ExtraMSG

I've watched the second and third episodes now and I have to say that my respect for Jamie Oliver is growing with each. There is such a night and day difference between the motivations and attitude behind this versus The Restaurant, which I just couldn't stand watching after a couple episodes. Like The Restaurant, there are certainly some people you'd like to just slap or shake into reality, but unlike The Restaurant, this one revolves around Jamie Oliver who truly seems to give a damn about these kids.

Thanks for the heads up. Do you prefer 'Contributing Oily'? What do you think of Noble Rot as the choice? I haven't been, but from Chowhound and Egullet, it didn't sound like it's deserved.

Things appear to be getting personal on Alexa. And Pho, it's obvious that you think quite highly of yourself. Pho and Fat-Guy on Alexa

It's food snobbery because they don't see it as bad food. Ask them. Nearly all my friends and family are the opposite of food snobs. My most long-standing friend, a guy I've known since elementary school, is a lover of the whopper. It's only been recently surpassed in his estimation by some burger at Carl's Jr or Jack in the Box, not sure which, that has chili. He used to keep cheese slices in his glove compartment so he could get whoppers and add his own cheese. It's food snobbery because it seems inconceivable to you that these guys like it. Hell, I used to like it. I remember driving with my friend and whenever they had the 99 cent whopper special we'd get two each. I knew what home burgers tasted like. We had them at least once a week at home. Him, too. People poor like I was growing up know hamburger. You have it in all its incarnations -- tacos, meatloaf, hamburgers, etc -- along with a lot of chicken. I can still remember liking it as well or better for whatever reason. I have two young brothers, 12 and 9, more than 18 years younger than me. I visit them often in California. They have In-n-Out, Jack in the Box, Burger King, Carl's Jr, and several other options. They've had them all. Price isn't even an issue for them. For fries they like McDonald's and for other stuff they like Jack in the Box. And they prefer any of them to the numerous places I've tried to introduce them to -- in protestation to my attempts at "educating" them. I was actually discussing this subject about a month or so ago with my only friend who's into food as much or more than I am. He has a nephew who is 13, I think. He takes him to all the top places in Dallas, to all the best bbq, soul/southern food places, taquerias, Mexican, etc. He was lamenting to me that after all these attempts at "educating" his nephew, invariably, whenever he asks where he wants to go, the kid says McDonald's. Price isn't an issue. Cuisine isn't an issue. He can have whatever he wants wherever he wants and he chooses McDonald's. I'm not saying these people are less than me because they are stupid or genetically inferior. It's just different fo them. They may be lovers of modern jazz music or abstract art or comic books, I don't know. These are all things that they may think I'm an idiot for not loving and that I need to be educated. I guess you could make a fair argument for that. But I just think different people have different things that they like. These are issues of taste and habit more than anything.

