, I think I called myself an asshole, which doesn't bother me. I'm not mad at myself about it all. I'd read through this to make sure it's coherent, but I'd rather just deny everything later.

What is the difference between Mexican masa harina, cornmeal like we get in the US, and masarepa (as Goya calls their product)? Do I need to seek out masarepa which is only available at a couple stores, or can I just buy one of the readily available other two. btw, any recipes you especially like? I have Lambert-Ortiz's book Latin American Cooking which seems pretty good overall, though a little light on explanations, etc, now and then. But the recipe for cachapas is the best one I've found so far Allows them to be thin if you spread them out, somewhere between a crepe and pancake, so that you can wrap them around all kinds of fillings. Yum.

In response to Steven Shaw's article on Zagat: I've covered this above. I think there isn't much to worry about. And I think the online voting is by subscribers only. I actually disagree with this. When I go on trips I do take notes and I think they're helpful. But I actually like to wait a couple days at least before reporting on a restaurant because I think it allows the experience to sink it and for me to gain some perspective. I feel the same way about another love of mine, movies. Immediate reactions with the experience most fresh in the mind aren't necessarily the most true or accurate reactions. Sometimes those experiences need to settle. eg, I went on a trip this summer to SF with a "foodie" -- for lack of a better term -- friend of mine. We hit several of the top spots, French Laundry, Chez Panisse, Fifth Floor, Masa's, Gary Danko, Yank Sing, Slanted Door, and some others. However, what has made the most lasting impression was a huarache con tinga from a little taqueria dive in Oakland. It's the flavor he most yearns for. If he had just given his reaction after each meal, French Laundry might win out. There's a cleverness to the dishes and the presentation. But if he were having his last meal and it had to be from the Bay Area, I have a feeling he'd be choosing that tinga. I don't think they give ratings to them, though. This is counter-democratic, but probably a necessary evil (though not really an evil, just an internal contradiction). As for the rest of the article where he attacks democracy itself, I find several points of disagreement. 1) the two (or three) methods aren't mutually exclusive. You can have Mobil and Michelin and NY Times reviews of restaurants by critics and find them useful and good within a context and do the same for Zagat within a context. Both take filtering by the person reading them for them to be truly useful. I doubt Fat Guy would argue that any reader should just blindly follow the critics. I also doubt he would argue that burgers, bbq, pizza, and the like, should be avoided because it's not "good food" or that it's only "mediocre food" because it can only max out at 1 or 2 stars in a Mobil guidebook. When reading Mobil's ratings I try to a) use them first for finding haute cuisine restaurant experiences, b) take into account that places that aren't formal will get lower ratings, and c) compare within cuisines and "genres", and d) not expect to see a dive with great food accurately represented on just a flavor basis. When I use Zagat, I generally first think about what I'm looking for that night in a dining experience, such as a romantic place for me and my wife, to be waited on hand and foot, a certain cuisine, some great food at a low price, or whatever. I use its advantages in cross-referencing to the best of my ability. With newspaper and magazine (and internet such as Chowhound and eGullet) reviews, I use them to learn about new places, keep up on trends, and to look at specific places I'm thinking about going either because of Zagat or Mobil or because of word of mouth (assuming they have archives). Each has a solid place that does not exclude the other. I think they are complimentary because they have different approaches. 2) Consumer Reports is a bad analogy for several reasons. a) They have a more objective task seeing if something breaks when you hit it with a hammer or whatever; b) any opinion by an expert is by nature subjective and so is Consumer Reports even on their ratings of things which should be by nature more objective. Take for instance their ratings of cars which rely heavily on comfort, feel, handling, etc, which are not objective criteria. I strongly disagree with their rating of Haagen Daz's vanilla ice cream and have had a difficult time finding people who like it when you sit down and do a taste test between it and other leading brands. c) when dealing with taste, the most objective measure is what most people like; that may not make it the best, but it's the most objective. 3) As for the attacks on the Zagats themselves, it's just ad hominems that have nothing to do with the guide. Any reviewer can be a total asshole and their review can still be quality stuff. I may hate most of the filmmakers and musicians out there, but still love their work. It's a dangerous game trying to prove the work of someone is bad because that person is bad. And anyway, is what the Zagat's allegedly do any worse than what any other critic does? (btw, if you want to be seated within 10 minutes of the reservation, move to Portland; I've never had to wait for my served table more than 10 minutes.)

That's just plainly false. I'm going to be a little bit of an asshole here, but have you looked at a Zagat guide? Zagat divides its entries by food, service, decor, price, and cuisine. If you merely look at the listing of Top Food Ranking, a) you're an idiot, and b) you're ignoring the vast majority of the book. Zagat gives no unified rating for a restaurant. Michelin and Mobil only give a unified rating for a restaurant. No guidebook gives as much context, and context is the key to truth, as the Zagat guide. Mobil and Michelin, Frommer's and Fodor's, Chowhound and eGullet all have their place. But so does Zagat. I see no clear advantage to Mobil or Michelin guides except if you're looking for haute cuisine. Now, if you want to discuss whether haute cuisine is clearly superior to street food or comfort food or whatever, that's an ontological argument not unlike trying to prove God's existence. The more you already believe it, the easier it is to prove. But there aren't many facts to support it (just as there aren't many facts to support the contrary argument, either.) Zagat is democracy in action. You may not like democracy. You may not like that Arnold Schwarzenneger is governor of Kahleeforneeah. You may not like that Titanic made more money at the box office than whatever won the academy award that year. You may not like that a pizza from Grimaldi's is not considered significantly worse food than whatever Ducasse puts in front of you. But that's democracy. The people have spoken. After that, it's just your opinion. Zagat has a standard. The standard is what people say they like as opposed to a couple self-proclaimed experts.

One of the problems is that Michelin and Mobil are directing their reviews and scores at a certain type of audience, primarily the gourmet. But most people who eat are not gourmets. They just want good food however it comes. At least in music you have rock critics, pop critics, jazz critics, etc, and often their reviews can all be found in the same publications. Fodor's and Frommer's do a better job than Michelin or Mobil in at least offering something for the average eater. Michelin and Mobil are elitist publications. That's not necessarily bad, just a fact. Zagat is a democratic publication. As such, it better reports for the masses, even the masses with taste, but who aren't looking for a place, necessarily, where they have to wear jacket and tie and remember that the long fork, for some reason, is the dinner fork, while the damned salad fork is the short stubby one. BBQ tastes good. I'd say that a good hunk of bbq has more depth of flavor than most items I've had at The French Laundry, Charlie Trotter's, or the like. But you'll never see a bbq place with even 3 stars in Mobil, I would venture. Moles and curries are complex, deep, and interesting, every bit or moreso than any French sauce. But is there any 4 star Mexican or Indian restaurant in Mobil? Doubtful. It's not for lack of good food that these places are overlooked, it's because they don't meet the narrow requirements of the critics and because unlike Zagat, Mobil and Michelin are rating only restaurants, not food. Even there, I would say that many non-French and New American restaurants are undervalued in Zagat because we have bought into the same criteria that the editors of Mobil and Michelin use for what is good food. Michelin and Mobil have very tough standards for restaurants. If something gets 3 stars in Michelin or 5 stars in Mobil, you are pretty much guaranteed not only a good meal, but a unique experience. But it doesn't mean that you can't get really great food, to many tastes better food, at a place that won't even show up in either guide and will show up with a relatively strong showing in Zagat.