But look at how low (and for how long) places like Burger King and McDonald's have kept their prices. That can only be done with increases in productivity when there's inflation. Fast Food Nation details the method the fries are prepared pretty well. And what I gleaned from that is a) how well it keeps things consistent from store to store, ie, there is always a minimum level of quality, and b) how much it saves McDonald's, which means lower prices for consumers. I don't think you're giving adequate weight to how important price is for the consumer. Once the food reaches a certain level of being satisfying for the consumer, fulfililng their needs for flavor and nutrition, what they buy largely becomes a factor of price. Obviously, from the number of hamburgers sold at McDonalds each year, for a huge number of consumers, the food is good enough. They just want it cheap. Their attempts at making more "upscale" items for their menu is not truly an attempt to keep these customers, it's an attempt to grow their customer base and gain customers who go to places like Red Robin, TGI Friday's, and Chili's, as Carl's Jr has tried to do with their $6 burger campaign (which won some award, I think). Oh, boloney (not the processed meat). See, there's the food snobbery. Obviously it's not awful to the people who are eating it. It's good enough. Relatively speaking, there are very few of us who really give a damn about food like this. Even my wife who has been the beneficiary of my cooking every night, my insistence on only going to the best restaurants in their cuisines, and so on, when it comes down to it, can't tell the difference in quality between Oscar Meyer, Vienna Beef, or a gourmet house-made frankfurter. Hell, for most people, the main flavor they'll taste is their French's and Heinz 57 anyway. After the Cook's Illustrated and Consumer Reports tastings of vanilla ice creams came out, I did a tasting with several friends and my wife. Of those, only I could be accused of being a foodie or food snob or whatever you want to call it. But for several of the people, vanilla was their favorite flavor of ice cream. We did blind tastings one after the other trying to cleanse our palates between. It was a fun summer afternoon diversion after bbq. It was like pulling teeth to get them to distinguish between the flavors. Only one really bombed (Haagen Daz) and the others (Tillamook, Breyers, Dreamery, and Ben & Jerry's) all finished very near each other. A bunch and 8s and 9s out of 10. To me, there were clear difference between all of them. Once you find out, though, that Breyers, and especially Tillamook, are much cheaper per pound, there was no question which they would have bought. What's so important about them being educated to my way of seeing food that they have to spend twice as much or more for ice cream when right now, they can barely tell the difference? What's clearly better to a food snob is not clearly better to the average Joe.

True. Cooking is either a necessity, because you're so poor you have to, like in many 3rd world countries, or a luxury, as it is increasingly becoming here in the states. Afterall, the Food Network doesn't sell advertising based on unemployed and welfare viewers. You're correct in saying that corporations are amoral reflections of what their customers require. However, you're wrong to suggest that it's easy as hell for them to make better than they do. If it was, they'd do it, not because their customers demand directly, but that because their competition, and there's lots of it, would do it to get a leg up. Then the customers would demand it or else they'd change their source of cheap burgers and fries. To play devil's advocate, for a moment, why should these people be "educated" anyway? Why shouldn't they continue the enjoyment of their ignorance. To borrow a phrase from The Matrix, why should they "take the red pill"? Aren't they fine and dandy in their world of 99 cent Whopper Jrs and side salads and 49 cent tacos? Taste is often quite relative. Many flavors that us food snobs (and believe me, whether we rag on the worst of us or not, we are all on these forums food snobs to some degree) really yearn for actually take some bit of getting used to, eg, foie gras and caviar, two of the most prized ingredients. But how about wine, even good wine, greens, shellfish, spicy foods, and so on. For most Americans, these items do or would take some getting used to before they could enjoy them. The "natural" flavors to enjoy are fats, sweets, and salts, bitter being our "warning" sense of taste. This is exactly what the average American yearns for -- hamburgers, hot dogs, Doritos, soda, creamy sweet secret sauces, and so on. Your education involves tearing them away from their natural palate and increasing their costs. To what end?

I've been wondering if there's a non-profit that teaches poor people how to cook efficiently, both cheaply and quickly. I grew up the son of a single mom waitress and had to fend for myself a lot, especially when she was working swing shift. My mom liked to cook from scratch and so when she was around I had learned some basics. Made life much better than it could have been. I'd be very interested in helping out in that kind of program.

Might be cheaper to move.

Watched the first episode. Not bad entertainment. A much better balance between the food and personalities than The Restaurant, though it's still heavily weighted on the personalities, of course. At least so far, it's not the soap opera The Restaurant is/was. Seems like we'll get a much better look at the inner workings of a restaurant than The Restaurant, rather than the cat fights and the hissy fits. It looks like they're showing the episodes straight through day after day and then doing an all day marathon after that.

I've joined, fulfilled my membership, and joined again The Good Cook bookclub a couple times. You get 4 books and then have to buy 2 more, I think. You buy those for less than you'd buy them at your local bookstore. It's a decent deal. btw, if you do want to join, email me privately and I can get a couple free books, too.

From one fat guy to another, I generally agree with you. I do think many of the chains do a surprisingly good job. It's amazing how competitive, eg, Chevy's is with even the above-average Mexican restaurant or how decent the food from even places like Chili's, Applebee's, and serveral others is. It's not great. It's not interesting. But it's decent food -- it's better than most people in the US can actually cook at home -- and you'd have a hard time finding an entree over $10 at most of them. Most of the truly good restaurants out there are hard to find appetizers for at the same price. I don't eat at these places regularly, because a) I can cook, and b) I'm a bit of a food snob just like everyone else on this site. But I have friends who can't afford to go to many of my favorites or who don't like the ethnic foods that comprise most of the good quality cheaper options. They're not that bad, though. And they're getting better all the time. I couldn't stand Applebee's a few years ago, and I was way less picky then than I am now. But I visited a friend recently and he picked Applebee's and I had a decently tasty, huge salad for less than $8. He had a steak for about $10. The steak, a top sirloin cut, was actually tender and juicy and nicely seared. Not great, but I've had worse in supposedly good restaurants. Well, it's all wrapped together -- the culture, the economics, the politics, the aesthetics, and just the practical realities of our lives. (I'm actually half-way through Fast Food Nation, which is still on the best-seller list out here at Powell's Books in Portland, and the interesting thing for me is how I can keep thinking, man, if I ever start a restaurant or whatever, I'll have to remember how -- put your evil capitalist conglomerate here -- did that.) Fast food restaurants actually are making an effort to provide higher-end options, as this sandwich is supposed to show. McDonald's has been really hitting the "fresher, healthier" bandwagon lately. But remember, there are lots of homeless people, poor families, and so on, that really depend to some extent on 59 cent burgers, 89 cent burritos, and value menus where everything is less than a dollar. Eliminating these "bad" items from their menu would not only be bad business, I think it would probably literally hurt a lot of people. Most poor people can't just spend hours cooking at home. And living off of ramen is a worse kind of living than burgers and fries. What is "good" food anyway? Is it "good tasting"? If so, what, in the whole scheme of things, does that matter? Better flavor doesn't mean much compared to whether your belly is full. Flavor is a luxury item. I'd say cheap is more important to a poor person than "good". I don't care if McDonald's makes "good" food or not, because I can afford to go where I want and because I'm a computer programmer who works from home and can cook everyday. I have that luxury. I disagree with this one. I think Bayless is a bit of a hypocrite, but had he not been a part of a group that generally buys into the Fast Food Nation ethos, it wouldn't matter to me at all. The sandwich is probably a move forward in taste and freshness, and apparently RB thinks it is. That's positive movement and Bayless shouldn't be ashamed to praise it. And people know, and we as food snobs should recognize, that given the context, fast food, people don't, and we shouldn't expect, it to be comparable to what Zuni Care would produce (at $10 or more).

That's okay, Joni Mitchell isn't that great anyway...But not having a Diana Kennedy cookbook for Mexican is heresy. Here are some specific suggestions: Diana Kennedy: From My Kitchen (for an intro to techniques and ingredients), Essential Cuisines (for an intro to Mexican cooking and a good survey of the cuisine) Elizabeth Lambert-Ortiz: Latin American Cooking (inexpensive paperback that packs a lot of good recipes in) Mimi Sheraton: The German Cookbook Fuchsia Dunlop: Land of Plenty (sichuan cooking) Jennifer Brennan: Cuisines of Asia (organized by style of cooking, not country, which is very useful) Claudia Roden: New Book of Middle Eastern Food Marcella Hazan: Essentials of Classic Italian Cooking Juli Sahni: Classic Indian Cooking Nancy Zaslavsky: Cook's Tour of Mexico (great regional recipes; but also a good guidebook to Mexican restaurants in Mexico) Martha Stewart: The Martha Stewart Cookbook, Martha Stewart Living Cookbook (surprisingly good recipes and very comprehensive) Alice Waters: Chez Panisse Vegetables (the best of her books, imo) Julia Child: Mastering the Art of French Cooking (an indispensible reference) Irma Bombauer: Joy of Cooking (another indispensible reference with decent recipes for just about everything in American cooking)

True, and if you're on the Atkin's diet or don't mind a rock-solid GI, you could probably get away with it. I lived in the Rocky Mountain states for a while after growing up in California and Oregon. I never gained so much weight. Lots of cheese, meat, and starches. The fruits and vegetables just weren't up to my standards, especially as someone who grew up with a garden and around orchards. I don't think Alice Waters would have done crap if she'd been trying to make a go in Wyoming, Utah, or Montana. Those people don't have the luxury of being local/organic minded. They're just lucky to get something that has any flavor at all and hasn't gone rotten. I remember reading an article on restaurants that had tried to go local/organic and just couldn't really make it work. There's a lot of sacrifices that have to be made to do so, especially outside of places like California which is really in a unique position. The organic/local movement I think is one of those ideas that sounds good on the surface, but has a lot of holes underneath. It's not as flawed as the raw foods movement, but it's very susceptible to reductio ad abusrdum challenges and on some shaky scientific grounds.

That would be interesting and noteworthy. However, you don't see many people praising places like Roxanne's for how it furthers the cooking landscape as a whole, but rather how it furthers its politics.

Try living in Wyoming sometime and you might change your tune.

Thanks for the correction. I don't drink, just buy alcohol to cook with, so I'm not very aware, nor do I listen very well, when it comes up in conversation. I just heard "grapes" and think "wine". I'm pretty interested in going to brunch at Andina some time. If anyone's been there for their brunch, is it as cool as it sounds or are they hyping it? From their website: They also have music and more it sounds like for 1st Thursday.

Food history and food science books usually go into the benefits of cooking quite convicingly. I suggest that anyone who loves food take the time to read a food history book and a food science book at least once. Gives you a lot of perspective. I love it when raw foodists, vegans, and vegetarians start talking about meats as carcasses, etc. It shows the true motivation: aesthetics. It's not about what's healthy or good. That's secondary to the idea of what a beautiful world entails. I much prefer the perspective Bourdain, and the 3rd world peasants he's gleaned it from, brings to the discussion, a profound respect for the food. I do think it's terrible how we waste food in this country and a lot of that waste is because of aesthetics. Goat head, chicken feet, pork kidneys, etc, are "disgusting" so we don't eat them. We want things that look as little like the animal as possible, hamburgers and hotdogs. Well, that's not respecting the food or the animal that gave it to us. That animal gave it's life so that ours could continue with increased vigor. a) we should have a certain gratefulness, and b) we should try to make the best of that sacrifice by not wasting.

I have just under 40 cookbooks by discreet authors (as opposed to an edited by, or group of several authors); this also doesn't include food lit, like Bourdain. Of those, 19 are by women, including: Irma Bombauer, Julia Child, Diana Kennedy, Julie Sahni, Alice Waters, Gale Gand, Martha Stewart, and other less famous cooks, writers, and chefs. Not bad, I'd say, if you consider that most of the professional chefs out there are probably men, or at least have traditionally been so. Personally, I don't buy many restaurant focused books or books by restaurant personalities. I don't cook strictly from recipes but use them as templates or sources for ideas. The exception would be baking, where chemistry requires some precision. That may be why my books tend to be more balanced. This is by a woman, the pre-mentioned Bombauer.

Favs: Bourdain: Of course, but damn it, why the cutesy post-production crap in the second season? At least there's not much of it. Brown: Bill Nye for food. I don't give a rat's ass if he's a bastard in private, though I don't know that he is. I don't listen music played by saints or watch a movie because the director is a cool guy. The lady on America's Test Kitchen: She apparently does all the work and puts up with the anal-retentive master baker Kimball. And what they reproduce in their books is good stuff. David Uygar: Not really a celebrity, but he his to me. Read this. He's making food at Lola's Tasting Room of the quality I've had at places like Trotter's, Danko, and French Laundry, but at $75 for a 15 course tasting menu. Dallas people are quite lucky to have them. You'd be lucky to have a 3 hour layover at DFW some evening and be able to sneak in. Rising in Estimation: Bobby Flay: His NY (sorry all you NYers, but you know its true) attitude grated on me on Hot Off the Grill, but FoodNation and Boy Meets Grill actually have merit and he seems to have lightened up over time. And you have to admit he gets some really hot women on Hot Off the Grill. I still don't know if he can cook. He seems to bring the worst of fusion to his food, putting chiles and honey on everything. That's like the Chinese equivalent of putting sweet and sour sauce on everything. Least Favs: Tyler Florence: This guy must have never had a woman before he was on TV. He's so horny for every semi-attractive woman he has on his shows, I imagine they can never shoot him from the waist down for fear of the sensors (and parents writing to complain because they had to explain to their children why Tyler's mis en place includes a banana in his pants). The very worst was his trip to Mexico. I don't speak good Spanish, but his was like the audible equivalent of Durian perfume. Batali: He slams a lot of info into a half hour of Molto Mario, but his Italy show was terribly bogged down in bad comedy. He can't seem to just relax and let the experts show him what they do on Ciao America, either. He has to be in charge. And the way he treated those kids that he was supposedly "giving a chance" to prove themselves was horrendous. Emeril: I don't mind the BAM, the entertainment value, or the band. But the religious fervor from the holy boilers in the crowd has got to go. You'd think people were going to start standing in the aisles speaking in tongues: "50 cloves of garlic", "A little essence"... And for goodness sakes, show the damn food, not the top of Emerils incredible shrinking pelt. Caprial: She's from my hometown and her restaurant is one of the best in the city. But damn she lacks charisma and actually makes her food look worse than it really is. And when her and her husband get together it makes me want to puke. They're the culinary equivalent of the Grumpy Old Men. Wolfgang Puck: Meeztah Puck, pleeeez, go take yoor fake Hollyvood attitood and mediocre meelz bahk to Austria. Or at leezt keep it in Calee-for-nee-ah. Pleez, don't be bahk.

You know it's a little bit of a copout to say all the BK money will be going to charity. Certainly the amount is in the six figures. I know people who've done regional commercials for chains much smalller than BK and they make in the 10s of thousands. After than money goes to charity, certainly it's Bayless who will receive the hefty tax write-off. Personally, I don't see a problem with it unless his claims are fraudulent. If he was using his "stature" to say they were making haute cuisine for under $5 or arguing that the stuff should be certified organic when it comes from the same processing plants that everything else does, then it would be a problem. But people should be able to compartmentalize a little better. Certainly it's a little hypocritical given his Collaborative involvement. btw, for you weirdos who have a thing for Rachel Ray, click here. She seems nice enough, though her shows aren't my thing, and on looks, she's pleasant enough, but certainly nothing special. (Not to be mean, but they're doing a lot of hiding in this photoset; I don't mind a girl who doesn't look like a rail, but I think most of the FHM readers do, unless the extra padding is located in the front of the upper torso, which it ain't here).

It may be good. I imagine it is. I imagine it's *really* good for what it is. However, my point is more that it being raw food should give it little if any special consideration as "forward thinking". They're not trying to make better tasting food and thus have moved to raw food. They're limiting themselves to raw food because of ideology, politics, pseudo-religious zeal, etc, and then trying to make something edible or good from there. That's not "forward thinking". Like I said, no one would be calling a restaurant avant garde if it was an Atkin's diet version of the same thing. Why does Roxanne's get the praise? Because raw food is the flavor of the month.

So then if you make biscuits and gravy with sawdust and sap, that'd be really avant garde? Just from a culinary standpoint, shouldn't what is forward thinking only be praised if its form suits its function. The function of the culinary arts should always be foremost to please the palate, shouldn't it? Take your use of aromas at Trio. The reason that is so impressive to me is because it serves a purpose not only to entertain or to be clever, but to actually enhance the flavor of the food. Roxanne's seems to be about ideology more than the palate. Obviously the restaurant is providing a very useful service and niche for those who have chosen that lifestyle. But for a non-raw-foodist to consider what they do as forward-thinking is a mistake. It's backward thinking. Would you be forward-thinking to toss out all fruits and vegetables from Trio? Should that impress us? It'd be no less difficult to create dishes that satisfied customers' varied hungers. Would an Atkin's restaurant that never served carbs be forward-thinking? Isn't it at best just a service for a niche group, like Kosher delis, or at worst ideology getting in the way of good food, like Muslim countries that ban pork? I think people are too willing to praise something because of its ideology. I see the same thing up here at Higgins (in Portland, OR). Everything's organic and local. Yay. That's great. Now does it taste good? People overrate Higgins, which is a decent restaurant, because they like what it stands for. Well, I want a restaurant that stands for good food. And when someone says it's an avant garde or forward thinking restaurant, I want the best food, not ideology. That said, I haven't been to Roxanne's. For raw foodists, it sounds like a great choice. But for the rest of us...

From a look at their website, it's some of the prettiest culinary flagellation you could probably get your hands on. Just remember keep your chewing to a minimum, you wouldn't want to break down any of those precious proteins. And for Nature's sake don't drink tea unless it's iced, you wouldn't want to accidentally cook anything in your stomach. PS: As long as soylent green is people....tartare.

Not so much "particularly" as "especially". I was mostly just using the point as a building block for the others. In one sense, the US has an advantage in that it is such a wealthy country and wealth allows for play and whimsy. Avant garde in the culinary world would require this, I would think. There could be an avant garde chef at home, but only one family may ever know the wonderful creations he makes. Because a chef's creations are temporary, a chef must embrace the economic in a way that musicians, painters, and writers do not. More comparable would be an architect. But at least with an architect once he has sold himself and his ideas, his work is among the most permanent. Poor countries are very unlikely to ever have an avant garde because people can only really eat to live. They may have wonderful and inventive dishes, but there's no intellectual life around them. They're inventions of necessity, economics, and competition. An exception would be a royal cuisine. Historically, royal cuisines have allowed for what I think could appropriately be called an avant garde. You have chefs trying to impress, doing what hasn't been done, often bringing ingredients and techniques together from around the world. But even though the US has an advantage in being wealthy, we are, as I said, a people who ultimately prefers the efficient meal to the impressive meal. And when we do go for what's impressive, I think it's more The Matrix than La Dolce Vita. I'm not saying that American chefs are any less educated or less bright than European chefs. It's interesting to note some of the best and brightest of American chefs never went to culinary school, people like Keller and Trotter, but I don't know that it says much. I'm just saying that by nature Americans are less intellectual in tone or motives, but not less intelligent. Someone can be very bright yet not be concerned with a life that revolves around concepts, ideas, and deep discussions. People in the US generally use their intellgence to make more money. Intellgence is a means to an end, not an end in itself. We're pragmatic. The starving artist has little nobility in the US. However, everyone loves some moron who gets lucky on Survivor. Again, these are generalizations and there are exceptions, and with the size of our country large pockets of exceptions. Look at places like Berkeley. So, while we may have brilliant chefs a) their clientelle doesn't want something intellectual from them, and b) they're not culturally inclined to provide anything intellectual. Doesn't mean it doesn't or won't happen. Trio seems like a perfect counter-example. But there are very few Trios out there and even fewer restaurants at that level who continue to push. I've been to a couple great restaurants that wonderful dishes like The Inn at Little Washington and The French Laundry, yet the most interesting stuff had been around for a long time. They were "signature" dishes. A signature dish, to me, is like a number one song. It's fine and cool for what it is, but if the chef doesn't continue to create, he's just a one-hit wonder. Part of the problem with food, of course, is that you have to keep playing that song because otherwise no one will ever hear it. And they've already heard about it, so they want to "hear" it when they get the chance. That's not conducive to innovation, I don't think. You know I'm just rambling here. I don't know that I have a very coherent argument, it's just my impressions.

The webster definition is a useful one (as mentioned before): "an intelligentsia that develops new or experimental concepts especially in the arts". Partially building on what's been said before, I'd like to make a few points: 1) What is intellectual and aesthetic and what is economical and efficient are often at odds. Chefs would have a better chance in the case they were able to create a "royal" cuisine, either trying to create impressive dishes for state dinners, wealthy weddings and parties, and the like than trying to create menus that people want to eat night after night. But even if they were catering parties for wealthy people who were out to impress, those dishes would still, as has been stated before, only be a part of the memories of the "audience" or the repetoire of the chef. Although, again, what's brilliant may not be economical and so reproduction may not be feasible. 2) The United States does not have a strong intellectual tradition. We are a pragmatic country. We are good workers. We are good at doing what will make us money. We are productive and efficient. We have a tendency to snear and make fun of intellectualism, even among the wealthy and well-educated and powerful. There are, of course, exceptions, and the US is a diverse nation, but in the aggregate, I think this holds true. Being an artist isn't a noble pursuit in our eyes, it's a lazy, foolhardy pursuit. Being a poet isn't going to get you many women, not like being a lawyer. Not making a judgment here, just stating a reality. As such, I would guess that if the avant garde includes or must include a certain intellectual culinary pursuit, the US is unlikely to be a leader, just like we have never been a leader in philosophy while we have led in more practical pursuits such as medicine, engineering, and science. It may be more likely that our "avant garde" would be more entertainer than intellectual, more Siegfried & Roy than Sigmund Freud. 3) That said, the US has a largely unique postion of a) being a cultural cuisinart, and b) having a lot of money in diverse hands. Is there any country where chefs can so easily find new and interesting ingredients, dishes, and cooking techniques? Is there any country where such a variety of cooks come together to make restaurants work day in and day out? Where the clientelle is so varied? I don't know, but I doubt it. Hence, I think while an intellectual leadership from US chefs overall is unlikely, a pragmatic and organic culinary leadership is very likely. Fusion is an example that has taken on an artificial and pretentious aura, though I don't know that that's entirely fair. There is a fusion that is organic and pragmatic, eg, restaurants in the Pacific using Asian flavors and ingredients or restaurants in the Southwest using Mexican flavors and ingredients. Etc. But even beyond that, people like myself who cook dinner every night, who have a taste for Indian, Southeast Asian, true Mexican, Middle Eastern, etc, etc, flavors, but who may also just be using up what's in the pantry and frig or what's at Kroger or Whole Foods or even Safeway and trying to make something good and interesting. That then reflects an actual transformation of the culinary life of peoples. It's not avant garde; it's not intellectual. But it's transformative while remaining pragmatic and organic. I don't know that that's any less important than the avant garde. It may be more important in the long run (sorry chefg), since this is exactly the history of cuisines. This is exactly the type of organic tranformation that has created such a strong association between tomatoes and Italian food or chiles and Thai food or pork and Mexican food. Etc. Ultimately, I'm torn over the avant garde. I was a philosophy student who both admired and was suspicious of the ultra-intellectual, the Derridas of the world. I was fascinated and energized watching the Trio episode of Into the Fire, just as I was when I watched the French Laundry episode of A Cook's Tour. (chefg every boy scout has tried pine needle tea, you know, and what about cedar aroma with salmon, too normal? Just make sure it's cedar, not hemlock.) But then again, I have a tendency to also lament that it's not "real food". I have a tendency to side with the advocates of Chez Panisse over French Laundry. I guess it's partly the American in me strengthened by the Oregonian in me to devalue style and showmanship and cleverness.